Sitting of 11 February 1992

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

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils were operational in (a) March 1990 and (b) January 1992.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): There were no training and enterprise councils operational in March 1990. The full network of 82 training and enterprise councils has been operational since last October. That has been achieved as the direct result of the enthusiasm and support of key business and community leaders throughout the country.
    Mr. Bowden: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Will he join me in congratulating the TECs on the part that they are playing in promoting the local economy? Having in mind my own South Thames TEC in south London, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the acceptance, success and street credibility of the TECs have been greatly enhanced by the emphasis that they put on the enterprise element of their make-up?
    Mr. Howard: I am delighted to respond to my hon. Friend's invitation and I entirely agree with his remarks. The success of the TEC movement is the result of an unprecedented partnership between business leaders and the Government across the country—[Interruption.] I note that sedentary observation of the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), which no doubt represents the Labour party's true attitude to training and enterprise councils.
    Mr. Ray Powell: What financial controls and supervision do the Government exercise over TECs? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make a statement on that matter?
    Mr. Howard: Money is made available to training and enterprise councils in return for their performance in pursuance of a contract that they make with me. The way in which and the extent to which they perform and adhere to the terms of the contract are carefully monitored. Indeed, complaints are frequently made that too many monitoring requirements are made of TECs.
    Mr. Devlin: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that unit costs and the availability of placement s will not be the same for employers in different parts of the
    780
    country? I know that he recently considered this matter at a meeting with the northern TECs, but will he further consider the plight of some regions where costs are slightly higher than in, say, the south-east?
    Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend that unit costs are not always the same in all parts of the country. I hope that he agrees that that does not mean that differences that are difficult to justify should be perpetuated indefinitely. We have a duty to obtain the best value for money for the taxpayer. That frequently means that some of our negotiations are tough.
    Mr. Blair: Is not the real problem facing many TECs the fact that their funds are being cut at a time of recession and rapidly rising unemployment? Will the Secretary of State now answer for the record the question that he has consistently refused to answer? How many employment training and youth training places have been cut in the past two years? How many fewer places are there today than there were two years ago?
    Mr. Howard: The point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) related to unit costs. The allegations that have been made by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) go further and further into the realms of fantasy. We are continuing to deliver the youth training guarantee. We are making sure that employment training is making its full contribution to the aim and guarantee groups for the long-term unemployed. Such comments come a bit rich from the Opposition, when they have opposed each and every training initiative that we have introduced during the past 12 years and when we are spending two and a half times as much in real terms as the Labour Government did.

    Unemployment (Leicester)
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment in the city of Leicester; and by what numbers and what percentage it changed in 1990.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): In December 1991, unemployment in the Leicester local authority district was 16,421 on the unadjusted basis. During the year to December 1990—the year about which the hon. and learned Gentleman asked—unemployment regrettably increased by 1,941, or 20 per cent.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister recognise the terrible burden that increasing unemployment in the city of Leicester and elsewhere places on the people involved and their families? Some of the unemployed are young, some are old and many have never been unemployed in their life. Does the Minister accept the definition that recession is when someone else is out of work, depression is when one is out of work oneself, and the only hope of recovery will be when the Government are out of work?
    Mr. Jackson: Of course we understand the difficult position in which unemployment places many people. The hon. and learned Gentleman made an epigram out of it. He picked up the word "depression". One of the psychological problems associated with unemployment is depression, and the range of measures that we have put in

    781
    place to assist unemployed people can help with it. One example is job clubs. I visited one yesterday. They are successful and helpful devices to help people out of the isolation of unemployment. The fact is that 25 per cent. of people who sign on at our jobcentres leave the register within a month, 50 per cent. leave the register within three months and two thirds leave the register within six months; so there is a flow through the unemployment register.

    Industrial Disputes
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many days were lost in industrial disputes in the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): There were 765,000 working days lost in the 12 months to November 1991. This is the lowest total for the same period for more than 70 years.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that that figure is a vindication of the Government's step-by-step approach to the reform of industrial relations? Does he further agree that the time has come for a period of consolidation?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is correct. Those dramatic figures reflect several things, not least the steady and progressive reform that the Government have undertaken in industrial relations. That reform has also given us one of the most successful inward investment records of any country, certainly in the European Community and arguably in the world. Who can dispute the fact that, if the figures were not as I have just announced and if industrial relations had not improved, we could not have attracted our record level of inward investment from across the world? That investment has created many well-paid and well-founded jobs for our people.
    Mr. Lewis: Should not those figures be considered alongside the 352 million lost days which have been engineered by the Government since 1979?
    Mr. Forth: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means, but I regret that, as ever—and typically of Labour Members—the hon. Gentleman seems to glory in gloom and despondency in identifying the more negative aspects of things, rather than looking at the positive. As a country, how can we expect to attract inward investment and have the confidence of overseas investors if we hear such remarks from Labour Members?
    Mr. Dickens: Do not the figures also herald the demise of the flying pickets, rent-a-mobs, people with crowbars, people who fire ball bearings at horses and place cheesewire across the throats of horses and people who drop concrete slabs off bridges, all of which would stop inward investment into the United Kingdom? Those days have gone, thanks to our measures.
    Mr. Forth: Those days have gone only so long as a Government are in power who are determined to continue a regime of common sense and reasonable and balanced industrial relations. If there were ever a Government who had a different view of industrial relations and a different
    782
    relationship with the trade unions, who knows whether events such as my hon. Friend mentioned might not occur again?
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that, as Northern Ireland has the fewest days lost through stoppages or industrial action and is governed by the same industrial relations legislation as Great Britain, it should be in a special position to attract inward investment?
    Mr. Forth: Yes. I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has brought to the attention of the House and of the world outside the fact that Northern Ireland has so much to offer as an area for investment, both from the rest of the United Kingdom and from beyond. That, together with the strenuous efforts made by everyone in Northern Ireland at local and provincial levels, means that we can look to the future with some confidence, and I am delighted to endorse what the hon. Gentleman said.

    Holloway Employment Office
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest available figure for registered unemployed and recorded vacancies at the Holloway employment office and jobcentre; and what was the equivalent figure for January 1987.
    Mr. Jackson: There were 11,978 unemployed claimants and 32 jobcentre vacancies remaining unfilled in the Holloway area in December 1991, on the unadjusted basis. That compares with 13,221 unemployed claimants and 241 unfilled vacancies in January 1987. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that unemployment in the Holloway area has fallen since 1987.
    Mr. Corbyn: Unemployment may well have fallen since 1987, but it has increased a great deal in the past year. Will the Minister explain what he is going to say to the people of the Holloway area who find themselves in the unenviable position of having the jobcentre with the largest gap between the number of vacancies and the number of registered unemployed? There are just 32 vacancies. Will he assure the people of that area that there will be an increase in employment opportunities and an end to the public spending cuts in the area, and will he guarantee the continuation of the job club, which is threatened with closure?
    Mr. Jackson: I shall certainly look into the position of the job club. Jobcentres are not the only places where vacancies are available. The fact is that last month the increase in the total number of vacancies notified to jobcentres throughout the country was the highest on record.
    Mr. Leighton: The Minister will know that the Holloway area includes a prison and that the admirable Apex Trust works in that area. Is he aware that the chief inspector of prisons, Judge Tumim, has deplored any possible demise of the Apex Trust, that the Archbishop of Canterbury is raising private funds for the trust and that the Secretary of State received an all-party delegation to ask for a rescue package for it? What assurances can the Minister give the House that the valuable experience of the Apex Trust over 27 years is not to be destroyed?
    Mr. Jackson: I know from my personal experience of the valuable work that Apex has been doing. The

    783
    administrator looking into the affairs of the Apex Trust will come forward with proposals, and when we see them we shall consider them. At this stage, we are not in a position to say anything about them.

    Strikes
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many days were lost in strikes in the 10 years prior to 1979 and the 10 years since.
    Mr. Forth: There were 72 million working days lost in the 1980s, nearly one third of which—22·3 million werelost in the 1984 miners' strike alone. The total for the 1970s was 129 million, nearly twice that for the 1980s.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for those sensational figures. Does he agree that that improvement has occurred because we—the Government—have given the unions back to their members? Does he further agree that the Labour party wants to sign up to the social chapter only in order to regain its power by having beer and sandwiches at No. 10? Is that what the past is all about—the 156 Members sponsored by unions who are turned on by that prospect?
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out what is blindingly obvious to Conservative Members but escapes Opposition Members—our reforms have been to do with giving power to individual trade union members and restoring accountability and responsibility to trade unions and their leaders. Much though my hon. Friend may dream about the days of beer and sandwiches, I should have thought that the Opposition were so besotted with Europe that it would have to be café and croissants, if that change ever came about.
    Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Dennis Skinner. Happy Birthday!
    Several Hon. Members: Happy Birthday.
    Mr. Skinner: For the first 10 years of the Government, the cry that used to come from the Dispatch Box was that the economy was in a mess because of strikes by workers. Who is causing the slump now?
    Mr. Forth: I do not recall any such incidents, but the economic difficulties that we inherited between 1979 and 1980 were indisputably due to the winter of discontent, which was a direct result of the relationship between the then Labour Government and the then trade unions. We now have a different trade union movement and a different Government, with the result that the figures show an all-time record of peace in industrial relations. That is the difference.

    Citizens Charter
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on how the citizens charter will affect matters relating to his Department.
    Mr. Forth: The Department is meeting all the commitments that we made in the citizens charter White Paper. The Employment Service has published the jobseekers charter setting out clearly the high standards of
    784
    service which the public can expect in all its offices. Charter principles are being applied to all areas of the Department's work.
    Mr. Riddick: Is not the jobseekers charter further evidence of the Government's clear commitment to improve public services? I notice that the Minister is wearing his name badge. Of course, he is well known to everyone in the House and to many people outside. Will he assure me that my unemployed constituents will no longer be dealt with by faceless bureaucrats but will be dealt with by individuals who are clearly identifiable and that my unemployed constituents will be treated as individuals?
    Mr. Forth: I am delighted to confirm that we will do as my hon. Friend has asked. He shows his usual great concern about the level of service given by the Huddersfield jobcentre to his constituents. I assure him that those constituents who seek help from our staff in the Huddersfield jobcentre, and in other jobcentres throughout the country, will find that the charter means that they can identify the people with whom they are dealing because they are wearing name identification badges. There will he targets for waiting times, for answering calls and for the promptness and accuracy of benefit payments and customer satisfaction surveys will be carried out. The charter will give people who use public services the opportunity to judge the quality of the service and to seek redress, if that quality of service is not offered. That is a major advance in the concept of public service of which the Government are rightly proud.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Whatever the citizens charter is or is not meant to do, will the Minister assure us that it is certainly not meant to replace his Department's statutory obligations in relation to the tragic accidents with which the Health and Safety Executive should deal? I am grateful to the Minister and to his Department for the speed with which they dispatched members of the Health and Safety Executive to the scene of the tragedy in my constituency at BP Grangemouth yesterday. Sadly, one of my constituents lost his life in that tragic explosion. Will the Minister ensure that his Department keeps me advised of all developments relating to that sad event?
    Mr. Forth: I join the hon. Gentleman in expressing our sorrow at that tragic loss. Regrettably, too many people lose their lives in the construction industry which, as is well known, is one of the most hazardous industries. Together with the HSE, we are constantly working to improve safety levels. I gladly give the undertaking for which the hon. Gentleman asks and we will keep him well informed of the findings that emerge from this most recent accident. On that basis, we have asked the Health and Safety Executive and the Health and Safety Commission to consider what contribution they can make to the overall citizens charter initiative to ensure that companies or individuals—whichever are concerned—have the same rights with regard to those organisations as they have with regard to other government and quasi-governmental bodies. That is something that we are keen to see, and I am confident of getting a positive response from the executive and the commission shortly.

    YTS (Eccles)
    Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state the number of youth training scheme places available in Eccles.
    Mr. Jackson: Management of youth training in Eccles is the responsibility of the Manchester training and enterprise council. In the current year, the training and enterprise council has a youth training budget of £16·1 million, and about 7,430 young people are currently in training.
    Miss Lestor: Will the Minister cast his mind back to the letter that he wrote to me last October—a soothing reply to the representations that I had made to him—pointing out that the Salford careers service, which covers my constituency, had forecast a shortfall of between 400 and 450 YTS places? As I say, his reply was most soothing. May I inform him, as he has not answered my question, that the same careers service says that nothing has changed and that the same number of young people will not get YTS places, that many of them are fed up with turning up, only to be told that nothing is available and that the continued recession and closures mean that hundreds of them will have nothing to do?
    Mr. Jackson: We followed up the representations that were made by the hon. Lady and by others on that point, and the regional offices of the Department of Employment have been in negotiation with TECs to try to establish the extent to which they need additional resources to meet the YT guarantee. That has taken place throughout the country and has led to substantial additional resources being provided. I shall be happy to reconsider the position in Manchester and Eccles, although I know that it is being carefully considered.
    There is an issue, which the hon. Lady must recognise, involving the careers service figures. There has been a great national exercise, co-ordinated by the careers service nationally and by my Department, to establish the true position. It is accepted by the careers service that the figures are rather crude, that they consist of people who register an interest in YT and that there are various problems about counting those people as actual demands for YT places.

    Employment Action (Basildon)
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to visit employment action training services in Basildon to discuss the quality of provision.
    Mr. Jackson: Although we are carrying out an extensive programme of regional visits, neither my right hon. and learned Friend nor myself, alas, plan to visit Basildon in the immediate future. I know that employment action is operating well in Essex. The Essex training and enterprise council is to be congratulated on its efforts to get the employment action initiative off the ground so quickly.
    Mr. Amess: Is my hon. Friend aware that I opened J. and J. Training Services in my constituency last week and that its programme is already providing an environmental study centre at Basildon zoo, a garden for St. Luke's hospice at Basildon hospital and recreational facilities for the Charitable Printers Trust and that it is restoring old
    786
    churches in my constituency? Does my hon. Friend agree that such a programme not only provides high-quality training but helps to enhance life in our local communities?
    Mr. Jackson: I agree with all those points, and the Essex TEC is to be congratulated on its success in getting those programmes off the ground. Particularly important is the contribution that EA will make to ensure that unemployed people are given an opportunity to keep their work skills and work records up to date.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the increase in United Kingdom unemployment during the past 12 months.
    Mr. Howard: United Kingdom seasonally adjusted unemployment rose by 703,700 in the year to December 1991.
    Mr. McAllion: Is the Secretary of State aware that the management of the Albacom factory in Dundee are taking advantage of the circumstances of mass unemployment by sacking more than 100 members of the work force for the crime of taking industrial action, within the terms of the Government's employment laws? Will he join me and civic and religious leaders in the Dundee area in condemning such management action as an affront to natural justice? Will he also explain why we have one of the few remaining Governments who still refuse to give legal protection to workers when they take legitimate and justified industrial action?
    Mr. Howard: I am not aware of the circumstances of the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If he will write to me about it, I will look into it. It has always been the law in this country—including under the previous Labour Government, even when the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) held my office—that if people broke their contract of employment and went on strike, it was legitimate for them to be dismissed. That has always been the position, but I shall look into the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my concern about the disproportionate impact of unemployment on the construction industry, which it is estimated will have lost 250,000 building operatives, some perhaps never to return? Will he do all he can, through the Construction Industry Training Board, to ensure that an adequate supply of skill is available to meet the demands of recovery in the longer term?
    Mr. Howard: Yes, I certainly share my hon. Friend's concern. The Construction Industry Training Board is doing an excellent job in difficult circumstances. It is doing all that it can to ensure that skilled people will be available to meet the demands that will undoubtedly be made on the construction industry as the economy recovers from recession.
    Mr. O'Hara: Can the Secretary of State offer any advice to the daughter of a constituent of mine who has recently become an unemployment statistic? She is a highly qualified research scientist whose contract, funded by the pharmaceutical industry, has come to an end. Having signed on and said that she was looking for a job as a research scientist, she was advised that she should think

    787
    again. When she asked what she should think again about, she was advised to train for office work. What advice would the Secretary of State offer that young lady, apart from consulting the job seekers charter?
    Mr. Howard: A wider range of help is available for unemployed people now than ever before. Those who work extremely hard in our jobcentres give the best advice available to individuals who come in. Unemployed people now have individual interviews and help in preparing a back-to-work plan. Those who advised the hon. Gentleman's constituent no doubt knew the circumstances of that locality far better than I do.
    Mrs. Currie: Does the Secretary of State agree that, to obtain a balanced view, we must consider not only unemployment but employment and self-employment, which grew steadily during the 1980s under the Government and is set to grow further in the 1990s under the same Government? Is he aware that, when I asked about the growth in employment in south Derbyshire recently, I was told that figures were available only until 1989, that they are collected only once every six years and that figures for self-employment are collected only once every 10 years? Surely that is not good enough.
    Mr. Howard: I rather agree with my hon. Friend. We hope to make those figures available, on a localised basis, much more regularly and frequently in the future. However, national and international figures are available and they show that a greater proportion of this country's work force is in work than in any other European Community country except Denmark. We do not hear much about that from the Opposition.
    Mr. McLeish: Will the Secretary of State come clean and say why his Government have the worst jobs record of any post-war Government in Britain? Why have 2·4 million manufacturing jobs disappeared since 1979? Why has unemployment risen by 1·45 million since 1979? Tory polices do not work and the tragedy is that, in Britain every month, 30,000 people join the dole. When will he do something about that deplorable record?
    Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact that unemployment has been rising in most European Community countries and that it is higher than it was a year ago in every EFTA and G7 country. If he was really concerned about unemployment, he would persuade the Labour party to abandon its minimum wage and jobs tax proposals and its embracing of the European Community social charter, all of which would add hundreds of thousands of people to the dole queues.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that some of the unemployment has been brought about by the so-called peace dividend? Would he care to contemplate what unemployment in Scotland would be if the bases at Leuchars, Lossiemouth, Kinloss, Rosyth and Coulport were to close and if Rolls-Royce, Yarrow, British Aerospace and other defence manufacturers did not receive work because Scotland was a separatist country?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. I am sure that it will be fully appreciated by the people of Scotland when they assess the parties' policies at the election, including the policies of those who
    788
    advocate a lesser or greater degree of Scotland's separation from the rest of the United Kingdom. Those policies and their effects will weigh heavily in the balance.
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of people in the United Kingdom who are economically active, unemployed and not receiving unemployment benefit.
    Mr. Howard: In spring 1990, there were 870,000 people in the United Kingdom unemployed on the internationally recognised International Labour Organisation definition, but not included in the monthly claimant count statistics. That compares with 540,000 people in the claimant count who were not unemployed by the ILO definition.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that that incredible figure does not tell the entire story? Will he confim that if unemployment figures were counted today on the same basis as they were in 1979 employment Ministers would be forced to stand at the Dispatch Box and admit that the number of economically active people who are unemployed in Great Britain today is 3·75 million?
    Mr. Howard: No. I certainly do not accept that. I do not see any basis for the figure that the hon. Gentleman advances. It certainly has no basis in the figures that I have just given him in answer to his question. As the hon. Gentleman knows, whenever we make comparisons the figures that we quote are adjusted backwards to ensure that we quote them on a truly comparable basis in all instances.
    Mr. Alexander: Since the Opposition, clearly, try to make the worst of the current figures, would it not give a truer picture if we looked at the figures of only five years back? Is it not the case that in the east midlands, my area, for example, unemployment is 30,000 fewer than five years ago?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right and I agree with him. Not only do the Opposition always seek to make the worst of the figures, but they would make the figures very much worse if they ever had the opportunity to put their disastrous policies into effect.
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons are currently unemployed and claiming benefit.
    Mr. Howard: On the seasonally adjusted basis there were 2,546,000 unemployed claimants in December 1991.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Secretary of State realise that the British people have rumbled him and his colleagues? They know the true level of unemployment. They know about the misery of people who are unemployed, but are not even counted in the unemployment figures because of the way in which the Government have fiddled those figures. Before the Secretary of State rattles on yet again about European figures, our minimum wage policy and our alleged doom and gloom, and as he has proved himself completely unable to say anything constructive, will he today at least ask the Prime Minister to chuck it in now, call an election and let us get on with the job?
    Mr. Howard: If the hon. Lady knew what was available to those of her constituents who are unemployed, she would know that we offer a wider range of help to

    789
    unemployed people than has ever been available in this country before. About half of those who are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs leave unemployment within three months. We are doing everything we can to keep that period of time to a minimum. Instead of dwelling on portraying the figures in the worst possible light, she should work with us to reduce that time.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that unemployment across the whole of the European Community is higher than any of us would like? Does he accept that the way to solve the problem is for workers to provide goods and services that are competitively priced? Does he welcome today's news that factory output prices are the lowest for many years?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend has correctly identified that it is only by constantly improving the competitiveness of British industry that jobs will be created. We have in place a framework that will ensure that this country is uniquely advantaged to make the most of the opportunities that will become available in the 1990s. As we emerge from the recession that will become increasingly apparent.

    Training Programmes
    Mr. McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from the chairmen of the north-west training and enterprise councils concerning the level of funding of training programmes.
    Mr. Jackson: My right hon. and learned Friend and I have frequent meetings with TEC chairmen from all parts of the country, in which we discuss a range of issues, including questions of funding.
    Mr. McCartney: When the Under-Secretary met the TEC chairman did he apologise for the 97 per cent. increase in unemployment in the north-west since the Government took over? Furthermore, did he give a commitment to replace the 8 per cent. cut in the youth training budget for this year, which is in addition to the 12 per cent. cut last year? Does he accept that, as the TEC chairmen advised him, if that money is not replaced, some TECs will not be able to meet the guarantee of a youth training place in some places in Greater Manchester in Lancashire? Is it not an indictment of this Government that, with the high levels of unemployment, young people cannot get a grant-aided training course?
    Mr. Jackson: TECs throughout the country are currently deep in negotiations with the regional offices of my Department. I do not think that it would be appropriate for Ministers to get involved in those local negotiations, least of all from this Dispatch Box. Since the hon. Gentleman mentioned YT in particular, I may say that we are investing £842 million in YT in 1991–92 and the figure for the year starting in April is £851 million. We are committed to the YT guarantee and we are providing the funds to honour it.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that many leaders of local industry are giving their time and experience to ensure the great success of TECs all over the United Kingdom and that it is imperative that we, the Government, ensure that they are properly funded?
    Mr. Jackson: I note what my hon. Friend says and I share his appreciation of the immense efforts being made by TEC board members from business and from other sectors of the community throughout the country. What he had to say about funding is duly noted. We are currently in discussion with the TECs about their budget and I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment on the particular circumstances of my hon. Friend's local TEC.
    Mr. Wareing: If the Government are so committed to training, how does the hon. Gentleman explain the letter from the Merseyside TEC to Hexagon Community Ltd. in my constituency, telling it that output-related funding is to be cut by 25 per cent. next year? I received a telephone call just before Question Time telling me that that enterprise will have to close. This is in an area of very high unemployment. When the Government mouth words like "people", "jobs" and "training", they should try to convince us that it is more than hypocrisy.
    Mr. Jackson: I have had a letter this morning from Hexagon training and I shall be answering it in due course. The relationship between particular providers and particular TECs must be a matter of negotiation between them. Neither of us is in a position to make a judgment about that situation. But I shall certainly be looking into the circumstances of the provider who has written to me.

    Courts (Sequestration Power)
    Mr. Janman: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to alter the power of the courts to sequestrate the assets of trade unions.
    Mr. Forth: None. Sequestration is a penalty which courts may impose where an organisation or individual commits contempt of court. It is an essential ingredient in the range of measures which may be needed to discourage such contempt.
    Mr. Janman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the ability of employers to take out injunctions to prevent unofficial strike action and the ability of the courts to sequester the funds of unions that ignore such injunctions can act as a very firm and much-needed last line of defence against industrial anarchy? Does he agree that it would be an act of the most amazing folly to tamper with the provisions that currently apply, and yet that is exactly what the Opposition are committed to doing if they win the general election?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has made a very important point, which I suspect will become more important as we approach the coming election. It is quite clear that this power available to the courts is essential to deal with contempt of court when it emerges as a result of abuse of trade union power or trade union positions. For any political party that makes any pretence of seeking the government of this country to want to remove from the courts the sanction that my hon. Friend has described as so essential is utterly irresponsible. It gives the lie to the real relationship that exists between the Labour party and the trade unions, and that will not go unnoticed. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to give a fair hearing to the last few questions.

    Skill Training
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the skill training programme.
    Mr. Jackson: There is no central Government programme under the label "skills training", but we are, of course, committed to ensuring that high-quality skills training is provided for the 380,000 people who are currently participating in Government-funded training programmes throughout England and Wales.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that Japanese employers in Wales recently expressed concern about the level of skills of possible recruits? Is he also aware that human skills are the major determinant of success or failure? Is not it a sad reflection on the Government that after 12 years they have failed to provide the necessary skills training for our work force to make our industries competitive in world markets?
    Mr. Jackson: That charge, coming from an Opposition Member, is quite unacceptable. More than 3·1 million young people have taken part in youth training since 1983. In 1979, when we came to office, only 6,000 young people were on training programmes sponsored by the then Labour Government.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that employers and the TECs should be congratulated on the fact that, despite difficult economic circumstances, they are continuing to train people for the period, which will shortly come, when under a Conservative Government we shall be re-expanding the economy and employment?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is right. The regular CBI surveys and the regular Department of Employment labour force survey show that over the 1980s—this is the answer to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes)—there has been a consistent increase in employers' commitment to training, even in this current recession.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.
    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.
    Mr. MacKay: In the light of yesterday's public sector pay settlements, which were particularly welcomed by teachers, will my right hon. Friend give the House some broad indication of just how many teachers will now be earning more than £20,280 a year? Will he also use this opportunity to give a categorical pledge that under no circumstances will he lift the ceiling on national insurance contributions, because that would, in effect, claw back the extra pay that teachers gained yesterday?
    The Prime Minister: I can tell my hon. Friend that well over 120,000 teachers exceeded £20,000 a year even before
    792
    yesterday's pay increases. We anticipate that something over an extra 50,000 will now do so. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we will not remove the limit and impose an extra 9 per cent. national insurance on those teachers.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister join me in reaffirming that no group either using or supporting violence will be allowed by any Government to bomb its way to the conference table? Does he agree that when terrorists inflict danger and disruption on ordinary people anywhere—in Britain, Northern Ireland or anywhere else—they are not so much demonstrating their support for any cause as demonstrating their hatred and opposition to every community?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I am happy to agree without reservation with the points put to the House by the right hon. Gentleman. If terrorists believe that incidents like this morning's will deflect our policy on Northern Ireland, they are mistaken. They have not been successful in the past, and they will not be successful in the future.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Stewart: When I last had the opportunity to question my right hon. Friend, he confirmed that under the Conservatives, miners and other earners in my constituency would not pay a higher rate of income tax. Can he confirm that he will not extend national insurance contributions to savings, because a large number of my constituents took early retirement from the coal industry and use their savings to supplement their income?
    The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that guarantee. Conservative Governments have reduced the taxation on savings. We have abolished the investment income surcharge, and have cut the standard rate of income tax to 25p in the pound. We have introduced savings schemes such as TESSAs, and we believe that excess taxation is iniquitous when we seek to encourage people both to save and to invest in our economy.
    Mr. Lewis: Does the Prime Minister recall that in 1986 he announced the closure of DHSS resettlement centres and gave a firm promise that they would not close until alternative accommodation was available? Is he now aware that four centres, including the Walkden centre in my constituency, will close next month and that alternative provision is not yet available and will not be available? Is the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, going to allow the Resettlement Agency to rat upon his pledge or is he not?
    The Prime Minister: I set out at the time the details of the areas where we would see new and better facilities reopening, and those better facilities have reopened. In addition, the hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Government are also spending very nearly £100 million over three years to provide accommodation for people who are homeless in London. So far nearly 2,000 extra bed spaces have been provided, and the number of people who are out on the streets is substantially lower than 12 months ago. The hon. Gentleman would do well to acknowledge those facts.

    Southampton
    Mr. Hill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit the city and port of Southampton.
    The Prime Minister: Tomorrow.
    Mr. Hill: When my right hon. Friend visits the port of Southampton he will realise that two Conservative policies have changed the position of the port from stagnation to prosperity. The first policy was privatisation and the second the abolition of the national dock labour scheme. All the hospitals in Southampton have been rebuilt over the past few years. There is only one fly in the ointment—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman ask his question—but briefly please.
    Mr. Hill: My right hon. Friend will know that there is a Labour-controlled council. Not only are its policies extremely wasteful, but one of the companies that it set up is just collapsing, insolvent, and this is costing £8 a head to every community charge payer in the area.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend puts his point with great clarity and in some detail. Southampton is already part of a highly successful privatised group of ports. In some of the privatised ports, ending restrictive practices has led to an improvement in productivity of 50 to 100 per cent.

    Engagements
    Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thompson: Is the Prime Minister aware that, after a little local difficulty in the House, there was a meeting this morning between the Engineering Employers Federation and the northern group of Labour Members, at which one of the representatives of the federation said that the Department of Trade and Industry suffered from inertia? Will the Prime Minister consider removing this inertia from the DTI by sacking his Secretary of State?
    The Prime Minister: No.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Taylor: Does the Prime Minister agree that there is an increasing role for responsibility and involvement of individuals in improving their career prospects, whether through training credits for young people or through performance-related pay? Are these not better ways of improving the skills of British industry than the rigid structures favoured by the feudal barons of the trade union movement?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend. I entirely agree with the training credit principle which puts buying power in the hands of the people who seek training. If my hon. Friend will be
    794
    patient, I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will shortly have some comments which will please him.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Has the Prime Minister seen today's Financial Times? If he has, has he noted the three pages of advertisements by receivers and administrators of companies that have failed? The exercise is repeated in the columns of the Financial Times three times a week. Is it not clear that, in the light of all these industrial failures, it is the failure of the Government which really needs to be brought to account, and that it is the Government's task to put things right?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the essential basics to make sure that things are right are to keep inflation down, to keep interest rates down, to have the right tax structure and to continue with the improved industrial relations that we have had in recent years. With his experience, the right hon. Gentleman will also be interested in the views of the CBI. If he is, he will know that the CBI opposes absolutely the reintroduction of the labour laws that the Opposition propose, the tax changes that the Opposition propose and the minimum wage that the Opposition have in mind. Each of those policies would be deadly to the future of British industry, British jobs and British companies.
    Sir Anthony Grant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. Friend warn other world leaders, especially in the United States, of the dangers of a wave of trade protectionism and the catastrophic effect that it can have on the world economy in a recession? Will he emphasise to the Americans in particular the need to reach sensible agreements within GATT?
    The Prime Minister: I have had the opportunity of discussing that with President Bush on a number of occasions, and he is as committed to a speedy conclusion of the Uruguay round as we are. I believe that that is vital. The paper set out by Mr. Dunkel provides a basis round which the United States, the Cairns group and the European Community could rally to provide a satisfactory settlement. That settlement is as vital for the future of the international trading organisation as any other matter under consideration.
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Martlew: In a response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on Thursday, the Prime Minister made it clear that he would not be supporting the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, which will come before the House on Friday, but did not clarify whether he is in favour of a ban on fox hunting. Will he take this opportunity to tell the House and the country whether he favours such a ban?
    The Prime Minister: We always examine legislation before the House with great care. The Bill before the House is not adequate.
    Dame Jill Knight: In connection with an incident that my right hon. Friend has mentioned already, is he aware that hon. Members and staff were unable to work in their offices at 1 Parliament street between 9.30 and 12.30 because of three IRA bombs placed in Whitehall? Is he further aware that immediately the road was made safe, but before any traffic was allowed to pass, there was a demonstration by IRA supporters, well equipped with banners and placards? Does he not feel that, as they were so ready to move and so well equipped, they knew all about the IRA bombs and probably the timing as well? Will he ensure that the police are given the photographs of that demonstration, taken close up by the media?
    The Prime Minister: I was not aware—I have riot yet received reports—of that demonstration, but I believe that it is ironic that the IRA and its supporters should at the same time be enjoying the privileges of democracy and using the methods of terrorism. I can assure them that they will have no progress until they renounce violence and terrorism. I believe that that is the united view of all the parties in the House.
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Grocott: Does the Prime Minister recall that it is now more than 12 months since he first started dithering about the election date, since when 750,000 peole have lost their jobs? Is it not about time that he said to the 44 million voters who are sick and tired of the phoney election campaign that the general election will be on 9 April? When will he have the courage to say that?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know that in the last year we have also cut interest rates seven times and halved inflation. I have no doubt that when we come to the election the electorate will have spotted that as well.
    Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is the first Prime Minister in history to attend the annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union? Is he aware that the warmth of his reception was genuine, as the farmers very much appreciate his understanding of their difficulties with the planners and with marketing? Is he aware that they welcome his determination to do all he can to improve their lot, both at home and abroad?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I certainly enjoyed my attendance at the National Farmers Union meeting this morning. I was able to talk to the farmers about the difficulties that their industry faces at the moment, the need for reform of that industry and the importance that farming will undoubtedly have in the future of our country.
    Mrs. Irene Adams: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some months ago.
    Mrs. Adams: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), recently wrote to him pointing out that the Paisley post code area lost 76 per cent. of its manufacturing jobs between 1979 and 1989 and a further 3,600 jobs since then? Does he recall that he replied that he did not consider those circumstances grim enough to undertake an economic initiative for Paisley? Will he now change his mind or shall we have to wait for the people to do that for him?
    The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Lady ought to be clear about what she means by assistance. When the Labour party speaks of incentives it means subsidies. Perhaps the hon. Lady will remember the success rate of the National Enterprise Board. It invested in 102 firms, of which one third went bankrupt or went into receivership. Less than one third of those firms returned the taxpayers' investment. The right way to help manufacturing industry is to produce the right level of inflation and the right economy for people to make their own decisions.

"People, Jobs and Opportunity"
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the White Paper "People, Jobs and Opportunity" which I and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales are publishing today.
The White Paper highlights the momentous changes which are taking place in the nature and patterns of work; it describes the implications of those changes for the future direction of our policies; and it sets out a new agenda for action designed to widen even further the opportunities and choices for people at work.
A key feature of the last 10 years has been a new and growing emphasis on the role and importance of the individual employee to business success. Employers are increasingly recognising and responding to the aspirations of their individual employees and rewarding individual performance. People at work have new opportunities to choose working arrangements which suit them and their families; to have a say in the direction of the organisation for which they work; and to influence their own development. The tide of collectivism—based on trade union representation and collective bargaining—has been decisively reversed.
If we are to meet the competitive challenge of this decade we must build upon the changes which are taking place. We must open up new opportunities for people at work. We must enable the potential of each and every individual person to be released. That is the vital task for the 1990s. This White Paper sets out what needs to be done. It contains 14 new proposals. I shall confine myself this afternoon to a summary of the most important.
First, we propose a number of possible changes to employment law to extend the rights of individuals. These proposals, on which we would welcome views, will enable people at work to get more comprehensive information from their employer about their terms and conditions of employment including any changes to them, and information about the training they will receive. We shall also be consulting on whether to clarify the law relating to training contracts. This would make it clear that it would be open to employers and employees to agree that if an employee left his employment prematurely after the employer had made a substantial investment in his training, the employer could recover a reasonable proportion of the costs.
At the same time we shall continue to oppose proposals for excessive regulation of relationships between employers and employees which would threaten our competitiveness and put jobs at risk.
Secondly, we shall continue to promote the development, by voluntary means, of employee involvement and of responsive and flexible pay arrangements which reward individual achievement. And we shall oppose attempts by the European Commission to impose inflexible and uniform models of employee relations.
Thirdly, we shall encourage the spread of new and more flexible ways for people to learn and train at their own pace in their own time. We shall enable libraries to make available to the public vocational learning materials and back-up services. We shall also test out a new system of
798
credits to enable unemployed people to purchase training materials which they can use at home and so combine learning with active jobsearch.
Fourthly, we shall continue to tailor the help that we offer to unemployed people to the needs of individuals. And we are already expanding the special help available in 1992–93 through our employment and training programmes so that almost a million people can benefit.
Fifthly, we shall work with other member states for a European Community which supports an increase in the number of jobs available, respects the diversity of employment practices and gives individual people the freedom and opportunity to choose working patterns and arrangements which suit them. During our presidency of the Community in the second half of 1992 we shall promote a new employment initiative—to share good practice between member states in helping unemployed people back to work and to push discussion of employment and unemployment issues higher up the European agenda.
Finally, in May last year my right hon. Friends and I published White Papers about our plans for the education and training of young people into the next century. We announced our aim by 1996 to provide training credits to all 16 and 17-year-olds leaving full-time education. Training credits signal a revolution in the way in which the Government support training and development—a revolution which gives young people the power to choose the path which suits them best.
Today I am announcing an important new initiative to provide credits to people in the adult work force. Individuals will be able to use the credits to purchase a "skill check" where, with expert advice and guidance, they will be helped to take stock of their existing skills and experience, identify how they can improve their skills and map out their future training and career options. By placing purchasing power in the hands of the people concerned we shall transform their attitude to training and to the opportunities that are available to them.
The initiative—[Interruption.] The reaction of Opposition Members shows how much they really care about these vital matters that affect the future of our people. The initiative, which will be introduced from April 1993, will be run locally by training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies in Scotland, which we shall be consulting about the precise arrangements. Our plans will benefit a quarter of a million people in the first two years. If the initiative is successful and cost-effective, we shall extend it across the country.
The issues discussed in this White Paper are vital to our future. My aim is to help to create ladders of opportunity for all our people—ladders which start at school and continue throughout working life. Qualifications must be made available to the millions of people who have always regarded qualifications as being to do with other people, not them. And we must provide a framework within which individual achievement and national prosperity go hand in hand.
We have already achieved a great deal. This White Paper charts the way forward. I commend it to the House.
Mr. Tony Blair: First, let me deal with some of the points of policy—in so far as there are any.
The news of greater access to adult careers guidance is, of course, agreeable, but would it not be better to try to extend such access to everyone in the Community,

799
unemployed or employed, through the careers service? As for the proposal for adult credits—which obviously mirrors the youth training credits idea—is it true that, as has been said in some of the newspapers, no extra resources will be provided for the programme? If it is true, and a transfer from existing resources is proposed, where will the cuts be made?
The idea of training programmes being specified in the contract of employment is also perfectly acceptable, but why not follow through the logic of that position and ensure that all young people who leave school and go into work do so with the proper training contract, so that the scandal of hundreds of thousands of young people leaving school and going into dead-end jobs with no training can end forthwith?
The one new proposal that the Secretary of State has advanced—he was very coy about it in his statement, as opposed to the press briefings—is that employees should be liable to pay the cost of the training that they have received if they move to another job. It is proposed that payment should take the form of either a financial penalty incurred by the employee or a transfer fee to be paid by the recruiting employer.
That proposal, surely, represents a fairly fundamental concession on the part of the Secretary of State—the admission that a purely voluntary approach will not work. We welcome that concession. Unfortunately, having identified the problem correctly, the Secretary of State has come up with the wrong solution. The idea of transfer fees has been kicking around the personnel-manager circuit for many years, and has been rejected for at least two reasons.
First, the reasons why employees leave their employment, having received training, may be unconnected with "poaching". An employee may want promotion, for instance, or a spouse or partner may be leaving to find work in another part of the country. Is the Secretary of State seriously contemplating the forcing of a penalty on people in such circumstances? Such action might be utterly unfair, as well as constituting an enormous obstacle to the free movement of labour.
Most people, however, have rejected that proposal as a way forward because of the problems involved in policing such a system, and because the disputes that arise under the training contract are myriad. Apparently, the Secretary of State has proposed in the White Paper that industrial tribunals should take on the role of regulating those disputes. Is he aware that, at present, the waiting time for industrial tribunal decisions is as long as three, four or six months, and sometimes longer? What is an employee supposed to do—wait in a state of suspension while the matter is resolved by a tribunal before changing jobs? The Secretary of State has opened up an interesting line of argument, but I think that he will find it difficult to stop where he is.
Surely, however, there is one fundamental question that the country will ask. The White Paper is entitled "People, Jobs and Opportunity". How can the Secretary of State credibly say that he is protecting people at work when his party alone among all the parties in Europe—Labour or Conservative—opposed the European social charter that guarantees the existence of such standards? Why is the right hon. and learned Gentleman apparently prepared to legislate to give people details of their contracts of employment, while denying them the right to decent terms and conditions of employment that is enjoyed everywhere else in Europe? Why not allow part-time employees to be
800
given the same status as full-time employees? Why not give them the right to a decent holiday entitlement, which is still denied to millions in this country; the right to proper maternity leave; the right to child care; and freedom from discrimination?
The Secretary of State may talk of individual rights, but he cannot understand that, if real justice and opportunity are to be secured for many individuals, they will require a strong and active Community to legislate on their behalf. How can he credibly say that his party defends jobs when only today we have learned that 2,000 jobs are to go at Gateway, 300 at Pottertons in Tyne and Wear, and 300 at Rolls-Royce in Glasgow? One million people have joined the dole queue since the right hon. and learned Gentleman became Secretary of State, yet not one proposal in the White Paper creates a single job for the millions who are out of work.
How can the Secretary of State pose as the Minister of opportunity when over the past four years £465 million has been cut from youth training and £900 million from employment training—and when, all over Britain, the Government's guarantees to the young and the unemployed are being broken even as we speak?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's is not a party that joins people to jobs and opportunity, but one that has separated millions of people from jobs and denied millions more opportunity. The only jobs that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues are interested in saving over the coming weeks are their own at the election, but, as with so much else over the past 13 years, they will fail in that, too.
Mr. Howard: I am grateful that, on this occasion at least, the hon. Gentleman has found it possible to welcome at least some of the proposals in the White Paper. I shall deal in turn with the various points that he raised.
The hon. Gentleman asked first why the assessment credit, the skill check credit, is not to be made available to unemployed people. The fact is that unemployed people already have access to a range of programmes through the employment service, including job review workshops, which provide precisely that service for those who are unemployed. If the training and enterprise councils think it appropriate to make some of those funds available for unemployed people, they are perfectly free to do so.
As to where the money is to come from, it is true that the proposals will be funded from within my existing resources—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] It is typical of the Labour party that it loses sight of the possibility of being able to get better value for money and of being able to improve the extent to which and the way in which we can help people without always asking the taxpayer to fund more. We shall make the necessary funds available to fund those initiatives. In due course, I shall discuss with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury exactly from where the money is to be found within existing resources.
On training credits, as we have repeatedly made clear, it is perfectly true that the best approach for young people is a voluntary approach. We think that the best approach is to place buying power in the hands of young people. We reject the compulsory route that is favoured by the Labour party, which will never understand that the way forward is to motivate and to encourage and to give people the

801
incentives that they need to make the most of the opportunities that are available to them, not simply to rely on the dead hand of compulsion.
On the proposal that the training contract should make it possible for employers to recover the cost of their investment in training, the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman referred can be reflected in the contract. Far from it being a departure from a voluntary approach, it is a voluntary approach: it depends upon a contractual relationship being agreed between the employer and the employee. The difficulty that has arisen—and one of the obstacles to progress in that area—is that there has been doubt about the law. Many people have thought that such contracts were not enforceable. That is why it is important to clarify the law.
The true attitude of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the Labour party emerged in his final two points. He talked about the European Commission's social action programme. He is blind to the independent studies that have been carried out on that programme, such as that by Professor Snower of Birkbeck college, which demonstrates clearly and beyond doubt how damaging those proposals would be to the creation of jobs in this country.
In his concluding remarks, the hon. Gentleman had the temerity to talk about the job losses that have been announced today by Gateway. Of course, I regret those job losses, but the hon. Gentleman has surely seen the article in The Independent on Sunday a week last Sunday which spelt out clearly the devastating consequences on jobs in the retail trade of his proposal for a national statutory minimum wage. How dare the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party claim to be concerned about jobs when they have put forward a package of proposals that would decimate employment in this country and confine millions of people to the dole queues. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of the lip service that he has paid to employment by continuing to outline such policies.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the House that we have a busy day ahead of us, including a ten-minute Bill motion. I will allow questions on the statement to go on until 4.15 pm. I hope that hon. Members will ask questions about the White Paper and not make wider points.
Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that during the past 25 years successive Governments have never quite got it right on training, which is so essential to our future prosperity? An exception to that is the past few years when we have made significant progress. This White Paper is another jump forward.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend further agree that the Opposition spokesman showed his lamentable inexperience of industry when he talked about poaching? In fact, companies which train properly and successfully over several years bitterly resent other companies which do not indulge in training taking their workers. That is a problem with which my right hon. and learned Friend is trying to cope. The example shows exactly that the Opposition are not in touch with what is going on.
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. He speaks with the considerable experience of someone who served as a Minister in the Department of Employment. Perhaps I can confirm what he said by reference to one statistic. Between 1984 and 1990 there was an 85 per cent. increase in the number of people in work receiving training. Of course, more progress needs to be made, but that statistic is some indication of the progress that we are making and have made.
Mr. James Wallace: The Secretary of State said that he would have to ask the Chief Secretary to the Treasury where the money would come from. He has not told the House how much he expects his proposals to cost, both in the pilot phase, when adult credits will be paid to a quarter of a million people, and later when he hopes to extend the scheme across the country. If the purpose of that is to transform attitudes to training, what effect will the lead handcuff clause that he proposes for the training contract have on attitudes to training? Is he not still missing the real point if he really wants to do something radical to promote opportunities for people at work, and create rights for citizens at work to ownership and participation in decision-making at the place of work?
Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. We have taken a considerable number of far-reaching measures in association with the Confederation of British Industry to encourage precisely that course.
As to the cost of the measures, the two-year cost of the skill check initiative will be some £25 million and the cost of the pilot scheme of vouchers to help unemployed people to make use of open learning facilities will be £3 million. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, those measures represent only part of our considerable range of initiatives. I do not suggest that these measures alone will revolutionise training in Britain, but, taken in conjunction with other measures that we have taken, the considerable progress made by the training and enterprise councils, together with Investors in People and our national record of achievement, we are certainly well on the way to completing a transformation of attitudes to training in Britain.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement. Does he accept that many employers, if not the overwhelming majority, support the Government's robust stance against the social clause? A leading textile and clothing employer told me last night that if we implemented the social clause it could cost thousands of jobs within his company.
My right hon. and learned Friend said that many of the new responsibilities that he announced would lie with the TECs. I have an excellent TEC, the South and East Cheshire TEC, which he knows well. Will he assure the House that the necessary funds to enable the TECs to undertake the additional responsibilities that he announced will be provided for those excellent bodies?
Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful for his support. It is extraordinary how oblivious the Labour party remains to the extraordinarily damaging consequences of its proposals. Those consequences have been highlighted by my hon. Friend with specific examples

803
from industries within his constituency. I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asked on resources for TECs for the initiative. There will be a competition to decide which 15 TECs will have responsibility for the initiative, and I expect many bids.
Mr. Ron Leighton: The statement was extremely thin, but it touched on one matter of importance—the fact that some employers spend money on training but others do not: they poach. Instead of leaving that, as hitherto, to market forces, it appears that the Secretary of State wants to intervene; he wants to be dirigiste. Unfortunately, his approach is based on the same argument as that used by the people who built the Berlin wall—"If you leave the people who trained you, you have to pay a penalty".
That is the approach that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has taken, but there is another—that every employer should spend money on training. If they do, we can give freedom to our people. That is the argument for a levy on all employers. It is an argument not for training boards with a lot of bureaucracy, but for the present successful French policy where every employer has to spend money on training. In that way, we would increase national expenditure on training and the Secretary of State would not have to go in for these dictatorial measures.
Mr. Howard: I am afraid that the remarks of the hon. Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) and for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) about market forces only go to show how little they understand them. Market forces are based on contract, and the proposal that I advanced would clarify the law to make it possible for people to enter into contracts, which would have the consequences that I described.
As to a levy, I am surprised that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East, with his experience as Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, is not aware of the experience of employers throughout the country who sought to operate the levy that we used to have, which was recognised on all sides as a failure. It led to employers spending time in filling up forms and trying to ensure that every conceivable expense was lumped together under the heading of training instead of concentrating on the training itself. There could be no clearer example of the Opposition's blind and blinkered approach to these matters than that proposal.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: As an employer, may I say that the greatest single obstacle to providing training is the possibility that someone else will take away one's trainee and thereby render one's investment worthless? May I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that the explanation for the ill-tempered ignorance with which his proposals have been greeted today is that Opposition Members are, for the most part, neither employers on the one hand, nor employable on the other?
Mr. Howard: There is considerable ground for speculation about why the Opposition have adopted such a churlish attitude to proposals which are clearly well designed and will make a significant contribution to further improvement in attitudes to training. I can only hope—I am always an optimist in these matters—that on further, more mature reflection they will yet change their mind.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware that he has done painfully little to create ladders of opportunity for disabled people because only one in three have jobs? That is a shocking figure. Is he also aware that some of his colleagues have damaged their interests because they talked out a Bill designed to outlaw discrimination against disabled people? Why does not the Minister enforce the employment quota for disabled people? Why does he not impose a levy—not the levy that we were just speaking about, but one similar to the French or German levy—to bring jobs to disabled people? What further action can we have?
Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that enforcing the quota is simply not practicable since there are not sufficient numbers of registered disabled people to fill the quota. We have reviewed the quota, as we have reviewed the range of ways in which we help disabled people into work, and we have decided to keep the quota under review, but the right hon. Gentleman knows of the difficulties in enforcing it.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: To promote employment in this country, does the Secretary of State's White Paper include policies of 25 per cent. VAT, a 35 per cent. basic rate of income tax, 52 per cent. corporation tax, a 98 per cent. tax on savings or 20 per cent. inflation—or am I right in thinking that no sane Government would introduce such policies honestly in this country? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that that is exactly what was introduced and confirmed in the Budget in April 1975, one year into the last Labour Government?
Mr. Howard: I am extremely interested in my hon. Friend's recollections. It is particularly worthy of note that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer who would have responsibility for these matters if a Labour Government were elected, was a prominent member of the Government at that time.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: What will happen to nurses who have trained at the taxpayers' expense in the national health service but who, increasingly, find themselves unable to get a job after three years' training? What will happen to their pay packets when they end up working in the private sector, often for less money—because we know that the national health service is simply a Bill away from being privatised? Will the Minister tell the nurses honestly whether they will have to pay for their training?
Mr. Howard: There is no question of making nurses pay for their training in those circumstances. How the hon. Lady supposes that the lot of nurses would be improved by the policies of the Labour party is utterly beyond me. Whether nurses would come under the arrangements identified in the White Paper depends entirely on the contractual arrangements that they make with their employers.
Mr. Barry Field: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend keeps in close touch with the chairmen of the training and enterprise councils and that he is aware of the concern, particularly in the south of England, about the largesse that occasionally appears to be shown to the north. Will he confirm categorically that TECs will have equal access to the funds that he has made

805
available under the White Paper, excellent as it is? Will he ensure that constituencies such as mine and others on the south coast, where employment is a problem and retraining is high on the agenda, have equal access to Government funds without fear or favour and that they have parity with the north of England?
Mr. Howard: The Isle of Wight TEC will certainly have equal access to the competition. We want to encourage excellence in the implementaton of this initiative. There will be a competition, which is the best way forward to ensure that the plans are implemented in the most effective way.
Mr. Dick Douglas: What distinction does the Minister make between education and training? Many of the people who come under the first proposal would be paying back loans for educational purposes. Can the Secretary of State tell us how many people might be involved in this so-called transfer fee racket, which seems to be difficult to administer? Will he tell us about the relationship between his Department and Scottish Enterprise because, in the defence industry, we need a skills audit, which he could finance? Scottish Enterprise does not have the resources to proceed further with its study of the consequences of the fall in defence expenditure in Scotland.
Mr. Howard: I cannot give an estimate of the numbers involved. It will depend on how many choose to enter the type of contract that I have described.
On the distinction between education and training, we have done a great deal to bring together the best of education and of training. The hon. Gentleman may be interested in one significant and revealing statistic. In 1979–80, 46 per cent. of all 16-year-olds were in education or training. In 1989–90 that figure had gone up to 73 per cent. That shows the progress that we have made in the past 12 years in taking education and training forward.
Mr. David Nicholson: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals, particularly his skilful proposal which deals with poaching. They contrast not only with the bureaucratic levy grant system, which used to exist, but with the Labour party's taxation proposals. Is he aware that my constituents in the retail industry will take careful note of his response to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on the devastating effects that the minimum wage would have on that industry? Will he consult with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security about how the availability for work rule might impede people, particularly the adult unemployed, in obtaining useful training which might enable them to return to work?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support and for his important observations about the retail industry in his constituency. I know that he will lose no opportunity to make it clear to employers and workers in that industry how devastating the prospects for their jobs would be if the Labour party's proposals were put into effect. I do not think that the availability for work rule will impinge on any of the proposals that are identified in the White Paper, but I shall reflect on the point that my hon. Friend made.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Secretary of State please explain how the skills in such industries as glass making, silver filigree work, carpentry, marquetry and the rest will be perpetuated to the next generation if the very firms in which those skills are needed are going bust due to the policies of the Government?
Mr. Howard: An encouraging aspect of the recession is that, unlike previous recessions, training has not been the first thing to be cut. One survey after another, the latest being the CBI survey, shows that four out of five employers are proposing to maintain or increase their investment in training, despite the present difficulties that they undoubtedly face. So I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take some comfort, as I do, from the figures.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Select Committee on Employment recently had before it representatives of the Open University who talked about open learning for people losing their jobs? In view of the terrible reception that that got from Opposition Members—even though the Labour party introduced the Open University—may I ask him to say whether the Open University will be used as an adviser to the Department in setting up the excellent open learning policy? How many people does he believe will take advantage of that excellent way of ensuring that people are trained in skills, both when they are unemployed and when they are still in work?
Mr. Howard: I am always interested in the views of the Open University, which has undoubtedly played an important part in taking foward open learning, in which we lead the world. The success of Britain in taking open learning forward is one of our unsung achievements. Indeed, at exhibitions on open learning in almost any part of the world, about 50 per cent. of the stands are from Britain. It is difficult to estimate the numbers of people involved, but I think that it will represent a significant and useful way of increasing the range of options available to unemployed people who wish to reskill themselves.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: If employers fail to enhance the skills and training of the work force, what claim will the work force have against employers for such loss?
Mr. Howard: The thought behind the hon. Gentleman's question is valid. It is of the utmost importance that employers appreciate the significance of training. It is much more important that they do that than anything the Government can do. Employers in this country are investing about £20 billion a year in training. We want to increase that sum and to enhance the quality of the training that they provide. We have put in place a range of measures, including those I have described, to encourage them to do that.
Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that small firms in particular provide the kind of flexibility that is needed to make the new initiative a great success? Does he further agree that those small firms are a vital part of the rural economy? Will he ensure that the North Yorkshire training and enterprise council, which is an excellent body, is given every opportunity to enhance the rural economy through this imaginative initiative?
Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of small firms, and I look forward to receiving a bid from the North Yorkshire training and enterprise council to run one of our assessment initiative schemes.
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: A jeweller named Ratner had a selling technique for getting rid of rubbish. Unfortunately, the same seems to be happening this afternoon, the Government taking a leaf out of his ideological book in offering absolutely nothing to people who are desperate for jobs and training.
In relation to the transfer levy, what will happen to the thousands of teachers who have been trained at the taxpayers' expense, some of whom teach not in the state sector but in the private sector? Will those teachers, under the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals, have to reimburse the taxpayers for that expensive training?
Mr. Howard: They will not have to do so as matters stand. Whether they will have to in future will depend on whether they are prepared to enter into contractual arrangements with the local education authorities.
Mr. Harry Ewing: May I take the Secretary of State back to the question on nurses asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon)? Does he accept that the national health service is different in the sense that it is owned, managed and run by the Government and a Secretary of State sets in place legislative proposals? Will he give an absolute guarantee that under no circumstances will he enforce the area health authorities in England or health boards in Scotland to introduce such contracts for the training of nurses?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman cannot seriously expect me to give such an undertaking. If necessary, those matters will be considered in the future.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Hexagon Community Ltd. provides a quality training service through the Mersey training and enterprise council. Its funding has been cut and it appears that it has been offered a wind-down contract. In the light of the Secretary of State's comments, what message can I take back to the 35 staff and 205 trainees who will have no jobs or training?
Mr. Howard: I am not sure how that arises on the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman may not have been in the Chamber during Employment questions this afternoon, when the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), was asked about Hexagon and training. He said that he had received a letter from Hexagon and that he would reply to it shortly.
Mr. Greville Janner: The Minister has rightly said that employees should have more information about their terms of service. Does he propose to extend the requirements for written particulars of service under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978? If so, are people to be told precisely what they must repay if, having received training, they decide, for whatever reason, to move? It is no way to improve employees' willingness to undergo training if they are liable to be fined if they move on.
Mr. Howard: Employees' willingness to receive training is not the problem. Employees show a ready desire to take advantage of training opportunities. As to the precise way in which we legislate on the matter, the White Paper makes
808
it clear that we shall consult on that. I look forward to receiving representations from the hon. and learned Gentleman when we do so.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Secretary of State accept that his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) was complacent in the extreme? If the quotas are not working after 13 years, as the Secretary of State claims, what proposals do the Government have to deal with blatant discrimination against disabled people? Does he realise that, in talking out the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), the Government are years behind even President Bush? Will he accept that the word "opportunity" will sound hollow to millions of disabled people who are looking for jobs?
Mr. Howard: I do not accept that, because we have gone to considerable lengths to help disabled people into work in a number of ways and under a variety of schemes. In answering the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), I was facing up to the difficulties in terms of enforcing the quota. No one has come up with an obvious and attractive alternative to it. I know that the hon. Gentleman is devoted to the principle of legislation in that area, but I am far from convinced that legislation would have the effect that he genuinely desires.
Dr. Kim Howells: The Secretary of State has told the House that he is making provision for employers to claw back some financial recompense in respect of employees who leave before the minimum period has elapsed after their training. What about recompense for major and responsible employers, such as the Royal Mint in Llantrisant in my constituency, who find that firms poach trained people because they cannot afford to train people themselves due to the Government's mismanagement of the economy?
Mr. Howard: I must confess that I find the logic behind the hon. Gentleman's question extremely difficult to follow. Firms are increasingly recognising the importance of investment in training. They are investing in training to an ever-increasing extent. The number of policies that we have put in place is encouraging them to do precisely that.
Mr. Robert Litherland: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a deputation from GEC Switchgear, Openshaw, Manchester to prevent job losses? What choice or opportunity do those 169 sacked workers have? What opportunity or choice does Mr. Boyle have? He has worked there for 30 years and will get no chance of retraining at his age or financial remuneration of any kind. What does the White Paper mean to them? It is an insult.
Mr. Howard: I understand very well how difficult things will look to those who have recently lost their job, but about 50 per cent. of those who are unfortunate enough to lose their job leave unemployment within three months. The range of measures that we have in place to help unemployed people has helped many, including a 60-year-old I met the other day on Teesside, who had been unemployed for a considerable period and who was helped back into work by one of the schemes that we have recently introduced. There is a range of ways available to help people back to work. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage his constituents to make the most of them.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that I have not been able to accommodate the three hon. Members who are standing, but I shall certainly bear their claims in mind when we return to the subject on another occasion.

Electoral Reform
4.16 pm
Mr. James Wallace: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reform the law on elections in the United Kingdom; to base the electoral system for such elections on proportional representation; and for connected purposes.
This is one of a series of Bills introduced by my hon. Friends and intended to address a fundamental British malaise. Britain is ill, and it is no wonder: it is because we have a bad constitution. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has already proposed a Freedom of Information Bill in this Parliament. Last Friday, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) moved the Home Rule (Scotland) Bill. Tomorrow, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) will seek leave to bring in a Bill to establish in law a charter of human rights. Today I wish to address the issue of our bankrupt and outdated electoral system.
That list of reforming measures is not exhaustive. Those four measures are critical if we are to reform our political institutions for the modern age and if we are to establish open, near and fair government.
The Bill would reform elections at all levels. At the last European parliamentary elections, it was not so much my party as the Green party, which polled 15 per cent. of the vote with no reward in terms of seats, that was the victim of the distortions of our present electoral system. Those distortions are magnified by the constituency sizes at European parliamentary elections.
The other victim of that distorted electoral system is the European Parliament itself. Its balance and composition, as well as those of its committees, are skewed by the unrepresentative voting system operating in Great Britain. I deliberately exclude Northern Ireland, where a system of proportional representation has ensured representation of the Province's two traditions in the European forum.
The Bill would also apply to local government elections. That may commend itself to Conservative Members—or perhaps they feel that they can justify on good democratic grounds a result such as that in the London borough of Richmond upon Thames, where, in the last elections, a 46 per cent. vote for the Liberal Democrats awarded us with 92 per cent. of the council seats.
Apart from fairness, proportional representation in local government would lead to a far more acceptable or democractically legitimate and accountable restraint on the excessive spending notions of some more extreme council groups than is a centralist power to cap. To be fair, some hon. Members accept that, but the Government have never explained why they are so unwilling to allow the electors, rather than the Secretary of State, to exercise any restraint on erring councils which may be needed.
The Home Rule (Scotland) Bill, debated last Friday, incorporates a system of proportional representation. Indeed, after the experience of the Scotland Act 1978, my right hon. and hon. Friends would be loth to commend any Scottish Parliament without proportional representation. The change of heart by the Labour party on that issue is very much to be welcomed.
So we come to the Westminster Parliament. It is very tempting to dwell on the injustice which the present system

811
deals to my own party—that, at the last election, in return for 23 per cent. of the vote we got 23 seats. But the system throws up other damaging and divisive anomalies too.
Outside Greater London, the hon. Members for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) and for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) are the only Labour Members south of a line drawn from the Severn to the Wash. In spite of the Conservatives polling a cumulative total of 98,340 votes in the cities of Glasgow and Liverpool in 1987, there is not one Conservative Member for either of those great cities.
That kind of imbalance means that, on critical issues affecting those cities or the vast area of southern England, the Government on the one hand and the main Opposition party on the other cannot have the benefit of first-hand knowledge or input in parliamentary debate. That cannot be healthy for a pluralist democracy.
I claim that proportional representation would lead to greater fairness. That in itself is an important factor in any democracy, but experience abroad also suggests that it would lead to better representation of women and of those from our nation's ethnic communities. That could only make the House more representative of the nation as a whole.
Our preferred system of the single transferable vote in multi-member seats with a community identity would change, but nevertheless retain, the link between a Member and his or her constituents. After all, which Member would risk taking too much for granted if the penalty were to lose one's seat to a member of one's own party? That system, too, places more choice in the hands of voters and less in the hands of the constituency executive.
There are clear and encouraging signs that the case for proportional representation is gaining ground. The Labour party has taken some welcome steps in the right direction, but, with a few honourable and wise exceptions, it still balks at taking the final critical step of supporting fair votes for this Chamber.
There have always been some distinguished supporters of proportional representation on the Conservative Benches. Indeed, in 1983, before taking up office, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), writing as the author of a Penguin book, "The Tory Case", said:
"Conservatives believe in defending our liberties and sustaining efficient government. Electoral reform, as Sir Winston Churchill accepted, provides the best way of doing both these things."
I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bath would do well to remind himself of his own words.
More important, however, the case for a fair voting system is gathering support among those who really count: the voters themselves, those who use the system. Any citizen's charter worth its salt would surely try to enhance the value of the citizen's most valuable possession—his or her vote. But, to no one's surprise, the Prime Minister shies away from that. He may well be able to do so on a Tuesday afternoon at the fag-end of a Parliament, but we shall not lose opportunities in the coming weeks and months to tell the electorate that every Liberal Democrat vote in the coming election will help to put the issue of electoral reform at centre stage on the agenda of the next Parliament.
There is a fundamental reason why it should be there at centre stage. I believe that a reformed electoral system and the reform of government which would inevitably accompany it would bring about the stability and
812
continuity which our country and our economy need. Britain's relative economic decline over the past 40 years is the product of a failed political system which brings uncertainty and breeds conflict.
To those who claim that first-past-the-post produces the certainty that flows from a large majority, I say take but one example. Where has the certainty been in local government finance over the past six or seven years? Those who claim that certainty confuse strong government with headstrong government. A reformed electoral system offers the prospect of genuinely strong government: government with the support of the majority of the people.
4.25 pm
Mr. Robert Adley rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman seek to oppose?
Mr. Adley: I do.
The House will have listened with interest to the speech by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). It is right that he should have the chance to make such a speech, and I hope that he will allow me, I hope in a moderate and quiet way, to put an alternative view.
At the start of a speech it is normal to declare an interest, and I shall declare mine. At the last election, I received 65·9 per cent. of the votes that were cast in my constituency, as opposed to 41·7 per cent. cast for the hon. Gentleman in the constituency of Orkney and Shetland. It is a matter of statistical record that, at the last general election, the Liberal Alliance averaged only 44·9 per cent. of the vote in their constituencies. Only three of them managed to achieve more than 50 per cent. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) points. He was not in the House at that time, and shortly he will not be here again.
There is nothing to stop people electing a Liberal, a bush Baptist or whoever they wish. Under our existing system, they may vote for any of those on the ballot paper. People who argue about fairness really mean that some parties are inherently incapable of persuading enough people to vote for them. As far as I know, the Liberal party is the only United Kingdom party which to a man and woman favours eliminating the traditional voting system. The reason for that is clear, and I shall give it, I hope without giving offence: ever since the early years of this century, the Liberal party has been a perpetual loser and it is naturally enthusiastic about changing the rules, rather in the way that the supporters of Aldershot or Accrington Stanley football clubs would like to change the bankruptcy laws.
The usual proposition—we heard it from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland—is that, if the votes cast were distributed under proportional representation, X, Y and Z would follow. There is no logic on earth which says that, if we change the voting system, the votes will be cast in the same way. That reminds me of a phrase that my late father used to use—if my grandmother had wheels, she would be an omnibus. She had not, and she was not.
This is a serious issue. I am prepared to be persuaded about PR, but many of the arguments are simultaneously seductive and superficial. The proposition is that a system of proportional representation would eliminate extremism. Precisely the opposite is the case. What actually happens is that those who get the fewest votes have the most power. Anyone who looks at Eire and Israel, two

813
democracies in which tiny minorities hold the Government and people to ransom, will see that the PR argument is difficult to sustain. Mr. Shamir, as a product of proportional representation, is an example of nothing that I particularly want to follow.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland spoke about proportional representation in Northern Ireland, but he rather gave the game away by making the point that that has only entrenched the polarisation, so that each community has a representative. Instead of the emergence of an "alliance" candidate, who might represent neither of the entrenched parties, PR has merely entrenched the existing situation.
I told the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that I would mention him in my speech. I do not think that many hon. Members would relish the proposition that, in a so-called hung Parliament, the future size, shape and disposition of the Government would hang in the balance depending in whose favour the hon. Member for Antrim, North decided to bestow his good wishes. The Labour party, the Liberal party and the Conservative party are all, as I understand it, in favour of the Anglo-Irish Agreement; the hon. Member for Antrim, North and his hon. Friends are not.
Are we really to suggest that a hung Parliament, with somebody such as the hon. Member holding the balance of power, is likely to produce a situation which is acceptable to the majority? The way in which that particular person was elected is irrelevant. The proposition is that somebody holds the balance of power and so moderation is ensured. It is far more likely to ensure behind-the-scenes, Tammany hall-type deals which are not in the interest of the majority of people in a democratic society.
The constituency link is paramount. I do not want to see a system whereby party organisations have more power than the people who are elected to do the job. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned the poll tax, which I have opposed all the way through. It may be that my views on that and on the future of the railways, for example, colour my reason for not wanting the apparatchiks of the Conservative party determining what I do and do not do. I believe that we derive our strength from our election by our constituents, to give that clear, fine definition between constituency and Member of Parliament.
The rock of British democracy is the existing system. It is interesting to me that the Italians, who have long enjoyed, if that is the word, a system of proportional representation, are now seriously considering changing their system because of the constant changes of Government and the instability that many Italian politicians regard as an inherent defect of their system.
If I am wrong, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) will tell me, and I will apologise, but I understand that this morning at a press conference he said that he would vote down the Queen's Speech unless there was a commitment to proportional representation by the party with the most seats in the House. Let us consider that proposition. As far as I know—hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench will tell me; I ask them rather than tell them—neither the Labour party nor the Conservative party is going into the next election with a manifesto commitment to change the voting system to proportional
814
representation. We may well say in both our manifestos that we need to look at it, but there will be no commitment to change it.
So we have a situation where the leader of the Liberal party, with a minority of seats in a hung Parliament and holding the balance, is willing to use that minority position against the votes of the two main parties, neither of which will have offered that proposition to the people of this country. If the right hon. Member for Yeovil would stop and think about the proposal for one moment, he would see that he is not suggesting a fair debate and discussion in the House or among the political parties about the way in which we elect our Parliament: he is offering political blackmail—nothing more, nothing less.
I close my remarks, I hope in a conciliatory way, by saying that I am not opposed to an examination of the system by which we elect our Members of Parliament. What I am opposed to is the arrogant assumption that this country is suffering from what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland described as "a fundamental malaise". I do not believe—and I have tried to give examples—that there is any necessary correlation between good government and proportional representation or between first-past-the-post and bad government. It needs men and women of good will in politics to try to reach a consensus on individual issues, but to suggest that issuing threats, to be carried out unless those elected with a minority of the votes, in this place or elsewhere, get their own way, is some sort of fair and democratic system is not democratic as I understand the meaning of the word.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 27, Noes 151.

Division No. 76]

[4.33 pm

AYES

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Ashton, Joe

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Raffan, Keith

Beith, A. J.

Salmond, Alex

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Stephen, Nicol

Carr, Michael

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Douglas, Dick

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Edwards, Huw

Wallace, James

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Wigley, Dafydd

Faulds, Andrew

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Flynn, Paul

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Tellers for the Ayes:

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Mr. Ronnie Fearn and

Kennedy, Charles

Mr. David Bellotti.

Livingstone, Ken

NOES

Adley, Robert

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Alexander, Richard

Buck, Sir Antony

Allen, Graham

Budgen, Nicholas

Amos, Alan

Burns, Simon

Arbuthnot, James

Butler, Chris

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Callaghan, Jim

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Cash, William

Barron, Kevin

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Batiste, Spencer

Cohen, Harry

Beggs, Roy

Conway, Derek

Bell, Stuart

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

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

Cormack, Patrick

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Cryer, Bob

Blunkett, David

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Bottomley, Peter

Dalyell, Tam

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Day, Stephen

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Dickens, Geoffrey

815

Dixon, Don

Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

Dunn, Bob

Michael, Alun

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Eadie, Alexander

Moate, Roger

Eastham, Ken

Morgan, Rhodri

Evennett, David

Mudd, David

Farr, Sir John

Murphy, Paul

Foster, Derek

Neubert, Sir Michael

Fox, Sir Marcus

Nicholls, Patrick

French, Douglas

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Gardiner, Sir George

Norris, Steve

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Gill, Christopher

O'Brien, William

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

O'Hara, Edward

Golding, Mrs Llin

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Patchett, Terry

Gordon, Mildred

Pawsey, James

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Powell, William (Corby)

Grist, Ian

Price, Sir David

Hardy, Peter

Redmond, Martin

Harris, David

Riddick, Graham

Hayes, Jerry

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Haynes, Frank

Rooney, Terence

Hayward, Robert

Rost, Peter

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Hind, Kenneth

Shersby, Michael

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Sims, Roger

Hoyle, Doug

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Skinner, Dennis

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Hunter, Andrew

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Illsley, Eric

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Irvine, Michael

Stanbrook, Ivor

Janner, Greville

Steen, Anthony

Jessel, Toby

Steinberg, Gerry

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Stott, Roger

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Straw, Jack

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Summerson, Hugo

Kilfedder, James

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Thornton, Malcolm

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Tracey, Richard

Lewis, Terry

Trimble, David

Litherland, Robert

Twinn, Dr Ian

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Waller, Gary

Lord, Michael

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Loyden, Eddie

Wheeler, Sir John

Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

Wilkinson, John

McAvoy, Thomas

Wilshire, David

McFall, John

Wise, Mrs Audrey

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Tellers for the Noes:

Madden, Max

Mr. Dennis Turner and

Mans, Keith

Mr. Conal Gregory.

Marland, Paul

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day

  Further and Higher Education Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.44 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That the Bill he now read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that a large number of hon. Members wish to participate in this debate, I propose to put a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock. It may be possible to relax the limit if hon. Members who speak before 7 o'clock do so briefly.
  Mr. Clarke: The Bill is aimed at the expansion of opportunities for education and training after the years of compulsory school attendance. Until recent years, the area of education and training post-16 has been a comparatively neglected part of the political agenda for education, but nowadays the Government are giving it very high priority. We are making such rapid advances that we need this legislation if we are to expand the opportunities significantly, not only for our young people but for adults. Certainly, the generation of young people at present emerging from our schools will need to be better educated and better trained than any previous generation if they are to face up to the demands of modern life. Not only must they expect to be better educated and better trained to cope with the more competitive world than were former generations but throughout their adult lives they will be members of a society in which people accept the need to continue to be trained and educated throughout life.
  It is obvious that if people are to face up to this new situation they will have to have access to a wider range of courses and of qualifications than the British system has hitherto usually provided. As we develop that wider range of courses and qualifications we shall need to end some of the stranger traditions of British life. In particular, we shall certainly have to bring to an end snobbish distinctions between academic pursuits and vocational pursuits. We must acknowledge that the area of education and training that has relevance to the world of business and commerce or to a particular vocational pursuit can, if pursued to the same standard as an outstanding and traditional academic career, be awarded the same esteem.
  For this new situation we need a much more diverse range of institutions, colleges and universities than we have had hitherto to provide the range of courses that I am describing. In future, when we look at either higher education or further education we shall see a much greater variety of institutions, all providing courses of the same standard, but perhaps in very different climates and with very different styles. We shall certainly still have universities of the "dreaming spires" type, with, I hope, the traditional excellent standards. There will be other universities—equally worthwhile institutions—concentrating on science and technology, whose courses may be rooted in the economic life of their regions, in which they will play a very significant role.

  817
  In some of our cities there will be giant tertiary colleges for 16 to 19-year-olds. There will also be smaller further education colleges as well as sixth form colleges—some still concentrating, perhaps, on predominantly academic courses rather than on the new vocational qualifications, but some offering the full range—and in rural areas there will be community colleges as well. Thus we shall have much greater participation in higher education and further education, a much wider range of courses and qualifications and a much wider diversity of institutions emerging to serve the needs of society in the 1990s and beyond.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Secretary of State explain what will happen to the traditional sixth forms? How will they fit into the new framework?
  Mr. Clarke: The traditional sixth forms will play a valuable part in those schools that have them or acquire them. They will also be a part of the range of institutions from which a person at the age of 16 can choose, with the advice of parents and friends, when deciding what course suits his or her temperament. I expect sixth forms to thrive and to add to the diversity of provision that I have just described.
  Of course, we have been moving rapidly in that direction in recent years. We all need to come to terms with the pace of events and with the demands of the next decade or two. I frequently speak of our need to prepare for mass higher education for future generations. We must prepare also for near universal further education, with, I hope, more than 90 per cent. of our young people staying on in the very near future for proper education and training. In addition, as I said, we must make an approach towards a lifetime career that anticipates the need for continuous education and upgrading of training throughout a working life. The Bill will give form to those objectives and help us to expand and develop the right sorts of institutions to meet our needs.
  The great challenge of the 1990s in doing all that and in moving into mass participation in higher and further education is that we must move in that direction without lowering academic and professional standards. Wider access must not mean that we lower the standard that is set for our qualifications so that it is easier for everybody to obtain them without having to improve the preparation for them.
  More must not mean worse. That is familiar to many of us who remember the argument about the university expansion that was proposed by Lord Robbins and was first planned many years ago. I recall that at first I was sceptical about it. History has shown, however, that expansion—certainly on what now seems the modest scale then anticipated—did not threaten or damage academic standards. We must ensure that the same applies as we expand our universities, what were our polytechnics, our further education colleges and our sixth forms. We must add to the range of courses and the diversity of provision but ensure that standards are not lowered. For example, in my opinion, greater participation in post-16 education should not mean the abolition of A-levels on the basis that not everybody can pass A-levels. Instead it should mean a wider range of choice after 16.
  818
  Our degree standard must not be lowered. An honours degree in this country is one of the best regarded academic qualifications in the developed world. Equal status will be given to vocational and academic qualifications, but only where the vocational courses are as demanding and as worthy of esteem as good-quality academic qualifications.
  Sir John Farr: I am anxious to support my right hon. and learned Friend and I am listening to his every word. Will he tell me how I can persuade my constituents, who already have an adult basic education service and a further education service that are as high as, if not higher than, anything that is set out in the Bill, that they should support change that can be only for the worse if there is not some major alteration to the Bill?
  Mr. Clarke: At an appropriate stage I shall turn to that issue in some detail. I am anxious to assure my hon. Friend and other of my hon. Friends from Leicestershire, where the community college system is operated—it is operated also in Cambridgeshire and Devon—that the Bill poses no threat to the quality of provision or, necessarily, to its pattern. At present, I am setting the scene for the Bill. I am saying that quality of provision matters just as much as expansion. I am underlining the point that the quality assurance provisions in the Bill, as they apply to both further education and higher education, are just as important as those parts of the Bill that set up the new funding structure and give autonomy to more of the colleges.
  I have addressed the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) because it has been put to me frequently as the Bill has proceeded, especially by my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the three counties which I named. I shall turn in a short while to what I describe as the Maxwell-Hyslop clause. I do so because it was pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Sir R. Maxwell-Hyslop) and others. I do not believe that the fears expressed by my hon. Friend and others in Devon that the Bill represents a threat to the pattern of provision in rural areas for adult education are justified. We have sought to amend the Bill to meet those fears. I think that it will be more suitable to return to the matter a little later in my speech.
  As I said, I am setting the scene for the Bill. I shall delay turning to particular matters so that we do not suddenly go off at a tangent to deal with important but particular points. I think that everything that I have said so far makes it clear that the objective of the Bill is to expand the provision of further and higher education and to expand opportunities for adults, as well as for young people, to engage in all sorts of courses. It is not true that the Bill cuts a line between vocational and leisure courses, any more than it does between the academic and the vocational. It draws no line of a sort that will damage provision. It is—[Interruption.] Certainly not. The Labour party is taken up with the campaign about adult education generally. I hope to be able in a few moments to reassure my hon. Friends on the community college argument.
  Before moving to the particular—
  Mr. Dennis Turner: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Toby Jessel: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Clarke: That is the particular in Wolverhampton and even in Richmond. I wish first to deal with the Bill as a whole. I know that particular examples have been raised.
  I have described the need for us to legislate to cope with the rapidly changing nature of higher education and further education needs. The specifics that are set out in the Bill—this is so that we can look at the wood before we turn to extremely important trees in particular places—deal first with further education. I hope that even the trees in Wolverhampton will be able to wait for a few minutes.
  The main policy set out in the Bill is to give further education colleges, and sixth form colleges in particular, independence from local government. It is designed to give autonomy to the colleges so that they take upon themselves full responsibility for the delivery of courses and the provision of an adequate service to their locality, and to make them accountable more directly to the community that they serve. We propose to move to a funding council system and away from local authority control. That system is based exactly on the experience of the polytechnics over the past few years. At the beginning of this Parliament, shortly after the last general election, the Government carried through a Bill, in the teeth of quite a lot of opposition, that had the effect of taking polytechnics out of local authority control. They have thrived ever since. They have expanded rapidly and their academic independence has not been remotely compromised. On the contrary, they have become powerful academic institutions, making an important contribution to higher education. We are following that precedent in higher education.
  When talking in the jargon of the Government's policy, we sometimes refer to creating a new sector of autonomous further education colleges. I hope that within that sector there will be room for considerable diversity. I do not believe that every sixth form college should become like every further education or tertiary college. The co-existence of sixth form colleges in schools, of sixth form colleges previously under schools' regulations and of further education colleges—this is where there is variety, and it is to be found in many areas— means that each student can make a choice on the basis of what suits his or her temperament or aptitude, and what climate, as it were, is likely to be conducive to his or her study.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I accept my right hon. and learned Friend's argument that the Bill is splendid for colleges of further education, which are delighted to have their independence. However, the college of adult education in my constituency is worried lest it has to apply for funds through the college of further education. It may find that that college is unwilling to put its request to the funding council. The adult education college is worried also lest the college of further education should decide to introduce courses that it already makes available, such as literacy courses and English-as-a-second-language courses for the ethnic minorities. It is worried that the college of further education will not put forward its requests.
  Mr. Clarke: The argument about access to funding council funds by adult colleges, community colleges and other colleges that do not automatically transfer into the new sector and are funded by the further education funding council is the same as that which has been advanced by hon. Members representing constituencies in
  820
  Leicestershire, Cambridgeshire and Devon. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman)—
  Mr. Jessel rose—
  Mr. Clarke:—and others—I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse) is trying again to intervene, and I shall give way to him shortly. As I said, the same argument is being raised, but it does not fit into my speech at this point. We shall be discussing a guillotine motion later, and I am always accused of making the longest speech. That is because of my customary generosity in giving way to hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to intervene. I shall give way to all those who ask me to do so, but I should at least be allowed to give way at a logical place in my speech. I have said that I know exactly what they are talking about, and it has nothing to do with what I am talking about now. If they will contain themselves in patience, I shall take up the point in some detail.
  I was talking about further education and sixth form colleges having independence from local government, and my hope that there would be some diversity of provision on the part of the autonomous colleges.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I will give way if the intervention concerns the point that I just mentioned.
  Mr. Flannery: It concerns that point, but, if it had not, I would have moved it on to that point.
  The Secretary of State is famous throughout the education community for having launched an all-out and sustained attack on local education authorities, to the point of leaving them very little to do and taking practically everything away. Does he agree that a Government who have attacked local education authorities as the present Government have done—and attacked teachers as they have done, notwithstanding yesterday's bribe—may just possibly be foisting on us something that is in line with their general attack on state education?
  Mr. Clarke: Let me say en passant that I have never attacked teachers. The hon. Gentleman's reference to yesterday's pay settlement as a bribe shows that even he cannot see it as a subtle attack on them.
  The main point of the Bill's provision for further education and sixth form colleges is to give them independence from local government. The purpose is not to attack local government gratuitously but to enhance the colleges' ability to thrive, expand and broaden their provision. In my opinion, local authority control is not the best way in which to bring that about. The same arguments were used in regard to polytechnics, but their history shows that they positively thrived once they were taken away from local authority control.
  I see that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is becoming distressed at this point. Labour has approached the Bill with an automatic attachment to local government control of everything. Labour Members are so firmly tied hand and foot to Labour councillors up and down the country that they cannot concede that further education and sixth form colleges might do better to take the next logical step, from local management to total autonomy—being allowed to run their own affairs.

  821
  The colleges do not regard our proposals as an attack. The hon. Member for Blackburn, who follows these matters, may well have seen a poll of principals that was conducted by what was The Times Higher Educational Supplement—it is now called "The Higher". I do not always rely on polls, but this poll showed that two thirds of principals agreed with the policy of granting independence—
  Mr. Flannery: Of course they do—you bribed them.
  Mr. Clarke: Of course they do, because in their opinion it is in the interests of the colleges, and of their ability to secure the best possible provision of local services. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blackburn is now trying to join in.
  Labour's policy is becoming a most curious hybrid. I understand that Labour Members have been a bit worried about being currently opposed to the colleges doing nothing but remaining under local government control; they therefore offered them corporate status. That is a frightfully important step, because colleges can have the corporate status while remaining under local authority control when it comes to such matters as planning and money. It is not surprising that, according to "The Higher", that rather curious hybrid policy received the support of more than 20 per cent. of principals. That 20 per cent. consists of the nervous ones. They need only talk to the director of a polytechnic, or a polytechnic lecturer, to find that no one in the polytechnic world wants to return to local authority control—not even some staunch supporters of the Labour party.
  Mr. Jack Straw: If the Secretary of State is so confident of public support for the proposal to take centalised control of further education away from local communities, why has he refused to publish responses to the Bill, not from individuals but from institutions and governing bodies? Why has he departed from the practice accepted by his predecessor, who published responses to the Education Reform Bill 1988 and made them available to hon. Members? Is not the truth that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has refused to publish the responses to this Bill because, overwhelmingly, they show opposition to its proposals?
  Mr. Clarke: First, to describe the aim of the proposals as "centralised control" is utterly daft. The polytechnics are not under centralised control; quite the reverse. They were taken away from local authority control and given their autonomy—given complete academic independence. That point was mentioned in the other place, and I shall return to it later.
  A funding council distributes money at arm's length from Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Government dictate."] They certainly do not dictate. It was made clear in another place that there was no prospect of any Secretary of State seeking to dictate to the funding council. The funding council is very much at arm's length. The idea that any polytechnic principal feels that he is being dictated to by the Government, and that he is under centralised control, is frankly ridiculous. Labour Members know that, and they should not make a belated attempt to stir principals into resistance by claiming otherwise.
  Mr. Turner: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: As Wolverhampton seems to be relevant to every point, I will.
  Mr. Turner: The Secretary of State has just made an important point about the attitude of the principals. Is it any wonder that they should feel cynical and concerned about the Secretary of State's attitude? Their cynicism and concern should not be underestimated.
  In the next financial year, which will usher in all these marvellous developments, the college principals face massive reductions in their budgets. Those reductions mean that they cannot respond to the needs of their colleges, even in the next 12 months. How can the Secretary of State expect them to believe what he is saying? A college in my constituency faces a cut of half a million pounds in the next financial year. Why does not the Secretary of State show good faith, and give colleges the resources that they need?
  Mr. Clarke: If the college in Wolverhampton is taking a cut in its budget, it is taking that cut from a borough council whose education budget the Government have increased in real terms. I have no doubt that cuts imposed on that college will make the principals even more eager to escape from the vagaries of local government control, and to put to the funding councils their case for money with which to maintain and expand their services.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend would like to examine the way in which Lancashire county council is funding Skelmersdale college. It is providing the college with only 85 per cent. of the amount that the Department has calculated to be necessary. The college looks forward to receiving an additional 15 per cent., and to expanding the facilities that it offers students, following the passage of the Bill.
  Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I anticipate that the Bill may provoke a flood of complaints from further education colleges about their local education authorities—just as, five years ago, there could have been a flood of complaints from polytechnic directors about their authorities. In the Bill, we are moving towards independence.
  Mention of the polytechnics takes me on to the subject of higher education. I hesitate to say this, but I think that this part of the Bill may be less controversial. It abolishes the distinction between polytechnics and universities, which I am satisfied has become entirely outdated. In any other country in the developed world, the institutions that we call polytechnics would be described as universities. In both north America and Western Europe they would take their place alongside many other distinguished higher education institutions.
  The division between the two may or may not have been necessary when the polytechnics were first set up, but it now seems to hark back to distinctions between academic institutions and those tied more closely to industry and commerce that we do not wish to perpetuate. The academic standards in our polytechnics are certainly worthy of any university, and it is simply not true to say that they are in any way inferior institutions. We need to introduce a funding mechanism that will be common to both types of institution, and to encourage cost-effective expansion where it is most needed. We need to give access to funds for teaching and research on equal terms to the

  823
  institutions hitherto described as universities and polytechnics, and we need to accept that the rich diversity in our higher education provision will be best recognised—both abroad and by students here—if we call all such institutions universities.
  The biggest practical effect of our retaining the title "polytechnic" for so long has been, to a certain extent, a marketing effect, but a very important one. That has tended to discourage students from applying to polytechnics because they wrongly perceive that a polytechnic place is not quite as good as a university place. However, they might have been applying to a polytechnic department with a much superior academic reputation to that of a similar department in a university. Polytechnics have encountered serious difficulties with their international relations. Because nobody understands our "polytechnic" designation, the polytechnics have had to explain what it means.
  As I said in my preliminary remarks, the right way to regard the higher education world is to stop making that distinction between universities and polytechnics, and to allow each of them the same access to funds and the ability to compete equally for funds for teaching and research on the basis of quality. I hope that those provisions receive widespread support.
  Dr. Keith Hampson rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I give way to my hon. Friend. For as long as I have been a Member, he has followed higher education matters. He urged his case strongly upon me in a conversation that we had within two days of my taking office.
  Dr. Hampson: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that tribute and thank him for what he is doing in the Bill. However, does he recognise the phenomenal growth in both the polytechnics and the universities—but especially in the polytechnics—during the past three or four years? As he recognised the other day the hard work and extra effort of school teachers, will he also recognise the huge pressure on higher education staff? If he is concerned about equality of treatment, will he reconsider the position of university staff, including the new university staff, and establish a pay review body for them along the lines of that which he has already sensibly granted to school teachers?
  Mr. Clarke: I pay tribute to everything that has been achieved in the polytechnics in recent years and to the contribution by the staff to their cost-effective expansion and their reduction in unit costs. However, as my hon. Friend knows, I shall not go on from that to say that we should have a review body for polytechnic or university lecturers. Review body status is given to particular groups or professions in the public service. As it is not strictly relevant to the Bill, I shall give only one reason for not extending review body status to higher education. Higher education institutions do not receive all their funds from the Government, so to continue to move the review body boundaries forward would be to give review body status to groups of employees who are not paid solely out of public funds. A high proportion of higher education institutions' funds come from outside. Therefore, although I pay tribute to higher education staff, I do not couple that with granting review body status, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) wishes.
  824
  I hope that ending the distinction between universities and polytechnics will not end the diversity of provision. We do not want to see an end to the distinctive mission of those universities that concentrate on, say, applied research rather than on basic research, and that have extremely close links with industry and many part-time as well as full-time students. Such institutions may also have a higher proportion of mature students and may have developed a wide range of courses. I hope that ending the distinction will mean that the whole of our higher education system will give proper regard to applied research, not just to basic research. I hope that the whole may be stimulated to develop closer links with industry and that different institutions will retain their individual ethos and, to use the Americanism, their "mission" in continuing to make their contribution to the system.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Surely the Secretary of State is not confusing parity of esteem with name changes. Is not his description of what happens in north America and western Europe a travesty of the truth? In those countries, universities-in-all-but-name proudly defend their right not to have the word "university" in their title precisely because they have parity of esteem although they may be called institutes of technology, or Technische Hochschulen in Germany. Those institutions have what might be called "equal snob value" with universities and they would shoot someone rather than be forced to change their title to "university". Is not one of the things wrong with this country in general the fact that, for marketing reasons, an institution can decide that it would be better to be called a university rather than an institute of technology or a polytechnic? That does not happen in other countries, such as Germany or the United States of America.
  The Secretary of State went on to say that such institutions could nevertheless continue their distinctive mission of providing applied science as opposed to pure academic research and science, but he must know that that is precisely what does not happen. Once an institute of technology has been allowed to change itself into a university, it tries to cover exactly the same ground as a university and moves from the applied to the pure and theoretical because that is what this country, unfortunately, with its traditions of snob values, does extremely well, but that has nothing to do with earning our living in the world outside.
  Mr. Clarke: I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's first point and agree that nobody could persuade the Massachusetts institute of technology to change its name to "university". Indeed, MIT probably regards itself as having a higher status than Boston university over the way—MIT is a particularly internationally famous higher education institution—
  Mr. Morgan: What about French and German polytechnics?
  Mr. Clarke: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that French polytechnics enjoy particularly high esteem.
  The points that I have made about marketing were put to me by polytechnic directors. To a certain extent, they reflect what is wrong. As I said at the start of my speech, that is something from which we must move away.
  However, we are not talking only about a change of title, although that change of title will help to overcome the

  825
  inert prejudices of parts of British society, albeit by conceding to them. We are also getting rid of the distinct funding arrangements. We are opening up access to research funds on an equal basis to all universities or polytechnics—whatever they call themselves—as long as they get recognition of their status. We are not forcing them to change title, but most will feel attracted to doing so. We are talking about more than a symbolic change—we are talking about amalgamating them.
  However, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) that it is likely that the polytechnics will instantly try to imitate the more traditional universities— although that was true many years ago when the colleges of advanced technology became universities. I acknowledge that that happened in some cases, but the climate of opinion has now changed. Not only have the directors of the polytechnics assured me that they have no intention of doing any such thing, but they have done so in a wholly credible fashion. The polytechnic sector is now the most successful in terms of expansion. It has been forceful and self-confident in the past few years.
  If the hon. Member for Cardiff, West is still concerned, I advise him that we shall expect the funding council to have regard to different institutions' distinctive missions when allocating funds. The funding council is perfectly entitled to take the view that it does not want an institution pointlessly to try to change its mission. We do not want everything to be set in aspic. However, I do not believe that in 1992 the risks are as the hon. Gentleman described them.
  The Bill also deals—
  Mr. Jessel rose—
  Hon. MembersAh.
  Mr. Clarke: I am nearing the point at which I shall invite my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham to intervene because, having dealt with further and higher education, I am about to turn to adult education—
  Mr. Jessel rose—
  Mr. Clarke: Before I give way, the first point that I wish to make about adult education is that the Bill makes no change whatsoever to the long-existing policy that has been adopted towards all types of adult education in this country. It represents no threat to the pattern of expansion in adult education that we have seen in the past 10 years. Vigorous campaigns have been run recently, not only by the local authority associations—as one might expect—but in association with the Women's Institute and the Workers Educational Association—which I found more surprising—suggesting that the reforms posed a threat and would change adult non-vocational education. That is not true—
  Mr. Harry Greenway rose—
  Mr. Jessel rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way first, but in a moment, to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond.
  A local education authority's duty will encompass all types of further education outside the scope of the duty of the further education funding council. That means that
  826
  there will be no diminution of the statutory duty to provide any kind of further education, including adult education. It is true that certain types of adult education will remain within the remit of the local education authorities. The LEAs will continue to receive public funds to enable them to carry out their continuing duty to provide those less formal adult courses. The funds that they have always received will continue to be made available. We are carrying out a survey of local authority spending in the year 1989–90 as the basis for deciding the division of funds between the funding council and the LEAs in the future.
  The pattern of adult education will continue as before, As now, it will be for local authorities to decide to what extent they will subsidise the fees or provide a range of courses. That remains a local authority problem. Their source of funding will not change. Their funding position will not change. Their legal powers will not change. The argument that courses will end or fees will rise as a direct result of the reforms in the Bill is totally fallacious.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell rose—
  Mr. Clarke: The level of fees and provision of courses will depend on local authority provision. Of course, some adult colleges and other colleges want to know where they will fit in in all this.
  Mr. Jessel: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, to whom I have mistakenly referred as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond—I apologise—wishes to intervene on that point.
  Mr. Jessel: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this morning my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) and I saw the Minister of State about Richmond upon Thames adult college? We put to him our united view that the excellent range of courses attended by 25,000 people at that college must be securely protected and upheld. Will either my right hon. and learned Friend or my hon. Friend the Minister of State in his reply spell out exactly how that is to be done?
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friends the Members for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) and for Twickenham have been pursuing all Ministers about that matter for a considerable time. I was delighted to hear that my hon. Friend the Minister of State had a meeting with them and covered the necessary ground—the basis on which Richmond college might, first, decide whether it wishes to seek designation under clause 16 to come within the remit of the further education funding council or, secondly, have a look at clause 6 under which it might obtain funds indirectly from the funding council. The position of the college in Richmond is best left to my hon. Friend in his reply as he spent a considerable time this morning—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Well, the colleges are all rather different. I will happily deal with the college—I expect to do so—in other contexts.
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: On Richmond?
  Mr. Fatchett: Yes.
  Mr. Clarke: Really? The hon. Gentleman is looking for a new constituency. I did not realise it. On Richmond, I will give way.
  Mr. Fatchett: I did not realise that the Secretary of State was so concerned about my future. I will stay with Leeds, Central for the moment. Perhaps the Secretary of State will be in a position to give some more information to his hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). A letter which has been drawn to my attention from the Minister of State to the hon. Member for Twickenham, dated 22 January, says:
  "I have to say that Ministers are not sure whether it"—that is the college—
  "will be best placed within the new independent further education sector or in the continuing LEA sector."
  It seems that a month later Ministers still have no reassurance for the people of Richmond and its college, which is attended by 25,000 people. The Secretary of State can provide further information. The letter goes on to say:
  "One should remember that the Councils will ordinarily fund colleges only for provision that falls within their own remit"—
  that is the remit of the further education funding council.
  Earlier the Secretary of State tried to suggest to some of his other hon. Friends that the further education funding council would be able to cover non-vocational adult education. Will he also look at schedule 2—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. This is taking unfair advantage of an intervention. Will the hon. Gentleman make his point to the Secretary of State so that he may respond?
  Mr. Fatchett: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I simply wish to say that under schedule 2 to the Secretary of State's Bill, to which he did not refer earlier, the courses provided by Richmond would not be funded directly by the further education funding council; so he needs to tell his hon. Friends what will be the position of Richmond college. It is an extremely popular college and it is clear that the Minister of State has no idea what will happen to it.
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has not followed the point or caught up with the Minister of State's letter, which is in no way inconsistent with what I have just said. The position is—
  Mr. Fatchett: What about Richmond?
  Mr. Clarke: This is relevant to Richmond, to the college in Lancaster which troubles my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and to the community colleges in Leicestershire, Cambridgeshire and Devon. I name Those three counties but they are not the only examples of colleges that offer their type of provision. However, as far as I am aware, they are the only ones with widespread provision of that type in rural areas.
  The first question is whether the college comes within that category of colleges that will transfer to the further education funding council. When I replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham a moment ago, I referred to clause 16 which determines whether further education institutions which do not automatically qualify should be incorporated. [Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) waving the letter about. He has not understood it. The fact is that in
  828
  the first instance the college must decide whether it wishes to be incorporated. It is no good descending from Leeds into Richmond and getting the provisions of the Bill and various letters around the hon. Gentleman's neck.
  As Richmond college will not be automatically incorporated, the first step is for it to decide whether it wishes to seek incorporation under clause 16. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has touched on that matter in conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham and, as the letter is his, he should be left to reply to the point later, if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  The first step is for the college to form a view about whether it is in its interest to become incorporated under clause 16. If it is not incorporated, the next step is to look for access to funding council funds under clause 6. In clause 6(5) provision is made for an institution that is under the control of not the funding council but the local authority to seek funding council money for courses provided within the terms of schedule 2. As the hon. Member for Leeds, Central correctly said, schedule 2 sets out the range of courses for which the funding council is responsible.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell rose—
  Mr. Harry Greenway rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I will not give way. I must deal with this point.
  Clause 6(5) is the one to which I have already referred as the Maxwell-Hyslop clause because the Devonians have made representations for some time on the matter. The clause sets out the procedure whereby, in the case of Devon, the community college would make a request to its further education college for funding for its pattern of provision.
  Mr. Turner: It is a nightmare.
  Mr. Clarke: It is not a nightmare. It is perfectly straightforward to everyone except those who have dreams of putting everything back into local authority control by producing typical barrack-room lawyer points. The college will apply to the further education funding council under clause 6(5) and I anticipate that in all such cases the council will act as a conduit for the moneys for provision in rural areas of the counties, as is provided at present.
  If, for some reason, the further education college did not meet the application, the provision would not be adequate, as clause 6 stipulates that it must be. The community college—to take that example—would then go directly to the funding council under clause 3(2) and ask it to consider the college's application direct to make sure that the council could discharge its duty. If the funding council failed to do so, eventually the college could come to me. However, I do not believe that that is remotely likely.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I will spell it out to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central, who is sitting there muddling his way through the Bill, so that he may have the opportunity of sorting it out by later tonight. All that the schedule means is that if a college decides not to become incorporated under clause 16 it must find some other route to seek funds. It will go first to the FE college. If, for some unexpected reason, the FE college will not arrange for the

  829
  money to be transmitted, the college will go direct to the funding council and complain on the basis that the service is inadequate.
  Mr. Fatchett: It is so complicated.
  Mr. Clarke: It is not complicated. If the Opposition are deliberately misreading rather than accidentally misunderstanding, their motives are merely to suggest that local authority bureaucracy is preferable and would make the best provision in Leeds, Wolverhampton, Grimsby and elsewhere.
  Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State has clearly come up with a simple system which he had no difficulty explaining to us. He put forward two hypotheses. One is that the FE college turns down the proposal. The other is that the proposal is made to the further education funding council. The FEFC could also turn down the proposal. The Secretary of State needs to tell the House and his hon. Friends that under clause 10—[Interruption.] I will pass the Bill across to the Secretary of State if he wants—the local authority could be asked to meet the funding. However, it must be stated clearly that the local authority is under no duty to provide the resources. Will the Secretary of State confirm that I am right about that?
  Mr. Clarke: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. Every time that I try to explain, he puts up a barrage of barracking in the hope that he can make the Bill appear more complicated than it is. He is getting there slowly.
  First, the community college applies to the further education colleges. In the vast majority of cases, further education colleges will arrange for funds in a straightforward way. It is fanciful that suddenly people will decide to upset long-standing and successful arrangements in such places as Leicestershire and Devon.
  If a further education college, for some expansionist reasons of its own, should refuse —should there be a malevolent further education college—the community college could tell the further education funding council that the system was not working properly and that adequate provision was not being made. The first situation to be faced is that the funding council is entitled to say no. There is no automatic right to public funds, even from Wolverhampton council under the present arrangements, let alone from anywhere else. However, access to the funding council—which supposedly troubles everyone—is indeed secured under clause 3(2) of the Bill. It is true that the local authority may have the power to provide, but it will not have the specific funds to do so.
  If everyone is behaving perversely, which is extremely unlikely, the college may approach the Secretary of State under clause 57(3), who may issue a direction. Their lordships did not strip me of powers of direction for further education colleges; so, in suitable circumstances, I can do that. This is piling up complications. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central fondly imagines that—
  Mr. Straw: It is complicated.
  Mr. Clarke: It is not. It is a straightforward Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, it is perfectly straightforward. The Opposition began by not reading the Bill properly and they clearly misunderstood the letters. I take their reaction
  830
  as a spirited but unsuccessful attempt to sustain local authority power over all further education, because they appear incapable of understanding the Bill.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: We have dealt with that point. No doubt we shall return to it, but I shall not return to it straightaway.
  Mr. Harry Greenway rose—
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way. I am in serious danger of taking too long. By the time that we get to the guillotine motion, that will be the source of indignant complaint.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Madame Deputy Speaker: Order. Do I understand that the Secretary of State is not giving way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way for some time, neither to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) nor to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell).
  Despite constant attempts to seek clarification on points of policy, I have succeeded in covering the policy on higher and further education and dealing, first, with the nonsense campaigns on adult education and, secondly, with serious matters raised by my hon. Friends—[Interruption.] The nonsense campaign was the campaign by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I have also tried to deal with the serious issues mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham and for Tiverton and elsewhere who have been given a serious reply and an amendment to the Bill to meet their point.
  Sir John Farr rose—
  Mr. Clarke: In discussing underlying policy we need—
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way.
  Madame Deputy Speaker: Order, I heard the Secretary of State say that he would not give way. Someone as thick-skinned as I am understands that the Secretary of State is not giving way. He means what he says.
  Mr. Clarke: I have given way a number of times. I know that I am noted for my accommodating ways and my propensity to listen, but I think that we should press on with the Bill.
  The background to the policy which I have outlined of expanding higher and further education and making no policy changes for adult education—indeed, we are paving the way for further expansions there—is that participation has already increased dramatically. We should remember the background of successful policies during the past 10 years because that explains why we require this legislation to accommodate the change. For example, in further education, 75 per cent. of 16-year-olds participated in full-time education or youth training schemes in 1989–90, compared with 46 per cent. when we came into office in 1979–80. In 1989–90, 58 per cent. of 17-year-olds participated in full-time education or youth training schemes, compared with 29 per cent. in 1979–80. Including

  831
  part-time provision, 86 per cent. of 16-year-olds participated in full-time education or youth training schemes in 1989–90. The figure of 16 per cent. participating in full-time education or youth training rises to more than 90 per cent. if private further education provision is included.
  In this country we go in for self-flagellation about our performance compared with that of western European countries, usually completely failing to compare like with like and wishing upon astonished western Europeans a perfection of provision which they do not recognise in their towns and villages or in their institutions and factories.
  More than 90 per cent. of our 16-year-olds participated in full-time education or youth training schemes in 1989–90. There are almost 50 per cent. more students in further education now than there were in 1979–80. That trend is certainly expected to continue and current forecasts are correct to indicate that there will be another 50 per cent. increase between 1990 and the year 2000.
  Education for adults has just been the subject: of an entertaining barrack-room lawyer wrangle, but it is an important and serious subject because more and more adults want to take part in courses of all kinds. During the past decade there has been a 27 per cent. increase in the number of adult enrolments, which means those of 19 or over, in all types of further education. More than 50 per cent. of those enrolments are in further education colleges, compared with under 40 per cent. in 1980.
  Our record in higher education is better known—it is one of the most spectacular changes of the Conservative decade of the 1980s. Only one in eight of our young people participated in higher education in 1979. Now it is one in four, and it will plainly be one in three by the end of the decade.
  On funding to back up that policy, there has been a real terms increase of more than 20 per cent. for further education in the past decade, and spending on further and adult education centres increased from about £610 million in 1979–80 to an estimated £1·707 billion in 1991–92. That more than 20 per cent. increase excludes spending on work-related further education, which is financed by the Department of Employment, and on higher education in local education authority colleges. Funding for higher education was up by more than 10 per cent. in each of the past three public expenditure settlements. That is a huge investment in successful expansion.
  The Government have embarked upon that investment because in our judgment it is good supply side economics. It will improve this country's economic performance if we invest such public resources in the steady expansion of further and higher education. Obviously it is right that we should insist on cost-effective use of that money, and cost-effective expansions would do so.
  The Bill will pave the way for further expansion of higher education and further education of all kinds, and will not lead to any contraction. I shall leave the detailed provisions of the Bill, which we shall no doubt discuss in the lengthy Committee stage for which our guillotine makes provision.
  The Bill makes one important point which is not politically controversial—it makes important provision for educating people with disabilities. The Government's policy is that disability should not be a bar to access to further or higher education. The Bill is designed to
  832
  maintain that position and has been strengthened in another place by amendments on that subject which the Government accepted—they were not forced upon us.
  Students with learning difficulties will be able to benefit from the range of opportunities which will be available in the new further education sector. The Bill strengthens existing substantial duties to provide for that group of students and provides a suitable framework within which provision for them can be maintained and developed.
  Specifically, the Government have imposed an additional duty on the funding councils over the use of placements for students with learning difficulties, up to the age of 25, in specialist independent colleges. We have also added to the responsibilities of the funding councils in relation to courses for those students in independent living and communication skills.
  I have underlined the non-controversial point and that brings the House back to a calm appreciation of the importance of our legislating sensibly for higher and further education to provide for the expansion that we all want to see.
  I should mention the Lords amendments which were carried against the wishes of the Government and upon which we have reflected carefully. The Bishop of Guildford, with the support of a number of my noble Friends and other noble Members of the other place, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, tabled a provision relating to religious education and acts of collective worship in sixth form colleges. That is a difficult matter. The amendment established provision to match the existing legal duties on sixth form colleges—in fact, it eases them slightly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I note what my hon. Friends say; indeed, the Government have decided that they will not attempt to reverse their lordships' decision. I learnt with particular astonishment that the amendment was supported by those on the Labour Front Bench in another place.
  Another lengthy debate in another place concerned academic independence and the supposed significance of clauses that gave condition-making powers on grants and direction-making powers to the Secretary of State regarding the higher education funding council.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I know that the hon. Gentleman follows matters relating to higher education and research closely and, if he will allow me to continue, I am sure that I shall address the point that he intends to raise.
  There was an extremely animated debate in the other place about academic freedom. I know that a number of my hon. Friends would be anxious to sustain it here were that issue to be reopened. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) has already mentioned this matter to me, and he is by no means the only one.
  I still do not believe that the Bill, as originally drafted, posed any threat to academic freedom. The clauses upon which the debate centred were technical ones designed to clarify powers that had already been given to the Government by Parliament in 1988. Nevertheless, visions were raised of future Secretaries of State, whether right wing or left wing, seeking to hire and fire lecturers, bar individual students, close courses and undertake a number of other things which, in my opinion, were never remotely raised as possibilities in the Bill.

  833
  Certain matters arise when the Secretary of State must account to Parliament for the use of public moneys when, occasionally, he must seek to ensure that even a funding council uses such moneys for the purpose for which Parliament intended. The Secretary of State has to account for those moneys.
  There are occasions—I do not claim that it is so in this case with my noble Friends —when academic freedom is discussed, as clinical freedom is sometimes discussed, as a subterfuge for people saying, "Do give us the money and stop asking what has gone on and how we have accounted for it." However, after a prolonged debate, the Government were defeated on that matter. I have considered the amendments and I am perfectly disposed to accept them, and I trust that they will prove adequate to allow a Secretary of State of this or any other Government to account to the House.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn is entitled to enjoy the sight of the Government being defeated in another place. However, in the highly unlikely and undesirable case of the hon. Gentleman ever becoming Secretary of State for Education and Science, I am confident that he would table exactly the same clause as I did. I am sure that he would be distinctly annoyed to find that powers of accounting for public money were hacked away on the grounds of academic independence.
  In this case, the Government will accept the judgment of their lordships and we will not seek to reverse their decision.
  Mr. Dalyell: What can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say to Court of Appeal judges such as Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who expressed concern about the use of the affirmative resolution procedure in relation to clause 77? Please forgive me for intruding as a Scot who is immersed in the Scotland Bill, but I believe that issue is of concern to all of us.
  Mr. Clarke: I have the highest regard for Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who has had a highly distinguished legal career and who is certainly a better lawyer than I am. However, his opinion about the application of the law to universities in relation to the Bill was not always beyond controversy. Nevertheless, I would not argue with his opinion.
  Lord Simon played an influential part in the debates that led their lordships to believe that it was necessary to amend the Bill. Their lordships now accept the Bill as it stands and the Government, upon reflection, have also decided to do so. We have not recommended any changes to the House. There the matter rests, but with the greatest respect to all those concerned, I believe that those who were anxious about academic freedom have carried the day rather more than they needed to; hence the Bill now appears in its present form.
  Sooner or later the House will start to demand of the Secretary of State that he should account for some extraordinary use of public money. However, he will have to turn around and say that those powers were taken from him as a result of amendments to the Bill in another place. Let us hope that the present outcome is satisfactory. Certainly the Government would resist going any further.
  The Bill, as it now stands, will enable us to continue the rapid advance in the expansion of opportunities, range of
  834
  courses and provision for young people and for adults. It will result in more and better education for 16 to 18-year-olds and for adults. It will lead to greater choice as colleges become more responsive to local demand. It will provide a better deal for students with learning difficulties. It will also provide for greater choice in higher education.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: It is a rare pleasure to be able to welcome part of a Bill introduced by the Government. I welcome unreservedly that part of it which contains the policy for which the Labour party has argued for many years—the creation of a single funding council to take over the work of the existing Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on higher education he moved amendments in the Committee considering the Education Reform Bill to rid us of the binary divide in higher education. He said that we should get rid of the binary divide and set up one funding body. I am sorry to say that those amendments for the establishment of a single funding body for higher education were resisted by the Government. The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary responsible for higher education, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), said that there were not only practical but philosophical objections to ending the binary divide because there was, "a differentiation of mission between the two sectors of higher education"—[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 24 March 1988; c. 1492.]
  In the past four years, the philosophical objections to that change have been shown to be the nonsense that they always were, while the practical case for ending that binary divide has become so overwhelming that even the Government have been forced to acknowledge it.
  Dr. Hampson: It is not fair for the hon. Gentleman to make such a petty party point when the philosophical distinction was created by a Labour Government through Tony Crosland and then perpetuated and argued in favour of throughout the 1970s by the then Minister of State for Education and Science, Mr. Gerry Fowler. We all have that in common. Frankly, the hon. Gentleman should welcome the fact that we now have a consensus about degree-awarding status and the change of title. Given that the preparatory work has reached such a stage in the polytechnics, will the hon. Gentleman guarantee that he will cause no further delay to the Bill so that we can get it through before the general election?
  Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that I have been inconsistent, let me take him back 25 years to the statements I made against the proposals of Mr. Anthony Crosland to create a binary divide, as enunciated in his Woolwich speech of January 1967. I happened to think that he was wrong, even though he was a member of my party. I have remained of that opinion.
  I was not seeking to make a petty point. I only wish that, sometimes, Ministers and their colleagues would listen to the force of our argument. This is not a partisan, party political issue, but the case for ending the binary divide was as strong four years ago as it is today. A good deal was lost by not ending the divide then.
  We welcome a sinner who repents and we welcome this late conversion unreservedly. The hon. Member for Leeds,

  835
  North-West (Dr. Hampson) asked me what co-operation we intend to give for the passage of the Bill. If all that the Bill contained related to our policy in respect of higher education, for which there is widespread consensus, it would have had an unopposed Second Reading and it could have become law already. Sadly, that is not the case.
  I shall deal later with the inadequacy of the Bill to ensure academic standards and the protection of academic freedom, but first I must comment on the issue of names, a subject to which I hope the Secretary of State will give further thought. I have considered carefully the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks about university titles for those remaining colleges of higher education which are not polytechnics. I have noted his remarks about, in his view, the inappropriateness of using the term "university college" because he thinks that it will be confused, for example, with university colleges in Wales and other constituent parts of existing universities.
  I ask him to think again and particularly to take account of the precedent of the old university college of North Staffordshire, now Keele university, because that was a very small institution which was just a collection of Nissen huts. It was not called a university college for 10 or 15 years before becoming a university, and there has been no confusion about its nomenclature and those constituent colleges of the university of Wales. Indeed, the name itself helped the establishment of that institution. There will be a problem if there are to be a few colleges—Edgehill college of higher education, Nene college in Northampton and others—which, in a sense, from the name point of view, are wholly separate from the rest of the university sector.
  A sad aspect of the Bill is the fact that, although in higher education the Government are ending one binary divide, which is welcome. they are creating two others in further and adult education. Further education is to be riven by a bureaucratic split between locally funded school-based sixth forms and centrally controlled further education and sixth form colleges. Adult education is to be pulled asunder by an artificial, irrational divide between work-related and so-called leisure courses.
  At the end of the debate in another place, my noble Friend Baroness Blackstone said that no good educational arguments had been put forward throughout the extensive debates in that House as to why further education should be taken out of local authority control. I have read virtually every page of the Official Report of the debates in the other place, and Baroness Blackstone was absolutely right, for no such arguments exist.
  The Government's proposals for further and adult education lack popular support. The Government have no mandate for them. It is no good the Secretary of State—as he tried to do in his speech—claiming in support the further education principals, because there are other people with interests in further education colleges apart from the principals.
  I am a governor of a large college of further education, a tertiary college, Blackburn college. That college, like every other, has a majority of governors representing business interests. Only 20 per cent. of the representatives are from the local education authority. The Secretary of State will know, because he has received a letter to the effect, that there was a welcome for corporate status. With one reservation, we also welcomed it, as I have made clear. We are not dismissing the Bill simply because we did not invent it. There was a high degree of scepticism in that
  836
  governing body over the fact that financing from Preston, which is democratically accountable, will be replaced by an unaccountable regional advisory body and by control from Whitehall.
  The Secretary of State, who is supposed to believe in open government—we now have the citizens charter—has treated the House and those interested in the subject with great contempt in not publishing the responses that he has received to the Bill. I do not understand why he has refused to do that. The Home Secretary did it with responses, not from individuals but from institutions, concerned with the Education Reform Act 1988, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have done the same with this measure.
  Mr. Flannery: Frit.
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is correct; he is usually correct in his observations.
  Further education colleges are among the great unsung successes of the English education system. They are all local in character, serving local needs. Local people without exception have established, maintained and expanded those colleges. They have often been local councillors, articulating and meeting the wishes of their electors.
  Four years ago, the contribution of local authorities was recognised even by Ministers. The then Minister of State, now a Minister at the Home Office, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), said in commending section 120 of the Education Reform Act, which gave local authorities new powers in respect of further education, that she had great confidence that local authorities would fulfil their duty to promote further education, and she commended the previous record of LEAs, as had many Conservative Members.
  She was right to pay that tribute because for, more than 13 years, the LEAs and further education colleges under them, and sixth form colleges, had operated in a vacuum. There had been no national policy for further education. Indeed, further education had grown and developed despite, rather than because of, the Government. The Secretary of State came close to admitting that in his opening remarks when he said that further education had
  been comparatively neglected.
  The shift to tertiary education—to sixth form colleges—in place of unviable sixth forms, has been of great importance in increasing participation rates and opportunities in many areas, as has happened in my constituency, and that shift has occurred as a result of local initiatives rather than as a result of national policy.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It may be a small point, but the hon. Gentleman has a mannerism of constantly slightly misquoting me to make his case. I said that further education had been neglected in political debate. As part of his strange mannerism, he turned that into some kind of acknowledgement that we neglected the financing of further education when the figures I gave showed clearly that we had not. We have expanded financing in real terms and presided over a spectacular increase in the number of students in the decade we have been in power.
  Mr. Straw: The record will show whether I quoted the right hon. and learned Gentleman correctly. I had no interest in misquoting him. He makes enough comments against himself for me to quote him correctly. I noted him

  837
  saying that further education had been comparatively neglected. The word "finance" did not pass my lips when I repeated his statement, although, as it happens and as the departmental report which he published last week made clear, further education funding per student has gone down in the past three or four years.
  The further education system has developed and expanded, as I pointed out. There has been a shift to tertiary colleges and that has been of enormous importance in increasing the opportunities available, especially for 16 to 19-year-olds, in many areas. That has happened despite, rather than because of, the Government.
  The Department of Education and Science has dragged its feet for years over reorganisation and has failed to change the outdated and archaic procedure for reorganising schools and colleges. For the last four years, any local authority seeking to deal with the problem of unviable sixth forms in its area, to provide for and expand opportunities for 16 to 19-year-olds, has faced the astonishing dilemma that if it named a school's sixth form for closure, that school could then seek to opt out, and Ministers have been known to be capricious in deciding whether to accept or reject such opt-out proposals.
  We saw, for example, how, in the city of Bath opportunities for 16 to 19-year-olds were wrecked by the capricious decision of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor to allow the Beecham Cliff school to opt out. Successive Secretaries of State have failed properly to fund further education—that fact is acknowledged at any rate by some with knowledge of the system—especially in respect of the capital, the building stock, of further education.
  If there are no good educational arguments for the change to central control of further education, one wonders why the Secretary of State is going down this road and is intending to split responsibility for 16 to 19 provision. There are two reasons for that. The first can be answered in two words, poll tax, a point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman failed to mention.
  The Government's policy was first announced to the House on 21 March of last year, not by the Secretary of State for Education and Science but by the Secretary of State for the Environment. We recall that extraordinary day when five statements were made, all brought together out of the panic of the Secretary of State for the Environment and his Cabinet colleagues trying to solve the dilemma of the poll tax.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It is not true.
  Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State announced it, so he must have a defective memory. I shall refresh it, as policemen say in the witness box. The evidence is on the record to prove that the Secretary of State for the Environment came to the Dispatch Box first and announced what would happen to further education. He left the Secretary of State for Education and Science to give the details but the reason for the policy was announced by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
  Mr. Clarke: No, no, no.
  Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State appears to have forgotten that.
  Mr. Clarke: I shall make no more remarks about policemen and notebooks. If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, he will see that I made a statement explaining the policy. It may have been a fortuitous coincidence that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made an announcement on the same day, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is producing a conspiracy theory that we introduced that policy only because of the community charge, he is sadly mistaken. The day that I came into office I was determined to introduce such a policy because of the success of the polytechnic policy, of which I had been so firmly in favour some years before.
  Mr. Straw: I cannot speak for the Secretary of State's private thoughts on the day that he came into office, and I should not wish to intrude on those except to say that he must have been in a state of shock when he took office on 2 November 1990. He will have been as surprised as anyone else to get the job.
  I shall quote the Secretary of State for the Environment—it is no more a misquotation than when I quoted the Secretary of State for Education a moment ago—whose statement was made before the Secretary of State for Education and Science made his statement in the House on 21 March 1991. He said:
  "The reduction in the local tax burden and the correspondingly larger contribution from central taxation announced in my right hon. Friend's Budget statement"— that meant an increase in value added tax to 17·5 pence in the pound—
  "imply a need to consider whether a number of functions should now be brought into or financed directly by central Government."
  As the right hon. Gentleman denies the idea of centralisation, we should weigh the words
  "brought into or financed directly by central Government."
  The statement continues:
  "That would be without further changes to the balance between central and local taxation.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is bringing forward today proposals for such a transfer in one area of his responsibility."—[0fficial Report, 21 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 402.]
  There is no question about the fact that it was to do with the poll tax. The Secretary of State knows that and the Secretary of State for the Environment said it.
  Mr. Clarke: Do not be ridiculous.
  Mr. Straw: It is on the record. What is more, had there been a complete separation of thought between the transfer of about £2 billion of funding and the need to get the Government out of a hole on the poll tax, why on earth did the Secretary of State allow that statement to be made on the same day as all the other statements on the poll tax? The Secretary of State for the Environment stole his thunder.
  Mr. Clarke: Before this kooky theory runs any further, may I say that I went on to make a statement and announced the policy. The quotation that the hon. Gentleman read from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment does not say that I made a statement because of the need to transfer further education spending from local to central Government taxation. I introduced such a policy and it has been adopted by the Government. It was announced on the same day because it happened to switch some of the expenditure from local to central Government, but it did not put further

  839
  education under central control. The only reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made his statement first was convention: he is senior in the Government. Regrettably, on that day there was far more interest in the announcement on the community charge than in the vital matter of the reform of further education.
  Mr. Straw: I am not sure what a jury would make of the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, but my view is that he is guilty as charged. As we have a corroborated confession statement, voluntarily offered before consenting adults in the House, we have the Secretary of State "bang to rights". If the Secretary of State does not like us saying that that is why he took that route—I have no doubt that that was the reason as it was how Government publicity managers and the Secretary of State presented it on that day—the Secretary of State cannot wriggle out of it.
  The second reason why the Secretary of State has gone down that odd route of taking central control over further education is his obsession, as we heard again this afternoon, about local councillors. It verges on paranoia. He cannot speak about local councils without sneering at them. When he does so, he sneers at the rights of local people to elect their representatives and have a say in the running of their areas.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
  The Secretary of State's contempt is even greater for Conservative councils than for Labour ones. No one has ever said that local councils should have complete control over the education service, but they should have a say in it and their right, as elected representatives, is significant. A substantial part of further education should not be passed to unaccountable, unelected quangos, as the Secretary of State proposes. His failure to acknowledge that right has already led him into a policy that is grievous to him—the privatisation of the schools inspectorate—and I regret to say that it is leading him into another.
  In a few weeks' time, Ministers and Conservative Members will expect Conservative councillors to work for them in an attempt to bring them back into office. It may be sensible if they listen to what their Conservative colleagues in local government have to say about the Bill. For example, the Prime Minister's Conservative-controlled local authority, Cambridgeshire, said:
  "There is widespread and deep concern in both the FE and schools sector that the proposals are fundamentally flawed, that they lack a convincing and cogent rationale and that ultimately they will not work".
  The Secretary of State was disparaging when I suggested that that would lead to central control—a phrase that the Secretary of State for the Environment seemed to imply.
  Conservative-controlled Essex council said:
  "In reality, the apparently free-standing colleges would be controlled by new remote national councils in England and Wales which would, in turn, be controlled by their respective Secretary of State who would appoint their membership, and ration their funding. This represents an unhealthy centralisation of power over a service that is essentially concerned with meeting the needs of individuals locally".
  Mr. Dunn: I wanted to take up the hon. Gentleman's point about contempt for local authorities. Was there not contempt in circular No. 1066, which required local authorities to go comprehensive under a Labour
  840
  Government? Was there not contempt for local education authorities in the Education Act 1976, which compelled local education authorities to go comprehensive? Is there not contempt now for local authorities in Labour party policies—and a future Labour Government, if ever elected— which would compel local education authorities to go comprehensive against the wishes of the local authority and elected representatives?
  Mr. Straw: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would say that. Incidentally, it was circular No. 1065. Nothing in what I have said is inconsistent with the suggestion that admission arrangements for schools should be settled by the House. That has happened under this Government as much as under previous Governments. I understand the hon. Gentleman's embarrassment, especially in his constituency, because on the one hand he says that he wants to keep grammar schools but on the other some of the 106 grammar schools closed by this Government were closed when he was a Minister responsible for education. In the 13 years since 1979, 106 grammar schools have been closed.
  There are enormous objections to the scheme for taking over further education specified in the Bill. The Secretary of State has sought to justify the scheme by saying that it is based on the experience of the polytechnics. As was explained at enormous length in another place, there is no parallel between the position of the polytechnics and that of further education and sixth form colleges. The polytechnics were national institutions. For eight years before they went into the polytechnic and colleges funding sector there was a quasi-national arrangement under the national advisory board in which the local authorities participated. For years before that, there was the advanced further education pool, which ensured that there was a system of national funding, although local authorities were responsible individually for the institutions in their area. Therefore, there was a long history of build-up towards a national system.
  We supported the final removal of the polytechnics from the local government sector to the polytechnic and colleges funding sector. By 1988 it seemed anomalous that they should be responsible to their local authority, because they were national institutions. There are only 80 of those institutions, including small colleges, compared with 550 sixth form and further education colleges. All those FE and sixth form colleges are local and serve local needs.
  Contrary to what the Secretary of State said, he should be aware that the greatest proportional expansion in polytechnics took place between 1980 and 1988 when they were under local authority control. There was approaching a 40 per cent. increase in the number of full-time students attending polytechnics. It was just as well that that took place. Although I welcome the Government's present policy to expand higher education, that has not always been their policy since 1979.
  At the beginning of this Administration, when the Secretary of State was Sir Keith Joseph, there was a policy not of the expansion but of the contraction of higher education. Paradoxically, the part of the system that was supposed to be the most autonomous, the university sector, maintained its numbers more or less level while the local authority controlled polytechnics met the expanded demand. The expansion was led and met by local authorities, albeit with some benign support from some people in the Department of Education and Science.
  Mr. George Walden: The hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to the polytechnics for taking the burden of the expansion—and it was a burden at that time. In all fairness, however, he should praise the Government a little and perhaps give even a tiny sliver of praise to former Ministers responsible for higher education for gently encouraging the polytechnic system along that road by firmly steering them towards cutting their unit costs.
  Mr. Straw: I said that the expansion was supported by part of the Department of Education and Science. I am sorry that I did not mention the hon. Gentleman by name, but I am happy to do so now and to commend him for his role. I hope that that does not damage him too much in the forthcoming general election.
  There is no parallel with the polytechnics. Because of that, the Government are having to accept a much higher degree of bureaucratic control for the further education sector than exists with the polytechnics. For years the polytechnics have been effectively running themselves. They have effective, sound, central administrations.
  The problem with the further education sector is that it is variable. The college of which I am a governor has a substantial administration. I fully support that under devolved management from Lancashire county council it has much greater day-to-day autonomy. That is welcomed by all. It can run itself, and I look forward to its receiving corporate status. There are smaller further education colleges—for example, one in Coventry that disastrously ran off the rails and was saved only by local authority intervention. Some sixth form colleges have no administration—
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): No free-standing administration.
  Mr. Straw: No free-standing administration. I am grateful to the Minister for that correction.
  Because there are 550 colleges, we should recognise the need for much closer day-to-day bureaucratic control from the funding councils and the regional bodies than there is in respect of the polytechnics. In truth, the Government are replacing locally elected authorities with unelected regional and national bodies for running further education.
  The third objection is that the elimination of local authority involvement will lead to a duplication of facilities for further education and 16 to 19-year-old provision. It will remove the dynamic for change that has been there until now. The local authorities have been the midwives of change. The Secretary of State winces at the suggestion, but it is true. I know that he does not like local authorities, but he must acknowledge that they do some good. In one area after another local authorities have recognised when sixth forms have become unviable and have made proposals for transferring sixth form work to local sixth form colleges or further education colleges. It has often been difficult. Some schools will always object to the removal of their sixth forms, but it is widely recognised in Conservative and Labour-controlled areas that, in general, where a switch to tertiary education has occurred, it has led to a great improvement in and expansion of the opportunities, both academic and vocational. There is no question about that.
  842
  One of the major defects of the Bill is that no body or institution has responsibility for securing that change. Small sixth forms will carry on despite high unit costs and will be unable to offer a range of courses. The whole system may atrophy.
  The fourth objection to the FE provisions is that the Bill paves the way for future Secretaries of State or colleges to end free education for 16 to 19-year-olds. We have expressed our concern about creeping privatisation in the education system. Under the Education Reform Act 1988 education in schools, including those for 16 to 18-year-olds, must be free. There is no similar provision in respect of further education. Education for 16 to 19-year-olds has been provided free as a matter of practice, not as a matter of law.
  In the other place Lord Peston, because sixth form colleges are to be removed from the school system, moved amendments to make the law clear beyond peradventure that education would continue to be free for 16 to 19-year-olds, regardless of whether it took place in schools, sixth form colleges or FE colleges. I regret to say that, although the amendment was carefully drafted, the Minister, Lord Belstead, resisted it. He gave an undertaking that it was not the intention to change the practice. I am afraid to say that we have all heard that sort of undertaking: it was not the intention to double VAT.
  In reply to the debate, Lord Peston said:
  "This issue concerns the fundamental principle that education in the compulsory sector and in the full-time post-16 sector should be and must be guaranteed to be free." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 January 1992; c. 172.]
  As there is a major question about whether the law is adequate to guarantee that education for 16 to 19-year-olds should be free, I should like to hear from the Secretary of State that he is ready to accept an amendment similar to that moved by Lord Peston to make it free regardless of where it takes place.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: As the law stands, the Government could at any time have pressed for the introduction of fees for further education for 16 to 18-year-olds in FE colleges. We never have. It is not our policy to charge fees for further education. We are completely committed not to introduce fees for further education. All this is a bit of a red herring.
  Mr. Straw: I am not sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the point. Far from being a red herring, the matter was debated extensively in the other place. If there is no intention of charging young people for their education beyond 16, why will the Secretary of State not consider the amendment that was carefully drafted and put forward by Lord Peston in the other place and accept it in Committee?
  The fifth objection is that these proposals contain no clear policy for increasing participation rates. The Secretary of State made heavy weather of the current figures on participation rates. He tried to include young people on youth training schemes to dress up the figures. I have with me the latest volume of educational statistics. Although they show a welcome improvement, the proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education—not just youngsters doing their GCSE resits—in 1989 was 37 per cent. That is below any other major industrialised country mentioned in the DES table.

  843
  The Secretary of State himself admitted that the current situation is far from satisfactory. When he finally got round to making a statement, on 21 March last year, after the Secretary of State for the Environment, he said:
  "We still lag behind our competitors in the participation of our school leavers in further education and training and their achievement of useful qualifications."—[Official Report, 21 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 432.]
  I am glad that Ministers realise that we are at the bottom of the league.
  We would do what the Trades Union Council and the Confederation of British Industry have been urging, which is to set clear targets with the aim of achieving, over five years, a situation in which 80 per cent. of young people obtain what is called national vocational qualification level 2, roughly equivalent to 5 GCSEs, grade A to C, and over a 10-year period 50 per cent. achieve NVQ level 3.
  The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), in December 1989, committed the Government to such targets as a matter of policy, but those commitments were ratted on only a month later by the then Prime Minister and by the current Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). We believe that targets should be set and adhered to by Government and local authorities and that they should be the basis for funding and for expansion of the system.
  The sixth objection is that, while the Secretary of State and the White Paper talk in fine phrases of ending the academic and vocational divide, there is nothing in the Bill about ending it. All that is proposed is a piece of elastoplast to stretch over the distinction between A-levels and vocational qualifications. That elastoplast is to be called an advanced diploma when what is needed is a merging, an integration, of the academic and the
  vocational examination systems, as we proposed, well ahead of the Government, in our advanced certificate of education and training. We propose a single examining authority which would bring together the National Council for Vocational Qualifications and that part of the schools examination assessment council dealing with 16-plus examinations.
  Mr. Walden: This is not a frivolous intervention. I am quite impressed by the Labour party's recognition of the need to stream in secondary schools as between the academic, the vocational and the technological, if I have understood the hon. Gentleman correctly. That is very much in the thrust of Government policy, although it goes only halfway. What is the logic of doing that at secondary level and then creating what I would regard as a dangerous mush between the academic and the technological and vocational at a higher level?
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman, I know, writes for The Daily Telegraph and evidently he also reads it, but he should not always believe what is written in it. I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of our proposals both for key stage 4 and for post-16.
  Mr. James Pawsey rose—
  Mr. Straw: It is quite important that I get on, because many hon. Members wish to speak. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, if he insists, but it is taking up other hon. Members' time.
  The right hon. Gentleman closed off once again the question of the reform of A-levels. This has been proposed
  844
  widely, not only by the Opposition but by Conservative Members as well. We want the Government to accept the proposals made in the Higginson report, which the Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), was ready to endorse on behalf of the Government until his opinion was countermanded by the then Prime Minister. The Secretary of State is virtually alone in seeking to maintain support for the over-specialised three-subject A-levels. The vice chancellors want reform, the directors of polytechnics want reform, most employers want reform and not only do those involved in the state school system and the further education system want reform but so do, for example, the Girls' Schools Association and many Conservative local education authorities.
  The case for reforming A-levels is not about reducing standards, because the five-subject A-level would be more stretching, tougher on most students, than the three-subject A-level. The case for the reform of A-levels, as Higginson proposed, is that it would end this over-specialisation at 16-plus, which ensures that a very large proportion of our brightest youngsters leave full-time education between the ages of 16 and 19 without adequate education, particularly in science and technology subjects.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can be saying that the Labour party supports Higginson; I do not think that anybody supports Higginson any more. The hon. Gentleman is evading the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). He is describing the abolition of A-levels and their replacement by one system of examinations for all 18-year olds, whatever their aptitude, ability or inclination, because he cannot stand the idea of distinguishing between the academic and the vocational. Does he really think that by the age of 18 every young man and woman can be expected to take the same examination or enter into the same system of qualifications without damaging the standard of the A-levels, which he so dislikes?
  Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State completely fails to understand the issue. It is a matter not just of understanding our policy but of understanding the argument against three-subject A-levels. We have supported the five-subject A-level for almost as long as the Higginson report has been published. If the Secretary of State wishes to end the academic and vocational divide and is serious about that, there is no reason why there should not be different examinations which cater for young people with a vocational bent, or for those with an academic bent, or for those who wish to follow some subjects of an academic nature and some of a vocational nature—
  Mr. Pawsey rose—
  Mr. Straw: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment because he is always very persistent.
  There is no reason why that range of opportunities should not come under the umbrella of a single examining board. Indeed, if that is not done, we will not break down the academic and vocational divide. That is the experience in France and in many other countries.
  Mr. Pawsey: If the hon. Gentleman has his way and abolishes A-levels, what will the implications be for the existing three-year degree of his five-subject A-level course?
  Mr. Straw: It is not our five-subject A-level course; it is the Higginson committee's. That committee was set up by this Administration, reporting to this Administration, and whose recommendations Education Ministers wanted to accept in 1988. The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that the vice-chancellors and the directors of polytechnics want the five-subject A-level because they realise that it will mean that their students will be far better educated and prepared for higher education than they are at the moment.
  Let me deal briefly with the issue of adult education. Adult education, as the Secretary of State finally, although reluctantly, admitted, has been in many ways a credit to local education authorities in this country. Some people have described it as the jewel in the crown in the work of local education authorities. It is a service which has developed locally, like further education, and has been wholly neglected by Government.
  The proposals in the White Paper and in the Bill threaten the whole structure and delivery of adult education. It is no good the Secretary of State dismissing all the objections to his proposals as nonsense. I am very glad to have acknowledgement of what I am saying by the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). One cannot just dismiss the views of local education authorities, Conservative as well as Labour, of students in adult education and of associations of a non-partisan, non-political nature, such as the women's institutes and the Women's Royal Voluntary Service. One cannot dismiss the 6 million people who take part in adult education as having objections which are nonsensical, as the Secretary of State has sought to do, as if they had invented the proposals which the Secretary of State explained so poorly to the House earlier this afternoon.
  The truth is that Ministers never properly considered the impact of these proposals on the adult education service. They were put in as a postscript and never considered. If they had considered them they should never have come forward with these proposals.
  Sir John Farr: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because it gives me an opportunity that the Secretary of State denied me to tell the hon. Gentleman that the adult education proposals have been put to Leicestershire education authority since I saw the Minister last week. The authority unanimously turned them down as being totally inadequate.
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who usually fully supports the Government. In addition, Leicestershire county council is not a Labour authority. If the Secretary of State cannot convince his hon. Friends about the sense of the proposal, he cannot convince anybody. That is because the proposal is plainly daft. It is fundamentally flawed in distinguishing between what is work related and what is leisure related.
  The Secretary of State said that the Bill does not cut a line between one part of adult education and another. But it does, and that is clearly shown by the drafting contortions in schedule 2, which lays down the courses that will come under the further education funding council. It is ludicrous, farcical, that because a course for
  846
  basic literacy in English or to improve the knowledge of English of those for whom English is not the language spoken at home comes within the ambit of the further education funding council, a German who wants to learn English will get the money from the FEFC but an English person who wants to learn German, but not in pursuit of a GCSE, has to get the money from the LEA. How will that affect those who deliver adult education? The Secretary of State sought to explain this bureaucratic circus, this monstrosity that he has invented, but I am afraid that not only were we not convinced but few of his hon. Friends were.
  Let us look at the case of someone who attends a flower arranging course. On the face of it, flower arranging seems to be a leisure-related rather than a work-related course. During the course, someone might discover an aptitude for flower arranging and decide to become a florist. Who will fund that course? What about cake decoration? To begin with, a person following such a course might do so out of interest and might later decide to become a caterer and work for a qualification. Who will fund that? These are serious questions.
  Mr. Elliot Morley: In his speech, the Secretary of State did not allow an intervention on Humberside where there is a large adult education centre. It is devolved to the rural areas, including the rural parts of my constituency. It will be split in two, with half the vocational courses going to the funding council and half being left with the LEA. When they are split in half, they lose the infrastructure of the outstations and small colleges, which they maintain, and they lose half the staff. They have to go cap in hand to the college which has vocational courses. What happens if they are not relinquished? The proposal cuts the service in half and threatens courses in rural areas.
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. The Secretary of State said that the proposals for adult education were "straightforward". I say to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) that they are as straightforward as the maze at Hampton Court.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I fail to see what is complicated beyond understanding in Humberside college having to obtain funding from two sources. If two sources support different courses, that does not have the consequences that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) claims. A cake-making course is a ridiculous example. If a local authority finances such a course, and sets fees, which it can do, it does not have to strike off the course a student who suddenly decides that he wants a cake-making qualification. This is a nonsensical campaign about a part of the Bill and the reforms which do not affect the ordinary provision of adult education in anything like the way that the hon. Gentleman seeks to claim.
  Mr. Straw: It is not a nonsensical campaign. If there was any merit in the Secretary of State's proposals, it would be reasonable to suggest that any of his hon. Friends would support him. Not one sought to speak in support of his proposals.
  Mr. Harry Greenway rose—
  Mr. Straw: I shall not give way because I wish to make progress. There is enormous scepticism and a great deal of opposition to the proposal, and the Minister knows that as well as I do.
  I shall deal briefly with higher education. The first issue is quality control. During the debate on the Queen's Speech, the Secretary of State sought to assert that quality control in higher education could be adequately protected simply by using the funding council. He failed to see any reason for distinguishing between those involved in quality control and those involved in funding. I am glad to say that, in the other place, the Government accepted the need for some separation in terms of quality control because the quality control committees of the funding council will have to have a majority of members who are not drawn from that council. In Committee, we shall table amendments to seek to make quality control quite separate from the funding councils, because that is the best way to ensure the proper maintenance of standards.
  We were glad to hear that the Secretary of State had finally accepted the arguments in favour of controls on his power to dictate to individual institutions. The original powers were not minor. There was a try-on in 1988 and the powers were potentially monstrous. We are glad that the Minister has accepted the Beloff amendment. However, there is great merit in the amendment moved by Lord Simon of Glaisdale in the other place for affirmative resolution control on the use of the powers. We shall table such amendments in Committee.
  The Government have no mandate for the Bill, which represents a centralising and authoritarian takeover of local colleges and the replacement of local accountability by a new, untried and bureaucratic system under the Department of Education and Science. They have no mandate to railroad the measure through under the guillotine that will be debated later. The further education sections of the Bill are fatally flawed. They have no educational justification but were born of the poll tax. We may not defeat the Bill, but it is one more reason why we shall defeat the Government in the coming election.
  6.36 pm
  Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: There is much in the Bill which is to the credit of the Secretary of State who conceived it. Unhappily, he has knowingly and deliberately polluted it with a breach of principle so serious as to render the Bill itself unacceptable, and it is to that which I shall direct my attention. It is concerned with the community colleges. May I mention in passing that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State appears to be under the mistaken impression that community colleges are confined to rural areas? His actual words were: "In rural areas, we will have community colleges." The city of Plymouth is not a rural area. Does he mean that the college there will be closed? Is that the Government's intention?
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: No, nor, as I have sought to explain, do the provisions which I suspect my hon. Friend slightly misunderstands pollute the Bill in the way in which he feels strongly that they do. The Government have no intention of closing Plymouth college, and nothing in the Bill need lead to any change in the arrangements at that college. The funding council will make its arrangements for provision as it judges best in accordance with the Bill's
  848
  provisions. I think that that meets my hon. Friend's point. The proposals were amended at one stage to try to meet his point.
  Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: If the Bill had been produced at very short notice and introduced first to the House, it might have been possible to assent to it on Second Reading in the reasonable hope and expectation that it would be acceptably amended in Committee. But that is not its history. Early in September, having ascertained that that was not too late to secure alteration to the Bill, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller), who for more than 12 years has taken a constructive interest in public sector education, took a deputation of five community college principals to see the Secretary of State.
  The important breach of principle is this. It is an elementary principle of natural justice that an arbitrator must never have a personal interest in the result of his arbitration. I would have hoped that that principle could not be denied by anyone in this House. It is that principle which the Secretary of State has knowingly and deliberately breached.
  The community colleges have to submit funding applications to arbitrators, that is to say, to further education colleges, who themselves have a perfectly natural and proper interest in attracting maximum course funding for themselves so as to spread their overhead costs over the largest possible number of courses. They are arbitrators because they are not automatic forwarders of such applications to the funding councils. They have an incentive not to do so. So the principle of natural justice, that an arbitrator must not have a personal interest in the outcome of his arbitration, is violated, and that pollutes the Bill unacceptably.
  I have the distinct impression, which I cannot escape after five months of negotiation and correspondence with my right hon. and learned Friend over this, that he resents the fact that the actual pattern of education in some parts of Britain is different from his conceptual pattern which he wishes existed instead. Community colleges are an extremely intelligent way of using resources because the physical structure of the school, much of the equipment and the facilities in it are used by adults when they would otherwise be used by no one.
  For that reason, quite often they are part-funded in those facilities, not just by local education authorities but by district councils as well, so that people living locally can use, for instance, the gymnasium or the sports hall or the swimming pool when it would otherwise be put to no use at all. In other words, the whole surrounding community benefits, and the taxpayer, both national and local government, gets better value for his investment in the premises concerned.
  I shall have to speak of reality rather than concept. It is all very well for my right hon. and learned Friend to say that the local education authority can pay for this and pay for that. The reality is that, within the constraints of the standard spending assessment under the revenue support grant system currently in use, they do not have that real option, as opposed to conceptual option, because their resources are so fully committed— particularly in rural areas where the pattern is one of the widespread existence of small schools—that they simply do not have the optional resources left over to employ in a way which the

  849
  Bill permits, but there is no reality of use for those powers because the resources are not there, and we cannot expect them to be there.
  So the community colleges, which probably make the best single use of the capital investment in them, provide further education and adult education as well as their primary function of secondary education. This means that the children at that school for secondary education can have a wider spectrum of syllabus opportunity, since some of the same staff who teach less popular disciplines to the children can be retained because they are also teaching adults in the adult education function of it.
  Now I come to timing. It is no good my right hon. and learned Friend asking us to look at clause 53, which gives him power to make orders, if there are bloody-minded FE colleges that unreasonably refuse to further applications. Time is of the essence. When there was a Liberal-controlled education committee in Devon, and its then chairman, a certain Mrs. Rogers, grossly abused the governors and staff of Burlescombe County Primary School so that I had to ask the Attorney-General to intervene, and he located a power which the then Secretary of State for Education and Science had to remedy the situation by order, only one day before the commencement of the new term could that order be made, because of the steps that had to be gone through to avoid the possibility of the order being frustrated by an application for judicial review.
  The essence of this is timing. To enable a community college to put on courses that are actually attended, time is crucial. To start with, in April for the coming year the governors and senior teaching staff have to draw up their syllabus programme—the programme depending on the syllabus, of course. They have to do that within their financial resources, and they do not know what the total throughput will be, over which they are spreading their overhead costs, unless and until they know what adult courses they are going to be able to put on as well. To imagine that they can wait week after week while section 53 is first put into operation and then grinds slowly on in such a way that it will not expose the Secretary of State to judicial review is unreal, because, after the community college has decided what courses it wants to put on, for which it believes there to be demand, it cannot then send its application to the funding council: it has to send it to an FE college. The FE college has then to discover what all the local bus services are, in an area with which it may not be very familiar, for access to the FE college, because it has to decide whether it itself is making adequate provision for the area served by the community college. It is no good the Minister of State shaking his head. If he does not know that, he has not mastered his subject.
  This can be very time-consuming where there is more than one FE college covering the same area. It means that the one FE college to which the application was made has to discover what courses are contemplated by the other FE college, as well as local availability of public transport, which itself is not guaranteed to run for any particular period of time. The governors then have to make sure that the staff, equipment and materials are available. All that has to be done in time to advertise the courses and get a response from the potential users, the adult students of
  850
  those courses. Only then, before the beginning of the new term, can it be decided whether the courses will actually be provided.
  Meanwhile, those who have applied for them, in the expectation that the courses will be there, do not and cannot know, because the governors themselves do not and cannot know, whether the courses will be there. If the application is not sent on by the FE college—in other words, is not approved and sent on to the funding council—the whole of that will have aborted, and in many cases the potential adult students concerned will have lost the opportunity to apply for alternative courses elsewhere.
  This is the real world about which my right hon. and learned Friend and his junior Ministers appear to be wholly ignorant, or alternatively about which they would prefer not to know.
  Mr. Michael Latham: Much of what my hon. Friend is saying is also relevant to Leicestershire—particularly his point about remoteness and distance. In Leicestershire, the adult basic education service is not provided in colleges of further education. Sometimes, it is not even provided in community colleges but instead in church halls or even people's homes. Therefore, it is all the more important that it should remain as a free-standing service rather than being dealt with, unfortunately, in the way that the Bill would deal with it. The whole basis of my hon. Friend's speech, which I am following with great interest, is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
  Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He has knowledge of the educational pattern in his area of which I am ignorant, just as I am more familiar with the educational pattern in my part of Devon than I am with that of north Devon.
  Mr. Tony Speller: Does my hon. Friend agree that what we really require for good education is peace? That is the problem as I see it—I hope that my hon. Friend will agree. In my area, we have six community colleges and sixth form colleges of which I have not, in 30 years, had one single complaint relating to the courses offered or to the pleasure of learning taken from them. Should not the logic be that we allow these community colleges to continue with direct access to the funding authorities so that they can go on, without let or hindrance, wasting time or anything else, doing a very good job? As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) said, if the machine works, for goodness' sake leave it alone.
  Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful for that contribution from my hon. Friend, because his area is different from mine, in one of the most dispersed educational patterns of any LEA in England.
  I shall conclude by saying this. The Bill has already been through another place, where there was every opportunity for my right hon. and learned Friend to secure amendment to it so as to deal with the real problems, which I am not drawing to his attention for the first time tonight, which were drawn to his attention when he was good enough to receive the deputation in September, to which I referred earlier, and which have been pressed since by correspondence invoking such weight as the Patronage Secretary may happen to carry as well: but without success.

  851
  What has emerged is a certain number of sub-clauses which cannot meet the need because they are incapable of functioning with sufficient speed to meet the time programme, which I have described, I think, with complete accuracy. It is because of the determination of my right hon. and learned Friend not to accommodate his Bill to the reality that exists, but instead to resent the reality that exists for not meeting the concept of the Bill that, with great regret, I shall find myself in the No Lobby tonight.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Michael Carr: The Liberal Democrats share the Secretary of State's aims for a better educated and trained people. We also applaud his reference to a continuing entitlement to education, and his stated aims for a near-universal further education and a mass higher education system. All these are laudable aims.
  In higher education, we welcome the ending of the binary divide. This move has widespread support, both inside and outside the House, and it is long overdue, as the Secretary of State said. We hope that this will lead to a choice of courses unfettered by the names of institutions. People have been guided by the reputation and the names of certain institutions when they might well have chosen a course more appropriately taught in a polytechnic. We hope that this will disappear with the ending of the binary divide.
  However, the expansion of numbers in higher education poses a number of problems. Are the expanded numbers to be catered for simply by cramming more students into existing buildings and on to existing courses? Will there be an extension of the large-scale block lecture approach, to cater for the number of students who we hope will enter higher education? Will there be access to research on equal terms? Perhaps the Minister will explain how the Secretary of State intends to achieve that—the Secretary of State referred to it briefly.
  There has been reference to the terms and conditions of academics teaching in higher education institutions. The Secretary of State dismissed the idea of a pay review body, but not too convincingly. We should welcome a pay review body.
  The Secretary of State also mentioned quality control in higher education. I was glad to hear that the quality control function of the further education councils is to be distinct from their other functions. However, I should have preferred an extension of the powers of Her Majesty's inspectorate in this sector to ensure independent review of quality control in these institutions.
  The divide between academic and vocational qualifications is to be ended. We see this as a vital and essential step forward, but it is difficult to see how it can be achieved with A-levels continuing in their present form. Without reform of A-levels, the removal of the academic/vocational divide will remain illusory and elusive. In itself, the gold standard of A-levels will ensure that the divide continues, although I accept that that is not the Government's stated intention.
  It is clear from the Bill that the Government do not like local government or trust local democracy. It is apparent to many people working in education that the Bill is part of a continuing attack on local government, given the background of successive Acts of Parliament since the Government first came to power and their repeated attacks on local government, not just on its education powers. It is also clear that the Bill gives the Government a way to get
  852
  off the poll tax hook—something that has also been referred to already. It can create, and will create, an opportunity for the Government to fiddle about with poll tax levels.
  On a more practical level, there is a danger that the variety of 16-to-19 provision that will exist after the Bill becomes law will make the rational planning of post-16 education more difficult. The local education authorities will retain responsibility for sixth forms in schools, albeit on a locally managed basis, and for non-vocational adult education, while further education funding councils will have the responsibility for sixth form colleges and FE colleges. Diversity may be one word for it—we welcome diversity—but there is also a risk of confusion and difficulties in planning.
  I want to refer very briefly to colleges that combine further education functions and higher education functions. I am thinking of institutions, such as Bradford and Ilkley community college, that students can enter with no formal qualifications whatsoever and leave with a degree. I visited the Bradford and Ilkley college two or three weeks ago. There, and in similar institutions, there is genuine concern that it may be difficult to achieve that combination. I hope that the Minister, in his summing-up speech, will address this problem.
  Mr. Eggar: I have paid two visits to Bradford and Ilkley community college, and I do not think that there will be any difficulty for it. In respect of schedule 2 courses, it will be funded by the further education funding council, and in respect of higher education courses it will be funded by the higher education funding council. In addition, the local education authority will continue to provide funding in that area. I should remind the hon. Gentleman and some of my hon. Friends that colleges such as the Bradford and Ilkley community college are very used to having lots of different sources of finance for lots of different courses.
  Mr. Carr: I want to turn to adult education. The Secretary of State has said that there is no threat to the pattern of continuing education. He has said that local education authorities have a duty to provide non-vocational education for adults, that funds will be provided for that purpose, and that it will be for the authorities to distribute those funds. In September, he expressed the same view in a rather bullish letter to all his colleagues, following the summer campaign organised by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the women's institutes and other bodies. The fact that he did not convince those organisations is shown by the letters that I and other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are still receiving.
  The local education authorities will lose the money that would have been allocated to them for further education. A large slice of the education budget will be devolved to schools under local management. I am worried that, when the responsibilities for statemented pupils, education welfare and school transport have been discharged, local education authorities may find it difficult to fund the very non-vocational courses to which the Secretary of State referred. Perhaps the Minister's summing-up speech will provide some clarification on that point.
  Mr. Jessel: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that he ought to wait to hear what the Minister of State says in response to my intervention and to points made by other hon. Members on this very subject?
  Mr. Carr: I have made my comments on that very point, and I do not propose to dwell further on it. We shall indeed hear what the Minister says when he sums up.
  The Secretary of State, who said that he does not often refer to questionnaires, referred to a questionnaire that had been sent to college principals. I should like to draw attention to a question to which he did not refer. It is about the likely future balance between vocational courses and non-vocational courses following the introduction of the measures proposed in the Bill.
  Forty-three per cent. of college principals felt that there would be fewer so-called leisure classes, and 14 per cent. of them thought that overall provision would decline. The college principals have views to which the Secretary of State probably did not want to refer, but I have now made them available.
  The Government's propaganda on adult education is not being believed. Adult colleges are in a difficult position. Richmond college, which has been referred to, has 25,000 students— more than many further education colleges have. There is concern about how this funding will be secured if further education colleges, for their own reasons, are not too willing to forward applications.
  There is a growing feeling that adult education colleges that do not have governing bodies as legal entities ought to have such bodies, and that smaller adult education centres ought to be able to form consortia, with a governing body recognised as a legal entity. If we have to go down this road of funding councils, if we have to lose local democratic control, the adult institutions themselves and the consortia could apply directly to a funding council. Indeed, it has been suggested that perhaps there ought to be an adult education funding council, but that matter is not within the scope of the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) referred to people gaining from leisure courses skills that enable them to enter self-employment or to go on to courses that will equip them with qualifications. That is an aspect of adult non-vocational education that we understand and accept, but there is another dimension. Adult non-vocational education is not only about self-employment or about the possibility of further qualifications; it is also about self-fulfilment, about the meeting of personal needs that fall within the broad definition of education. I am concerned that that aspect may suffer. For many elderly people, women and individuals living alone, the so-called leisure classes provide an opportunity for self-fulfilment.
  Underlying everything is the suspicion that the question of additional resources—the one thing to which the Government do not refer in this Bill—will be skated over. If the numbers in higher education are to be expanded, if we are to continue to provide adult non-vocational classes, if the number of people participating in education beyond the age of 16 is to expand, there is a resource implication.
  The Government ought to be honest and say that, if they are to achieve their own stated aims, they may—from the point of view of Conservative Members, heaven forbid— face the possibility that income tax will have to be raised. My party has said that it would do that. We are prepared to provide the funds that education needs by increasing the standard rate of income tax by 1p in the pound. I should like to see from the Government a commitment to the provision of increased resources.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has applied a 10-minute limit to speeches delivered between now and 9 o'clock.
  7.9 pm
  Sir Richard Luce: In this House, it is a convention that hon. Members declare existing interests. I do not have an existing interest, but I think that it would be courteous to declare that, after retiring from the House at the general election, I shall become vice-chancellor of the university of Buckingham. Against the background of all the exciting changes that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is bringing about, I regard that as a wonderful challenge.
  I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on this Bill, which will strengthen our policies on further and higher education. Our record is clearly a good one. It is interesting to reflect on my time at university, which I confess was 30 years ago. At that time, one in 14 of those aged 18 years was able to go to university. In 1979, the ratio was 1:8. Today it is 1:4, and we anticipate that by the end of the decade it will be 1:3. There has been remarkable change. Over the past 10 years, the number of students at polytechnics has increased by about 50 per cent. There has been a 55 per cent. increase in the number of mature students. Clearly there have been significant changes since 1979. These figures demonstrate the scale and pace of the change that has taken place.
  Our university system has a good reputation for the quality of eduction within it. It is interesting to note that graduate output in the United Kingdom is the same as that of France and of Germany. Fewer students are admitted to the United Kingdom university system, but the drop-out rate here is far less than elsewhere. The rate here is about one sixth, whereas in many universities elsewhere in Europe it is about 50 per cent.
  Mr. Pawsey: Perhaps my hon. Friend will care to speculate for a moment on the plan of Opposition Members to reduce the A-levels to five-subject examinations. What impact does he think that that will have on the degree system in British universities?
  Sir Richard Luce: There have already been some exchanges on this issue, which is a serious one. Our concern is to increase and enhance the quality of our university education, which is already extremely good. The Channel 4 commission on education had this to say:
  "British graduates are acknowledged throughout the world to be of a very high standard. Our job is not only to maintain that but to enhance it still further."
  The Bill surely does a great deal to strengthen that purpose with its single funding structure, with the absorption of polytechnics into the university system, with separate higher education funding councils and with important procedures of quality assurance. All these factors are singularly important.
  Above all else, the Bill will help to increase competition between institutions for students and for funds, but on the basis of equal status between different types of institution. That will be underpinned by a firm system of quality assurance, which is an extremely important feature of the Bill.
  I turn now to academic freedom. Towards the end of his speech, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State gave the important assurance that the Government

  855
  would not seek to reverse the amendments that were made in another place. That assurance is singularly important, and I am grateful to my right hon and learned Friend for giving it. However, when he and his ministerial colleagues examine the Bill in Committee, I ask them to take a fresh look at clauses 68 and 81. My experience in Parliament over the past 21 years is that the law is incomprehensible. The two clauses still lack comprehensibility, and it needs to be beyond all doubt that the Secretary of State has no intention of interfering in the academic freedom of universities. That must be made absolutely clear in the Bill.
  Surely the principle is clear: that no Secretary of State of whatever Government should have the right to intervene specifically in the affairs of individual institutions in a way that affects the academic freedom of those institutions. It must be right, however, that, when dealing with taxpayers' money, the Secretary of State must be accountable to the House for that money. I draw an analogy with my experience over five years as Minister for the Arts. Sensitivity about preserving the artistic freedom of bodies funded by taxpayers was such that I think that, if I had tried to intervene, for example, in the affairs of the royal national theatre or the Royal Opera house, in terms of how they presented their productions and what productions they undertook, I would have been strung up in Whitehall, and rightly so. It is essential that we preserve the principle of artistic freedom.
  The same considerations apply to academic freedom. There are funding bodies for the arts, such as the Arts Council, and for education there are the new funding councils, which will act as a cordon sanitaire. They will take specific decisions on the funding of individual institutions and on the quality of their academic courses. There is an important distinction. It is right to preserve the powers of the Secretary of State to give general direction within an overall policy on the allocation of funds to the funding councils, but he should not intervene in any way to call into question the academic freedom of universities, whether the criterion is selection of staff, the admission of students or the duration of courses.
  I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has stated in a White Paper and has said himself—I happen to agree with him—that he believes strongly in the idea of introducing more two-year degree courses. I agree that there is a case for that in some circumstances. Indeed, the university of Buckingham is a pioneer. It would be wrong, however, for the Secretary of State to intervene specifically and instruct an individual university on the duration of its courses.
  I hope that, when these matters are debated in Committee, the role of the Secretary of State will be made absolutely clear. The principle is enshrined in clauses 68 and 81, and hon. Members will be aware that clause 81 deals with financial mismanagement and provides that, as a last resort, the Secretary of State has the right to intervene.
  If the Secretary of State or the Government are not to intervene on academic freedom, the Government and all of us in this place must be assured that the proposals for maintaining and building upon the quality of education is deeply enshrined in the Bill. There has been reference already to the Robbins era of the 1960s, when there was fear that a dramatic increase in the number of students would mean a lower quality of education. Accordingly, my
  856
  right hon. and learned Friend is right to place in the Bill procedures for maintaining quality—the highest possible standards of quality, with the minimum of bureaucracy.
  There is the proposal that the quality audit unit should be enabled to go into institutions, as it were, to ensure that their mechanisms for maintaining quality are adequate. Secondly, there is the quality assessment unit, which the funding councils will appoint to help to ensure that the good quality of education in universities is upheld. Those procedures are right, but in the other place there was great debate about how independent of vested interests the units would be. That is a crucial consideration.
  If my right hon. and learned Friend is saying that Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools should be independent, we should ensure that the quality assurance units are as independent as possible. Some concessions have been made, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will offer us some strong reassurances when he replies.
  The Bill enhances and strengthens the prospects of improved quality and those of a much wider range of education at the higher level in universities to cater for the varying needs of a greater number of students. This education will be infinitely diverse in terms of the range of courses, the balance of teaching and research and the duration of degree courses. There will be much more flexibility. Parents and students will have greater knowledge of what the various institutions offer. There will be a range of institutions to cater for a greater variety of needs among our students, including those of mature students and those who wish to take up part-time courses, as well as those who are interested in the Open University and in distance learning. The Bill goes a long way to strengthening all these possibilities.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Richard Caborn: As all the previous speakers have declared vested interests, I shall do so as well. My constituency contains a polytechnic, part of Sheffield university and two further education colleges.
  Many have welcomed the late conversion that has driven the Government to remove the binary divide between polytechnics and universities, and to create a single funding council for higher education. I am now hopeful that the polytechnics will play an important role, along with the universities and the rest of higher education, in developments not just at city but at regional level.
  As the speech of the right hon. Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) amply demonstrated, two issues still cause concern—the conditions governing the grants referred to in clause 68, and academic freedom. I hope that the Minister will deal with both. Recently, the polytechnic and the university in Sheffield have entered into a strong working partnership with the city as a whole, and that has had a regional impact as well. I believe that the economic regeneration now taking place in the area has been helped by the close working relationship of what are now the two local institutions of higher education, and by the development of technology transfer and science parks.
  Further education is a subject of considerable contention. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has pointed out, we have removed one impediment—the divide between polytechnics and universities—only to institute two new boundaries which may be equally damaging, if not more so. To suggest that

  857
  the recent release of polytechnics from local authority financial control should be extended to the further education sector is, in my view, to advance a dangerous and, indeed, ignorant argument. It may, of course, have been the only argument available to the Government— albeit a weak one—when they were trying to cover up the fact that they had taken more than £2 billion from local authorities' further education budgets. As my hon. Friends have revealed, that took place during the panic about the poll tax calculations. It is all very well for the Minister to shake his head, but that is the truth, and I think that most people outside know that it is.
  The Government have made their calculations for a change in the funding of at least 500 further education colleges at a time when we have only a handful of polytechnics. It shows ignorance for the Government to claim that the role of polytechnics is the same as that of further education colleges, for that is entirely untrue.
  I am a product of a further education college. Having left school at 15, I served an apprenticeship in one of Sheffield's major steelworks and then, thankfully, attended the further education college. I sat on the board of governors of two such colleges for some time. I also attended Sheffield polytechnic, and I know that they are entirely different institutions, fulfilling different needs. Further education provides for local needs, and to break up the system now would be highly detrimental to the recovery that we look for in the United Kingdom.
  On the board of governors were local industrialists and local trade unionists; there was also a major input from the local authority. It is no good for the Government to ask for economic regeneration and to expect a partnership to develop across the major conurbations, and then to think that some elements can be isolated—elements such as the further education colleges, which are an integral part of the training mechanism.
  If we are to start upgrading schools—you will understand this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a former engineer— we must not do it in an offhand way or at arm's length. It is important to understand the role of the further education colleges, which is quite distinct from that of the polytechnics. They serve national, international and regional needs. People across the political and industrial spectrums are concerned about the direction in which the Government are pushing further education colleges.
  It was interesting to note the concern expressed by Conservative Members about the community colleges. It highlighted the need for flexibility in the development of that sector of education for the over-16s, along with the need for security of funding. Security of funding must involve democratic accountability, and that, surely, must be obtained through elected bodies—local authorities.
  One of our main criticisms of the further education provisions in the Bill is that they will not achieve the stated objective of a significant increase in the number of people entering higher education, or continuing in full-time education between the ages of 16 and 18. Furthermore, it is bizarre and wrong to exclude local education authorities from strategic decision making in respect of post-16 education and training. That will open unnecessary divisions between the school and college sectors.
  It is incomprehensible that local authorities, which are frequently the largest employers in an area or city, should
  858
  be excluded from governing bodies. It is wrong to say that the governing bodies can contain employers, but that local authorities cannot represent their employees on those bodies. The time scale is rushed, and is likely to cause major implementation problems. The distinction, for funding purposes, between vocational and non-vocational education is artificial—as was adequately demonstrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn—and is likely to prejudice the hundreds of thousands of students who participate in non-vocational education.
  The Government are wholly silent about the nature of funding mechanisms, and the Department has failed to respond to any of the detailed questions put to it by local education authorities. That has been reflected by what Conservative Members have said. The further education clauses of the Bill are being pushed through in the teeth of widespread public disquiet and opposition—witness an earlier question about responses to the White Paper. Those responses have not been published, although I understand that they have been asked for on a number of occasions both here and in the other place.
  Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman has made a variety of inaccurate accusations about the Government's position. Perhaps, as he is speaking on behalf of Sheffield's local education authority, he will comment on that authority's attitude to the forced bringing together of Sheffield's six colleges.
  Mr. Caborn: I intend to discuss that at length, but I shall not do so in the 10 minutes that I have been allotted this evening. If the Minister will ask me the same question another time when I am not under such a constraint, I shall answer it with pleasure.
  Let me deal with the general issues of education and training, and how they are dealt with in the Bill. Although there was a considerable increase between 1979 and 1988 in the number of young people in youth training schemes, the absolute number of 18, 17 and 16-year-olds pursuing full-time education increased to 131,000, 232,000 and 336,000 respectively. Those figures represent percentage rates of 18,33 and 47. That may seem a good achievement, until it is compared with that of our major competitors— for instance, the United States, Japan, Germany and Belgium. In 1988, the percentage of 16 to 18-year-olds who participated in full-time education and training in the United Kingdom was only half that achieved by our major trading partners.
  Between 1979 and 1989, there was a significant increase in the number of home full-time students in higher education—from 184,000 to 250,000. That is welcome, but it really means that it will be more difficult to widen the pool that has not grown significantly —the further education pool—unless access is made much easier. More counselling and development work will be needed at the bottom of the social ladder.
  Funding is of great concern to many local authorities. Only a proportion of the provision currently made by further education and tertiary colleges will be funded. Students will count for funding purposes if they follow courses leading to vocational qualifications; but the non-vocational side is very important to inner cities. It is no good for the Government to come to the House and complain about riots after they have neglected those matters in the Bill.
  7.29 pm
  Sir Robert Rhodes James: I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), with whom I have much in common, will forgive me if I do not reply to his speech. This is almost certainly the last occasion on which I shall have the privilege of addressing the House of Commons. Perhaps it is appropriate that it should be on the subject of higher and further education.
  We should not dwell on the past or on the disagreements that I have had with my right hon. and hon. Friends. I should like to concentrate on the Bill and on the future. Although I found myself in overwhelming agreement with the Bill as it was first introduced, certain sections of it were rightly amended by the Lords. The fact that the Lords made those amendments and that the Government will agree to them means that I shall support the Bill wholeheartedly.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State repeated the differentiation between applied and pure research. There is no differentiation between pure and applied research. How could we have found the anti-diphtheria drug, penicillin, insulin or histamine without pure research? They were the results of pure research. The genius of certain people in the past, such as Cavendish, Wellcome and others, was that they invested in pure research on the offchance that something commercial would come of it.
  I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that the key problem—I admit that it is a difficult one—relates to the powers of the Secretary of State and the Government on the one hand, and to the doctrine of university autonomy on the other. I accept that the latter doctrine was carried one stage too far. Self-government and autonomy in higher education are enormously important, but the taxpayer and the Government also have some responsibilities.
  When I had some responsibility for such matters, I was struck by the extraordinary variety of our institutions. I became convinced that central Government should have much great influence, but not to the detriment of the individuality and initiative of different institutions. It is a question of balance, and it is difficult. However, I believe that the Government have accepted that, and that the Bill represents the degree of that balance.
  I warmly welcome the fact that so many excellent polytechnics, especially Anglia, will receive university status. I congratulate the Ministers who were principally involved in that.
  Although it is not the dominant purpose of this Bill, I hope that the House will forgive me if I refer briefly to problems of finance, and especially to student finances. I cannot refer to academic salaries because I have a potential interest. The funding of higher education, and especially of its students, raises a profound problem, to which neither party has addressed itself seriously. They have produced palliatives and promises, but not answers.
  Perhaps such matters should be removed from the sphere of party politics and, indeed, from Government. I am not suggesting another Robbins inquiry or another royal commission, but perhaps the Secretary of State and the Government should set up an advisory committee comprising people who understand and are deeply involved in higher education, to advise them not on tactics but on strategy and to look forward to the next five or 10 years. I am deeply concerned, for example, about the way
  860
  in which we finance research. It is a question not of money but of the allocation of the money and the criteria that are used. The problem applies to all the research councils; I do not want to concentrate on any particular one. Huge sums are spent—some usefully, some not—but nobody is in a position to judge whether the money has been spent properly. I suggest that an advisory body—not the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, but one that does not have a special interest—could advise on strategy.
  In the 25 years that I have served in the House, I have endeavoured to outline my concerns to it. I shall now return to academic life; to scholarship; to the love of learning for its own sake, which I believe is still the dominant purpose of higher education; to the excitement of a new generation eager to learn; to the sheer fun of education, which people sometimes forget; and to the joy of seeing one's students do well and to the sadness of sometimes seeing them not do as well as one would wish.
  Education, which politicians talk about as something political, is a personal matter. It is the relationship between the teacher who wants to teach and someone who wants to learn, and it is precious. The teacher rejoices at every pupil triumph and mourns at every failure. There is a glow about the glory of true education which is impossible to describe. I wish that the House, when it stops arguing about whether Conservative policies are better than Labour or Liberal Democrat policies, would remember that the true lure of higher education is the love of learning for its own sake. Our job is to try to finance and to encourage that.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Huw Edwards: It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir R. Rhodes James), who has given 25 years' distinguished service to the House and has had a distinguished career in international relations and scholarship. I am sure that we all wish him well as he renews his distinguished academic career on leaving the House.
  It is also a great privilege for me to speak in the debate because prior to being elected to the House I was a lecturer. I have been a student at Manchester polytechnic and the University of York and a lecturer in polytechnics and in the university in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn).
  I welcome most of the higher education provisions in the Bill, such as the removal of the binary divide. The binary divide in higher education has been similar to the unfair distinction that used to exist between grammar and secondary modern schools. I hope that we resist all opportunities to reintroduce that distinction while we remove those in higher education.
  If there is to be parity of title between the polytechnics and the universities, I hope that we shall also ensure parity and equality in resources. I am pleased that the last institution in which I worked, Brighton polytechnic, will become the University of Brighton. I wish it and all my former colleagues there the very best for the future.
  I am concerned that some of the current inequalities between polytechnics and universities will not be removed as we enter this new era in which polytechnics and universities have the same title. I trust that, when polytechnics become universities, there will be positive action to equalise resources and to ensure that teaching facilities in polytechnics can be improved, and that the

  861
  former universities can learn some lessons from the polytechnics. I hope that there will be improved library and research facilities and improved student residential provision in the polytechnics.
  One of my hopes for the new era is that some of the best in the polytechnics will be transferred to the universities and some of the best in the universities will be transferred to the polytechnics. That will create opportunities for former polytechnic staff to engage in research and have the facilities and resources to do so.
  I hope that in the new era we shall see education for education's sake and get away from the obsession with entrepreneurism which has dogged academic life in recent years. I know the skills as lecturers that many of my former colleagues had. They were lecturers, not entrepreneurs. As a lecturer I did not mind how many students I taught, but I did not want to be responsible for the administrative arrangements for bringing them into the college in the first place. We were told, "Go out and sell your courses." We could have sold many rather cheap packages.
  When I left the polytechnic last year, I was anxious about what I saw as the "pile them in and teach them cheap" philosophy. Although we welcome the increase in educational opportunities in the past 10 years, there is some concern that by bringing students in at any price we devalued the level of education that we could give them. It is not possible to teach students adequately at degree level when seminar groups have 20 people in them or the course numbers increase but the number of books does not increase commensurately to resource those courses.
  Let us go back to an education ethos in which students are regarded as a national asset and an investment and not simply as units of income. It causes anxiety to all of us that the expansion in higher education in the past 10 years has been characterised by increasing student hardship and poverty. There has been an attitude of, "Bring them in, but never mind about the financial hardships that many students may face." The right hon. Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) said that Britain had lower drop-out rates than many other countries. I fear that the drop-out rate might increase as students decide that they cannot afford to continue or, if there is a parental contribution, parents decide that they cannot afford it.
  The Bill also contains provisions for further and adult education. All Opposition Members are convinced that the poll tax inspired the further education provisions and that they were nothing to do with a love of education for its own sake. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) paid tribute to the unsung success of the further education colleges. I recently visited Newport college of further education. I was impressed by the number of access courses that it ran. The college takes students who would never have dreamed of going on to higher education and gives them the opportunity to obtain a degree.
  It is important that we do not measure success merely in terms of the number of good degree results—the number of 2:1s or firsts. For people who never imagined getting a degree, a third-class degree is a tremendous educational attainment. I am worried about the obsession with minimising the number of people who receive lower class degrees.
  862
  There is widespread anxiety about adult education. This evening, Ministers have tried to give reassurances that adult education will not be jeopardised. That is not the view held by anyone who benefits from adult education, administers adult education or teaches in adult education. Both Opposition and Conservative Members have been lobbied vigorously by organisations connected with adult education. I pay tribute to the local education centres in my constituency and to the women's institutes, the Workers Educational Association and the Hill residential college, Abergavenny, which is a unique institution in Wales providing short-term residential education for adults, many of whom are retired, most of whom are women and most of whom see no distinction between vocational, non-vocational and leisure education. Indeed, the introduction of the word "leisure" makes the distinction even more frivolous.
  I hope that the Bill will result in secure funding for adult education and the residential educational colleges. The people who benefit from adult education have largely completed their vocation. In pre-retirement, early retirement and retirement they want to study for the pure sake of learning subjects which they did not need in their working lives.
  I conclude by echoing the words of the hon. Member for Cambridge. He said that there was a glow about the glory of true education. I pay tribute to all the people who were involved in education in the 1980s, when it was an unfashionable profession. People taught in higher education and polytechnics and gave references to students who went into the City and earned far more than the lecturers who had trained them for the job. That devaluation and the denigration of people involved in education were worrying. I repeat: let us go back to the time when we could see that glow about the glory of true education.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. James Pawsey: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards). He said that he was worried about degree-level teaching and mentioned the shortage of books. But, despite that, he certainly seemed able to consider the devalued A-levels proposed by his hon. Friends. They talk about moving away from the three-subject A-level to a five-subject A-level.
  Mr. Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pawsey: I will give way later. The hon. Gentleman seemed happy with the idea of a devalued A-level—
  Mr. Edwards: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I did not say anything about A-levels and certainly did not advocate devaluing them.
  Mr. Pawsey: Exactly.
  Mr. Edwards: Then it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to infer that I believe that they should be devalued.
  Mr. Pawsey: With respect, the fact that the hon. Gentleman did not refer to A-levels is a clear indication that he accepts the proposal of his hon. Friends, who argue the case for a five-subject A-level. To increase the number of subjects to five would clearly devalue the entrance to our universities requirements.

  863
  The proposals in the Bill give colleges greater freedom and cut the apron strings that secure them to the local education authorities. The Bill reduces the amount of bureaucracy and relieves principals of FE colleges the requirement to deal with bureaucratic budgeting rounds every year and to justify their budget to faceless officials in shire halls.
  The Bill will enable the colleges to make a faster response to the requirements of their students and of local employers. It will help to bridge the criticism that education and industry are separate entities, each operating in its own intellectual vacuum. We all know that there is a wealth of talent in the colleges of further education. There is talent to be found in the staff room and talent to be found in the classrooms. The Bill helps to release that talent and broadens the vision. It does for the colleges of further education what the 1989 legislation did for the polytechnics.
  An indication of polytechnics' success is the substantial increase in their student numbers. Indeed, the great expansion in student numbers comes from the polytechnics rather than from the universities. While much has been achieved in schools and in advanced education in the past three or four years, FE has been something of a Cinderella. We have not done enough for young people who leave school at 16 or for adults who, for whatever reason, require additional training or education. This legislation undoubtedly helps to remedy that defect.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, 60 per cent. of 16-year-olds in England participate in further education. Twelve years ago it was 41 per cent. Further education colleges take about 360,000 full-time students, 700,000 part-time day students and 700,000 part-time evening students. Those are spread over about 450 institutions.
  Mr. Fatchett: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the figure that he quoted includes all those youngsters on youth training schemes, only 25 per cent. of whom will gain a qualification? Also, the figure that he quoted is not the real international comparison but the figure for 16-year-olds. We shall be considering 16 to 18-year-olds and all those in full-time education, and that is the real comparison.
  Mr. Pawsey: I do not think that there is any difference of opinion between us. It is intended in the Bill for the new further education funding councils to be in place on 1 April next year to prepare for the transfer of colleges from local authority control. It is that date which gives urgency to the legislation. No doubt that will be considered later this evening. Clearly, that is why it is necessary to introduce a timetable motion later tonight.
  The further education funding council for England will have a membership of between 12 and 15 and they will be appointed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. They will be drawn from people with experience in education, including those with expertise in administration. There will also be members from business and industry. I have no doubt that colleges of further education will widely welcome those proposals, for they view them—as we Conservative Members view them—as a change necessary to improve further education and to bring it in line with modern practice and thinking.
  The second part of the Bill deals with advanced education. Here it is worth remembering that we are
  864
  catering for a much-expanded sector as a result of the Government's efforts. When we came to office, only one in eight of the target group were in advanced education. Today, the figure is one in four, and it is moving towards one in three. It is the Government's intention to continue that admirable process. The target of one in three by the turn of the century, which we have set for ourselves, will certainly be achieved. That clearly underlines our commitment and our determination to improve the quality and standard of state education for all our people.
  I welcome the ending of the binary line. It was always an artificial distinction, separating the universities and polytechnics. In some ways, the old regime protected those universities which were not quite in the first rank and held back polytechnics which enjoyed a substantial and justifiable reputation for learning. I am pleased that the polytechnics can now incorporate the title "university". It will certainly be a great help to them abroad, where there is less understanding of the word "polytechnic".
  The Bill introduces a single funding mechanism for universities, polytechnics and colleges of higher education through the higher education funding councils for England and for Wales. The new councils will be in operation from April 1993 and that tight schedule again helps to underline the reason why it is necessary to get this legislation on the statute book with the minimum delay.
  The House will recall that under the Bill the Council for National Academic Awards will be closed—the first time that any degree-awarding body has been dissolved. Recently, I met its chief executive, Malcolm Frazer, and we discussed how the 300,000 students on courses under its control would manage under the new proposals. I was pleased to receive an assurance from Malcolm Frazer that no students will be disadvantaged by the changes. We also discussed the question of records. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will wish to take note of this issue when responding to the debate. Clearly, if a student loses his degree certificate, he will require another. I was pleased to learn that arrangements have been made between the CNAA and the Open University for the latter to hold all the appropriate records and to be in a position to offer duplicate certificates. Those are not unimportant safeguards.
  I welcome the proposal to establish a quality assessment unit within each funding council. That will maintain good practice and monitor, for example, performance indicators and changing student profiles. The units should also ensure that links with business, industry and education do not deteriorate. The institutions will establish a quality audit unit and some of its members will be drawn from business and industry, as well as from the academic world. Quality assessments and quality audit will safeguard the quality of degrees and ensure that standards do not slip.
  The Government's proposals in the Bill will bring substantial benefits to the nation—benefits to students, to employers and to the community at large. The greater freedom being given to colleges of further education will enable principals and staff to display even more inventiveness in courses.
  There has already been a massive expansion in the number of people attending polytechnics, and there will be a massive expansion in those attending colleges of further education, which will be of benefit not only to the nation's work force but to those who seek learning for its own sake,

  865
  whether as a leisure pursuit or for any other reason, which touches on the issue mentioned earlier by Opposition Members.
  I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion simply by saying that I hope that the Bill will soon be on the statute book, where it will be of singular benefit to the British people.
  7.55 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I thought that when the Secretary of State introduced the Bill he gave us a demonstration of his usual bull-at-a-gate tactics in respect of yet another field of education into which he is rushing to impose change.
  With the claim of simplifying, he is creating a much more complicated structure. In the name of eliminating distinctions, he is creating new ones. That restless process of change is typical of his approach. He introduced it first in the health service, transferred it to secondary education, and is now transferring it to further and higher education. In that process of change, he is not making any allowance for the simple fact that change itself has a cost. Indeed, change is expensive to introduce. Unless he increases spending to allow for the costs of that change, it will fail.
  Here we are, in the last dying days in the life of the Government, rushing through a major change in the system with inadequate consultation. The Secretary of State has not demonstrated to us the evidence—the representations from local authorities—on which the change was based. He has not told us what arguments they offered against it. The Bill is being rushed through with a guillotine to follow and with no time to consider it. It is being imposed as the Government go out—with a twilight already shining on their shoulders. The Bill will throw higher and further education into another mess, just another achievement of the bull-at-a-gate Secretary of State in that area.
  What I have said does not obviate the need for change, but change has to be managed, has to be carried through by a process of consultation, and has to be financed. That is the danger of the changes which have been introduced by the Government.
  My main argument is on the effects that the Bill will have on a service which we are very proud of in Humberside—the Humberside adult education service. I wanted to intervene when the Secretary of State spoke, but unfortunately I could not. We are very proud of that service. It has 100,000 enrolments and 40,000 students, and it provides a valuable service, siphoning people into education who would otherwise drop out or would not be attracted to it, because it provides education where they live—in the village hall, and schools in the locality, in villages and towns, in the main using the facilities of secondary schools.
  Although the service provides both vocational and non-vocational training—the Government have created a contemptuous distinction between the two—it siphons people from one to the other.
  Mr. Eggar: Since the hon. Gentleman is making all sorts of wild allegations without the advantage of his television researcher, perhaps he could tell us where that division appears in the Bill.
  Mr. Mitchell: It is the Government's attitude that non-vocational education is somehow unworthy and should be financed in a different fashion. This money is for the important aspects of education and all the rest is fit for the local authorities—that is the Government's attitude.
  Mr. Fatchett: It is in schedule 2.
  Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is correct—it is in schedule 2—and I shall come to that in a minute.
  The Government have created that distinction, and it is an artificial one, because people who enter the adult education service in Humberside move from one type of education to the other. After being attracted in, they develop their expertise, and their interest in education is stimulated. They grow. Because it is a comprehensive service, it can siphon them from one aspect to the other and allow them to develop their interest and improve their education. That is an important service.
  Adult education represents an important, countrywide service. It is now threatened because 50 per cent. of its work will effectively be taken from it. That work is now to be eligible for application for funds from the funding council, and will not be paid for by the local authority. That means that there is a great danger of splitting the work provided right down the middle. If that happens, the comprehensive service that has been maintained on Humberside cannot be sustained. There will be certainty about obtaining one half of its funding, but uncertainty about the other half. Therefore, that comprehensive service, which maintains facilities for vocational and non-vocational education, will go by the board. That is the danger we face.
  I accept that the local authority funding is not ring-fenced, but I am certain that a Labour authority in Humberside will want to maintain services for the benefit of the people. The problem is whether the provision of education in literacy, numeracy and vocational training, which will be transferred to the funding council for resources, will be able to survive.
  I know that it is proposed that the adult education service can use a college as a type of post office for the means of applying to the funding council. That is a ludicrous arrangement, partly because the adult education service is larger than any of the colleges. That service provides education for more students than those provided for by several colleges put together. Adult education provides a more comprehensive service than that offered by the colleges, but those colleges will be competing with it. The colleges will not be interested in maintaining adult education services in rural areas, and that is so important because people will have to come to study on campus. In that sense, the colleges are competitors.
  If the adult education service in a particular area does not get a college to support its application to the funding council, even though such colleges will probably cater for a smaller number of students and will therefore be less important than the adult education service, the Secretary of State has said that it can appeal to him. I am not sure what appeals to the Secretary of State, but such an appeal procedure adds to the uncertainty. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to maintain a comprehensive adult education service unless we have some guarantee and an arrangement whereby it can have direct access to the funding council.
  The power to apply to a funding council could be defined in terms of the size of that adult education

  867
  provision. Why not define the adult education service in terms of the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988? That Act defined a college as one with 400 full-time equivalents and at least one full-time student. That would give the adult education service the ability to apply directly to a funding council. Unless it has that direct ability, it will suffer. Uncertainty will abound, and it will be difficult to maintain the comprehensive service of which we are so proud in Humberside.
  It is also important to consider the dangers posed by the remoteness of the funding council. I know that regional advisory bodies will be established, but we need regional funding councils made up of representatives from the local authorities. Those people would know about the local needs. That is essential. A remote national body will change the system constantly, whatever the fashion is in education, and it will be remote from the needs of local areas. That means that the council will not allow for diversity, which is another valuable part of the education system. We must consider that threat.
  Labour colleges and long-term residential colleges, such as Ruskin and Northern, are worried about their role as a vital safety net. Those colleges allow those who develop their interests in education late on to be drawn into the education system. The achievements of those colleges are enormous; I cannot speak highly enough of Ruskin and Northern colleges, the two that I know best. Their achievements are in danger unless there is some specific recognition and entrenchment of their role in the Bill. Those institutions should be added to the existing list. The adult bursary scheme should be maintained, because it is essential to defend and advance it. It allows people to come into education late on—an essential safety net in society.
  I hope that the Minister will heed the pleas of the adult education service, the colleges and the long-term residential colleges for the establishment of a funding council that appreciates and understands their needs and is geographically closer to them.
  8.4 pm
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: It is right that, at the outset, I should declare an interest. For many years, I have been a member of the council of one university and on the court of another. My law firm also acts for a number of institutions in higher and further education.
  I had the privilege of serving on the Committee on the Education Reform Bill. That Bill is already seen as one of the milestones of educational development, and that will become increasingly apparent in the years to come. It was visionary, but I remember clearly that the Opposition attacked and criticised every aspect of its provisions only to find that, within a year or two, they had become part of the accepted wisdom of the education world. It began the process of overturning some of the discredited dogmas which had bedevilled education for more than 20 years.
  It is right to consider the polytechnics first, because they have made such outstanding progress since they were liberated from the control of local authorities. The improved participation rates in higher education from one in eight in 1979 to one in four now and moving towards one in three, the flexibility which polytechnics have brought to courses, particularly through the modular method of studying and the significant success of the graduate output rate, which is just as crucial as the number of people starting in higher education, are all features of
  868
  the growing development and maturity that the polytechnics have brought to our higher education system. That goes alongside the splendid progress already achieved by universities.
  The polytechnics have shown that any benefits which resulted from local education authority participation and control in their affairs are far outweighed by the benefits that result from independence. It is clearly time to build upon that progress, to abolish the binary line and to introduce a coherent structure for funding teaching and research across the higher education sector.
  If that is true of polytechnics, it is equally true of further education colleges. It is time for those colleges to be given the chance to make similar progress. I am concerned at the stories from a number of colleges about attempts at asset-stripping by LEAs in the final months of their control. They are not just stripping those colleges of their land and buildings, but reducing funding to them in anticipation of those colleges moving out of their control next year. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about the protection that he intends to apply to ensure that those colleges, when they emerge free from LEA control, will emerge with their proper share of assets and the revenues to which they are entitled.
  My right hon. and learned Friend spoke of the importance of sixth forms and his desire to enhance their future role. My constituency consists mainly of towns and villages on the outskirts of the city of Leeds, and the sixth forms in the local comprehensive schools are important. Many colleagues will recall the bitter battle that was fought over two years when Leeds council sought to abolish our sixth forms. It was only the intervention of the then Secretary of State and, in particular, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), which prevented it.
  Obviously, we are concerned that the LEA might threaten those sixth forms again, and I should be interested to learn now or in Committee exactly what my right hon. and learned Friend plans to do to give additional protection for the status of sixth forms. In areas such as mine, schools plan, whether under the local management of schools, or possibly through grant-maintained status, to become more like community colleges. They want to provide enhanced services for the local communities.
  I should like to know from the Minister how grant-maintained status will affect the ability of those schools to offer courses to the local community and whether they will be in a better or worse position as grant-maintained schools than they would be as part of an LEA. I hope that the result will be neutral as between the two. Sixth forms are a vital ingredient of schools in rural communities, and the protection that my right hon. and learned Friend announced for them will be very welcome indeed.
  Another area of concern, touching the earlier debate about university drop-out rates, arises from what happened at the end of last year in a number of local authorities, Leeds being one of the worst. Mandatory grants to students were not delivered on time. Eight weeks into the term, over 40 per cent. of students from Leeds entitled to mandatory grants still had not received them. Some did not receive them until the first term of the year was over. That was totally unacceptable.

  869
  I feel for those students when I recall when I went to university for the first time. Pressures are bound to build up. The thought that one must face those pressures while having to worry where the money to which one is entitled may be—how one will manage one's affairs without that money—is a horrifying prospect. Should there be a repetition of what happened last year in any local authorities, my right hon. and learned Friend will have to consider measures to remove the administration of mandatory grants from LEAs.
  In that context, LEAs represent only a post box for funds from the Department of Education and Science. If LEAs cannot deliver that service effectively, he should provide alternatives, and I shall tonight be tabling amendments to the Bill to give my right hon. and learned Friend power to do that. After all, we have organisations such as the Student Loan Company which are building up effective computer databases on the loan aspect. Such a company would be capable of delivering mandatory grants in addition to performing its other tasks. Indeed, we might save much duplication and cost by using one system.
  There has been much talk about education for its own sake or education for vocational training. The two are not incompatible. A good education system should have the widest possible availability for as many people as possible. Students who go into the system should be free to make up their own minds about what benefits they wish to take from it. Some will wish to be highly vocational, others will not.
  I had an interesting insight into the value of what we have in Britain when, a few weeks ago, I attended a conference organised in London by Toshiba International Foundation. It was looking at the educational demands on a developed society by the turn of the century and trying to predict what changes would be needed. The conclusion of some eminent speakers, including the dean of Tokyo university and other highly distinguished academics, was that the great hallmark of success in the future would be the ability of a nation to handle complex information in large quantities and to apply it to a whole range of activities.
  Those Japanese academics were looking enviously at our education system; while undoubtedly they can produce engineers in large numbers, what they found attractive about our system was the flexibility of mind that it produced, of young people able to turn their minds to a variety of applications and retrain relatively easily as technologies developed.
  Many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, so I will not make other points that I would otherwise have made. Our intention must be to make higher and further education available to as many people as possible. It must be to ensure that all, whatever their ages, are able to return to the education and training system and take from it the things they need, be they vocational or just for interest.
  The Bill will mark another important milestone down the road that we took with the Education Reform Act. I hope that we shall organise our affairs in a way that will ensure that it becomes law before the general election. An enormous amount of work has already been done in the polytechnics and colleges in preparation for their change of status. Much momentum has built up, and if that were slowed down because of the need to start the whole process
  870
  again after the election, we shall have lost a year that we can ill afford. I commend the Bill and hope that it will reach the statute book as rapidly as possible.
  8.14 pm
  Dr. Ashok Kumar: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir R. Rhodes James) for his contribution and I regret that he is no longer in his place. I confess to have been reading his books since I was a school boy. I have deep respect for his sincere views and wish him well in his love of learning and in his new post.
  I shall adduce some arguments on the proposed structure for further education arising out of part I of the Bill. I welcome the aims and aspirations of the measure, but deeply disagree with the methods proposed. I shall highlight only a few aspects of the Bill, and I speak as one who has had long experience of further and higher education—first, at the receiving end, as a student, and then as the former chairman of governors of one of the largest colleges in Cleveland, the Longlands college of further education. Under the existing further education structure, that college, with the support of a totally dedicated and hard-working staff, has pioneered innovative and enterprising programmes of training and education in an area which has consistently experienced some of the highest unemployment in mainland Britain.
  The Bill is an attempt to emasculate and undermine community and local input into our colleges. If it is passed, there will be another major reduction in the powers and responsibilities of LEAs and the virtual eradication of local staff or non-private sector representation on governing bodies, with no local ability to influence the direction and content of the work carried out in our colleges.
  In the name of liberation from local government oversight and administration, as the Secretary of State put it, the Government are intent on installing a system of funding, appointment, direction and control that is positively Napoleonic in content. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's reserve powers will be wide ranging and immense.
  The Secretary of State talked about liberating further education colleges from local authority control. Without any representation on governing bodies or any role in quality assurance, the vast accumulation of local knowledge will be squandered. Experience and expertise will be lost and local democratic accountability removed.
  If the Bill is enacted, we shall see the total fragmentation of responsibilities in the post-16 sector and in adult education generally. There will be needless competition, rivalry and duplication of effort between local colleges, LEAs, the proposed national councils and free-standing, ostensibly independent, grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges.
  There is no proposal as yet for the Secretary of State to set up any form of national co-ordinating body or forum at which the different interests may meet and debate. There is no provision for cross-representation between planning bodies and the governing bodies of colleges. That is a recipe for utter confusion, a waste of scarce resources and a breeding ground for futile rivalries.
  The Bill is another sad illustration of the hatred and contempt with which the Government view any institutions that are locally controlled and managed. My hon. Friends and I are totally opposed to the continuing

  871
  erosion of local democratic accountability for the delivery of such vital services. We utterly oppose the concentration of power at the centre and the spreading and menacing influence of appointed agencies—often run by the Conservative party and its central office—to manage institutions on a day-to-day basis.
  Let us examine the facts, including the damage that narrow and ill-thought-out proposals could have on our future. At present, only one third of the 2·8 million 16 to 18-year-olds are in full-time further education. A further 16 per cent. are undertaking full-time YTS training and work experience, while others are attending part-time or evening classes. One third of our youngsters are receiving no education or training. They are unemployed or in the twilight world of dead-end—often temporary or casual—work. Furthermore, those in full-time further education are often participating in a system that, under the prevailing ideology and political stewardship of the Government, is open to the charge of being divisive.
  All too often, A-levels are seen as the only pathway to success, forcing the academically able into specialisations that often do not match the country's real needs. The majority of FE students become the recipients of a vocational training system that does not measure up to the standards set by other nations in the European Community—our direct competitors in the coming decade. The Bill will not liberate those students. The competition that it will unleash between local colleges will almost certainly result in local colleges going under, or being forced to close or merge.
  The financial controls and financial regime that the Secretary of State will impose will mean that "standalone" projects based within colleges will be unable to receive funding and thus may be forced to close. I was involved in Cleveland in setting up one such project relating to the local chemistry industry at the college of which I was chair of governors. There is no guarantee that such innovative projects will be allowed to survive under a rigid, centrally directed further education structure. The knowledge of essential local circumstances that allows a local education authority or training and enterprise council to support an innovative project will be absent, and it cannot he replaced.
  Some aspects of the Bill have not been sufficiently worked out. The splitting of vocational and leisure interest courses worries me. What may be a "leisure course" to narrow-minded Ministers can often appear to those at the chalk face as an essential complement to vocational training. A young man or woman studying engineering practice may regard a better command of English as beneficial to his or her ability to convey complex technical matters to someone in his or her firm or to the firm's customers.
  I am aware that LEAs will be left with the funding of so-called "leisure courses", although it is not yet clear what funding the Government will provide to local authorities for those courses. It may be argued that local authorities will fund those courses, but in my area we have the spectacle of poll-tax-capped councils having to cut their core services and being unable to expand in other directions. The acquisition of basic skills such as literacy and numeracy must be regarded as essential vocational skills and I cannot stress highly enough the fact that they must be fully included in the funding arrangements.
  I wish to highlight clauses 4 and 11, which deal with special educational needs and people with learning
  872
  difficulties. The formulation of those clauses is weaker than any existing duty of LEAs under the Education Act 1981 and the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. There is no provision for an independent review of the requirements of individuals or for rights of appeal against the level or quality of support available for students with special education needs. The duty extends only to full-time students in the 16 to 19 age group. It is apparent that there is no guarantee for older or part-time students with learning difficulties.
  The Bill does not even begin to deal with the real issues of training and further education for 16 to 19-year-olds. We are only weeks away from a general election, after which a new Labour Government must begin the task of facing up to the responsibility of tackling those issues. We have a unique opportunity to enhance and raise the standards of educational provision for over-16s. By 1994, as a result of demographic movements, there will be 500,000 youngsters between the ages of 16 and 19.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has run out of time.
  8.25 pm
  Sir John Farr: I welcome this opportunity of contributing to this stage of the debate, and I am well aware that there are likely to be further opportunities after 10 o'clock.
  It is important to my constituents and me that I should recognise the kindness of my hon. Friend the Minister of State in seeing delegations from my part of the world on two or three occasions. The most recent was last week, when a senior team discussed the implications of ABE—adult basic education—ESL—English as a second language—and community further education. The first time that we saw the Minister of State he was impressed because I gave him an amendment to the Bill. That was before Christmas, and the Minister seemed to be inclined to accept it. The first time that a few hon. Friends and I saw the Minister he told us to come back with some experts so that they could argue with his experts to sort out the matter. That is what happened, and last week we were lucky enough to have a good discussion with all the top people on both sides.
  I then tried unsuccessfully to explain to the Minister of State why some clauses are totally unacceptable to some of my constituents. When my right hon. and learned Friend would not give way to me earlier on, I wished to say that his suggestion that clause 6 was suitable and wholly admirable had been considered by my constituents. Their views were made known to us last week and we had a subsequent meeting in Leicestershire. For reasons that I fully support, the amendment suggests that the safeguards in clause 6 are inadequate.
  Some hon. Members will be lucky enough to be on the Standing Committee. If I am on it, or if any of my hon. Friends from the same county are on it, I am sure that we shall table that particular amendment to clause 5. We have been so awkward, from the point of view of the Whips, because clause 5 is inadequate unless it includes a couple of lines to the effect that the further education funding councils will take account of existing quality providers, as listed under schedule 2. It is a simple amendment. The first time that I suggested it to the Minister he seemed impressed, but last time he seemed less impressed. Therefore, nothing in my consultations with my hon.

  873
  Friends has shown that we should do other than press the amendment in Committee or on Report. It does not alter the character of the Bill, which we all welcome as an improvement to community and further education. It simply recognises that some parts of the world have reached a standard that my hon. Friend can only envisage for other parts of the country.
  The Minister need not take my word for it. HMI carried out a detailed and exhaustive examination of Leicester's ABE recently. As hon. Members know, when HMI visits, it tears the institution to bits and takes it apart at the seams. HMI went through the Leicester adult basic education structure. I have with me the full report, but time will not permit to read it now. It is full of admiration for the work of Leicestershire ABE.
  The report makes particular reference to the one-for-one education in the home as of right. I need not explain why that is necessary. Many perfectly normal people do not want to learn publicly. For example, pensioners may not want to show that they cannot spell. They may not be 100 per cent. fit physically, but they are alert mentally and often self-improvement is the only thing that keeps them alive. That is what ABE is all about.
  I can refer only briefly to the report. It gives many good examples of how ABE is carried out and praises the ABE service in Leicestershire. The conclusion is:
  "Leicestershire has established a strong foundation of provision. It is now timely to consider building on this foundation."
  That is not what I say; it is what HMI advised the Secretary of State. With great respect, how dare he ignore that sort of advice about a service that has been taken apart and been seen to be serving the country almost beyond comparison.
  The Secretary of State is not in ignorance. He has been told about the report by the Minister of State. As a result of the report and the recommendation that I have just quoted, the Leicestershire ABE service was expanded. All the recommendations in this two-page report have been put into effect. Leicestershire is one of the most progressive ABE providers in the country and it is recognised as such both locally and nationally.
  As a result of the report, 13 half-time posts have been turned into full-time posts, a deputy county co-ordinator has been created, its class provision has been greatly increased and a number of its ABE bases have been upgraded. To lose this local, student-centred, urban-rural co-ordinated, well resourced, efficient service with highly trained, well motivated, dedicated staff can be in no one's interest, least of all the adult students for whom it caters.
  The time for speeches is limited now, but after 10 o'clock it will be slightly longer, so some of my choice comments can wait until then, but I should like to say a word about community further education. My delegation came from all parts of the county of Leicester. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) came with a delegation of experts from the county and I brought a few experts. We also dealt with further education. I brought Mike Lee, the vice-principal of Welland Park community college in Market Harborough. He had been in correspondence with me for a long time. We have been extending successive invitations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and others to visit us.
  874
  I must conclude now as I have run out of time, but I hope possibly to resume my speech after 10 o'clock.
  8.34 pm
  Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: I will not follow the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) on the Leicestershire question, but I am sure that the Secretary of State will, indeed, make his visit before the election.
  I should like to remark on the particularly moving speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir R. Rhodes James). He said that he was returning to learning for its own sake and for the love of learning. I am certain that his contribution, as with the contribution of many other scholars, is not learning for its own sake because that learning also enriches language and the whole community. It has always been a pleasure to have him in the House during education debates. I hope that he reads the tributes to him from this side of the House as well as from his own side.
  I shall deal with the aspects of the Bill that concern my favourite Department of state, the Welsh Office. The Bill represents the latest and final step in the devolution of education policy and administration to the Welsh Office. We now have in place a fully devolved education system. Last year training was devolved and now we have the further education funding council for Wales and the higher education funding council for Wales. I was pleased at the appointment of Professor John Andrews as the joint chief executive of both councils. We look forward to the appointment and functioning of the shadow council.
  The official Opposition criticised the FE changes as a form of centralisation. Even from the Welsh perspective it can be argued that to transfer the 30 FE colleges to a body that is accountable to the Welsh Office rather than to have them as part of local government is a form of centralisation. I do not share that view. I see this as creating opportunity for a relatively small-scale system to be treated as one system for planning purposes. Nevertheless, I share some of the concerns expressed about the effect of that on the adult education component. Again, my experience of the FE sector is that already FE colleges are taking funding from different agencies, not least from the training and enterprise councils and, previously, the Manpower Services Commission, where we had many of the most effective innovations in higher education.
  In particular, I welcome the commitment in schedule 2 to Welsh medium teaching and to Welsh language literacy. The further education funding council will certainly want to pursue the work that has already been undertaken by the Welsh adult education committee and the Welsh Language Education Development Committee.
  It is high time that in classifying education policy we moved away from these artificial distinctions between secondary education, further education, higher education and adult and continuing education. I came to the House from adult education via higher education and for me life is all about education. Education must necessarily include training. I was supportive of the earlier parts of the Secretary of State's speech in which he mentioned the need to develop an education system that was life-long based and able to tackle the present social changes. This provides

  875
  us with an opportunity for greater co-operation between the TECs, the training component of education, and the further education sector.
  I welcome the higher education funding council for Wales. On this occasion I am wearing one version of the university of Wales tie—not the version favoured by the Leader of the Opposition because it is important that we should display diversity.
  I am pleased to see the university of Wales being devolved and I certainly do not share the concerns expressed by some in the universities that the devolution of the university to the Welsh Office will give rise to problems in the internal structure of colleges, or the assertion that every higher education institution in Wales should come into some kind of relationship with the university. I believe that there was a strong argument before the devolution that it was important to maintain the university of Wales as a federal institution. If there are arguments now for maintaining the federal structure, they have to be won by that federal structure proving that it is the best way of providing common services to constituent institutions. We have to look not just to the university but to the other institutions of higher education in Wales. They are all now equal partners. There may be an argument, in that context, for moving away from a strong federal structure, as that would tend to dominate the rest of our education within Wales.
  The old argument that it is a national university and therefore a national institution and thus needs to be maintained is not one that I would pursue. After all, the Welsh Office is our prime national institution and now it is in charge of our funding. Soon the autonomous council will be administering that funding on the basis of objective standards, and there is not a case, in my view, for a duplication of allocation between the funding council and a joint university structure.
  I am also pleased to see reference in the Bill to the position of the Open University. My reading of clause 62(b) is that both funding councils will be able to fund the OU, which means that in the context of Wales the OU can receive additional funding for its operation within Wales. I speak as a former part-time member of its staff in Wales. The OU will be able to receive funding from the higher education funding council of Wales to augment its activities there.
  I also have concern, of course, about the position of a college in my own constituency, also an institution in which I once taught. It is important that we have a guaranteed role for such institutions within our reorganised HE and FE sector.
  I want to make certain that when we debate the Bill in detail we shall be able to do something about research funding in Wales. Many of us are concerned that, over the years, the UFC, although it has its own scheme for the allocation of research funding, has not sufficiently looked to the distribution within the nations and regions of the United Kingdom of its research funding. I hope that there will be a sufficient funding base for the new funding councils and that they will he able to look at the need for a broad profile of research throughout the higher education institutions which they fund.
  When we consider the Bill in Committee we shall need to look in detail at the representation on both the equality body and the funding councils. The major consumers of education are its users and its student body. It is very important that we follow some of the debates that are
  876
  already taking place in the other place about representation of the student body on the higher education structures.
  The Bill represents a positive move forward in the structuring of Welsh education. I cannot share some of the concerns expressed in various parts of the House, certainly as far as Wales is concerned. My anxiety has always been, ever since I came into the House, to see the development of a strong, autonomous education system within Wales. My first Second Reading speech was on education, when I called for a comprehensive over-16 education system in Wales. I was at that time trying to persuade the then Labour Government that it should introduce such a system. I find myself making what I assume is my last speech in a Second Reading debate on education congratulating a Conservative Government on having done just that.
  8.43 pm
  Dr. Ian Twinn: I start by declaring an interest as an adviser to the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, the union I joined when I first started work as a polytechnic lecturer in 1975 just across the river at South Bank. Since 1975, we have seen some tremendous changes in higher education—certainly, since 1979, changes of which Conservative Members have every reason to be proud. We have seen student numbers increase and the quality of the graduates keeping pace with the numbers going into higher education.
  I am very pleased to say that it is the polytechnics that have played the lion's part in the expansion of higher education. I am happy to have been a lecturer during that time and to have contributed to that expansion. Other speakers in this debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir R. Rhodes James), have talked about the joy of teaching. Certainly those of us who come into the House and who have taught before find that it is the one thing that we miss. I would have liked seminar classes the size of the audience this evening at times when I was lecturing.
  I am particularly pleased that the polytechnics have now been recognised as coming of age and are to be able to be universities. It was a great step forward when they were set free from the local authorities. I worked for the South Bank poly, which was controlled by the Inner London education authority, and I saw the effects of that control on my polytechnic. We were a limited company, with something very similar to the corporate status which the Opposition would like for further education colleges, while still remaining within local government control. I know the problems which that situation caused. I can therefore well appreciate the attitude of principals of further education colleges in wanting to follow the polytechnics down the line of independence from local authorities, although, one would hope, still maintaining very close links with those authorities, but having their independence and their funding coming from elsewhere.
  When I started as a polytechnic lecturer, I had moved from the university system, where I had been trained. The contrast was stark, in that all the students whom I taught as a polytechnic lecturer had a very clear idea what they wanted to do in their careers when they left. They therefore had a certain keenness in their vocational training.

  877
  The polytechnics started out with that mission—in my case, the Borough polytechnic at the turn of the century. The polytechnics have had a long and noble career in fulfilling their mission of technical and vocational education. But we saw the breakdown of the binary divide while I was still lecturing. It was impossible to talk about the quality of an individual institution; it was impossible to talk about the quality of individual faculties. If one wanted to make comparisons within higher education, one had to look at the quality of a department, if not of a degree course itself. Certainly, there were plenty of university degree courses within my field of geography and town planning that were recognised as being very inferior to those courses that had been provided by polytechnics for many years.
  As a lecturer, I was rather cynical about polytechnics which started to ape universities and call their heads of department professors, for instance, and start to look and behave like universities. I was rather against changes of that sort. But, as time went by and the difference between universities and polytechnics disappeared and polytechnics were taking their part in the expansion of higher education, it became more and more difficult to justify that binary divide. Finally, I changed my mind when I came across the problem when talking to representatives of overseas higher education institutions, who just did not understand what a polytechnic was. On a number of occasions when South Bank polytechnic was trying to negotiate research contracts jointly with European institutions, the latter said that they dealt only with universities, not technical colleges. It took a considerable time to get through to a German institute, for instance, the fact that we were not just a technical college, but a polytechnic, a higher education institute. So the practicalities of being a polytechnic became very difficult indeed.
  The change to university status will be welcomed. However, I see one problem and perhaps in his winding-up speech the Minister will address it. Although we are to abolish the divide in terms of funding, I am concerned that the new funding council could end up discriminating between institutions. It may take a stance on the level of research and give more research money to some colleges and universities than to others. I hope that that does not happen. We must ensure equality of treatment by the new funding council. I hope that funding, certainly for research, will be based on the results obtained in faculties or departments and not in institutions. Let us introduce some real competition to higher education. All academics know that competition already exists. We know which university and polytechnic departments we rate highly and which we do not. We do not always speak about that, but we are free with such advice to prospective university students.
  I hope that the new institutions and the Government will ensure that this great step forward for polytechnics comes to fruition. There is a dire need to implement the Bill's provisions. As hon. Members have said, the polytechnics have been planning for some time for university status and the power to award degrees. Some students in my constituency who are registered for Council for National Academic Awards degrees expect to have a degree from the University of Middlesex and not from the
  878
  CNAA. I can understand their excitement about that. As a former academic who had to deal with visiting panels and who had to try to get new degree courses established, I am pleased to see the CNAA go. It did not inspire much confidence on the bottom rung of lecturing, although I have no doubt that it was popular with those who sat on the visiting panels trying to stop new courses. I have never known an institution that tried to crush competition in quite the way the CNAA did when I was a lecturer. I welcome the debate on the guillotine motion because it will ensure that polytechnic students can look forward to graduating from a university.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: I should like to declare an interest that may be relevant. I am a trustee of Barnsley college educational trust. I shall confine myself to further and not higher education, and I shall deal with the problems in my constituency which for many years has had a low take-up of post-16 education. We are at the bottom of many league tables for such take-up. The local authority tried desperately to remedy the situation, which has a long history. Many years ago, employment in mining was easily available and many 16-year-olds took a job in the industry. That entailed a certain amount of training. There are, of course, other reasons for the low take-up, one of which is a culture bias against further education.
  The local education authority rationalised its sixth forms and established a sixth form college. It became a tertiary college with open enrolment to encourage more 16-year-olds to take up further education. The Bill threatens much of what my local authority has been doing for some years and puts at risk the hard work and money that it has invested in the tertiary college. I remind the House that my local authority is 36th out of 36 in allocations of revenue support grant to metropolitan districts. We get the lowest amount, and the effect is especially acute in education. We are now faced with the loss of the tertiary college and, perhaps more importantly, with the loss of any input into the college's future education provision.
  The Bill will allow colleges and further education institutions to become corporate institutions funded by the further education funding council. That will cut off any local authority or local government influence. There will be no opportunity for local authorities to pursue further education policies to encourage take-up or to increase take-up, such as is required in my LEA. There will no longer be any LEA governors. Even the minor input to the governing body will be removed from local authorities. That illustrates the Government's opposition to local government influence in any aspect. We have seen attack after attack on local government, and mine has suffered more than most, especially in terms of the grant allocated to it in the past few years.
  It seems strange that, while a Bill to restructure and inquire into local government is going through the House, another Bill seeks to remove further education provision from local authorities. The Government could have waited until after the publication of the commission's findings. The commission may well report that it would be better to keep education under the control of local authorities rather than passing it to the further education funding council or to corporate colleges. Those colleges will compete with each other through the provision of courses

  879
  simply to attract more and more students. Poor take-up or the loss of students to other colleges could lead to college closures.
  The director of a college that is the neighbour of a college in my constituency summed it up when he said that he intended to turn Barnsley college into a car park. My town and my local authority could lose a college as a result of the competition engendered by the Bill. How will the people in my area have a choice if our college is closed? How will local needs be addressed if students in my area have to travel many miles to colleges in other towns? Obviously, colleges will have to try to reduce costs and increase the numbers of students if they are to stay in business.
  We are also concerned about the removal of accountability. As I have said, colleges will not be able to respond to local needs. There is no way in which people in my constituency could take up any issue or grievance about further education other than through the private college and then, presumably, to the Secretary of State.
  Over the years, my local authority has tried desperately to obtain a higher take-up of post-16 education. In Barnsley there have already been clashes between the local college and the local education authority because the college, which is now a private company, has decided to go in the opposite direction to that in which the local authority wished it to go. The courses offered formerly by the college which generated income for the local authority are now being offered through private companies, with the money from those courses going to the college itself as opposed to the education authority. It is that type of control over the content of education provision that is worrying. Courses will probably be offered that do not assist in a local area or are irrelevant to it—that may happen in an area such as mine which is trying to encourage the take-up of post-16 education.
  Another big fear of mine concerns charging for further education. That will be particularly unwelcome in an area such as mine which has unemployment of well over 11.5 per cent. Were further education charges to be imposed, they could have a detrimental effect on the people in my area.
  The transfer of assets also concerns me. Two colleges are involved—the tertiary college to which I referred and the Northern college. The tertiary college was formed from two town-centre college buildings and a secondary school which was closed to become part of the college. If those facilities were to be transferred to a corporate college, it would result in a substantial loss of facilities for my local education authority, such as sports fields, arts facilities, a theatre and a hall. They would represent a major loss to the local authority and would not be available for the local area. How can the local education authority make anything of its residual power for adult and part-time education if it has no facilities in which to house those assets?
  Perhaps the transfer of such assets would be better done by way of a lease so that, should the college fail or should it have to come back into local education authority ownership, the buildings and facilities would still be in the ownership of the authority. That might ensure the continuation of the college.
  The assets of any college include its staff. Although there is to be continuation of employment for the lecturers and staff, there seems to be no guarantee of any jobs for
  880
  the lecturers and teachers once colleges become corporate institutions. What guarantee have the staff of a future within the college structure?
  Northern college is in a unique position in that it is funded by local authorities in south Yorkshire, one of them being Barnsley metropolitan district council. The college was established by local education authorities and, were it not for the involvement of those authorities, it would not exist. Other hon. Members have paid tribute to Northern college. It would be a shame if it were put under threat by the Bill.
  The college is housed in a stately home owned by Barnsley metropolitan district council. It is surrounded by a considerable acreage of land which includes an ancient monument, Stainborough castle, and other areas of natural beauty which belong to the authority. It bought them in the 1940s and 1950s to house the then Wentworth Castle teacher training college, which later became Northern college. It is inconceivable to me that the Government will remove from my local authority the ownership of the college and the grounds in which it stands. They are a major tourist attraction, apart from being a college and its surroundings, and over the years my local authority has spent a considerable amount on building up the original college and then on providing facilities for Northern college to start up.
  Ownership of the facilities should remain with the local education authority, even if Northern college is designated as a relevant college for the purposes of the Act. I hope that in his response the Minister will say what will happen to Northern college under the provisions of the Bill. I should also like him to say whether it will be able to retain the character of its courses—mainly adult education and trade union courses. Although there are one or two colleges like it in other parts of the country, it would be a shame if such courses were to be threatened by the Bill.
  9.3 pm
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: I am particularly concerned about youngsters between the ages of 16 and 19. 1 have always been a supporter of sixth form centres and colleges, even when many people were against them, and I should like to make sure that nothing in the Bill will limit choice for 16 to 19-year-olds who want to go to sixth form centres. Until now, 16-year-olds who have outgrown school or some who have not done well at school and want a fresh start have had the choice of going on at school or of going to local sixth form centres.
  The Secretary of State was evasive about whether education would continue to be free in the new organisations. There may be charges for textbooks and materials, which would be prohibitive for children from poor families, as many families are in Tower Hamlets.
  I want to be absolutely sure about the question of child benefit. The child benefit regulations say that the mothers of youngsters from 16 to 19
  "still in full-time non-advanced education"
  are entitled to child benefit. I want to be sure that they will still be classified as school pupils entitled to child benefit when the changeover takes place. I would not like us to wake up and find that there had been an unfortunate change in this respect. I want child benefit payments to be guaranteed.
  More in doubt are the means-tested discretionary grants, worth about £300, that many local education authorities give to youngsters from poor families. That is

  881
  very little, but I know of a number of cases where the family is living on the margins and must have some money coming in from the 16 to 19-year-old, and that £300 has made the difference to whether a youngster can stay on in education. Unless the Bill makes some provision to allow them to be replaced in the new organisation, the changeover will mean that those discretionary grants will go to the wall.
  I do not want possible charges to mean that higher and further education will be for those of independent means, and that people who have little money will not be able to continue in education after 16. I also wish that in the Bill there had been a move towards what I would call comprehensive education beyond 16. Up to now, youngsters taking vocational or academic courses have been the ones provided for, but there should be enrichment courses for any youngster who wishes to stay on. This is particularly important in areas such as mine where the attainment level is lower than in many other parts of the country.
  Youngsters should be able to state what they want. If they want to study typewriting, ceramics or a language for three months, or do a short one-term course in music, they should be able to do so. It might give them a taste for education and lead on to further courses, and even if they just take a short course, it enriches their life and adds to their cultural development. The Bill should cater for—but does not—that kind of development.
  Many of the women's organisations such as women's institutes and the Fawcett Society are angry at the approach to so-called leisure education and the false division of education between vocational and leisure. Many women come back into education through courses that, under the new classification, might be termed leisure courses, for which they will have to pay quite high fees. As women have less money than men on the whole, because their wages are lower and they have less chance to accumulate money and savings, it will be harder for women to return to education. All the hullabaloo about the Prime Minister's charter for women will seem rather cynical if there are fewer women in higher education by the year 2000. That is a bad development.
  I have found in Tower Hamlets that adult education is really being squeezed because local education authorities, now that there has been a change in the business rate, are finding it very hard to secure funds. A community education staff group approached me last week. Their courses were slashed first by 20 per cent., and this year by another 20 per cent., and they plan to hold a meeting about the decimation of adult education.
  So-called leisure courses, which are becoming expensive and, in many areas, are being abandoned because of lack of funding, are very important to working-class people. For instance, many women go to car maintenance classes. Without such classes it would be unsafe for them to run a car. Many pensioners get great enjoyment from these classes. They are kept young, active and alert in mind and body, and as a result the state saves a good deal of money in the health service and in other ways. If adult education classes become so expensive that people on low incomes cannot afford them, or if they have to close down because
  882
  local education authorities are squeezed by a reduction in the amount they get from the business rate, a serious blow will be dealt to women and older people.
  As I know that at least two other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall not take up much more of the time of the House. However, I wish to refer to the question of democracy. This too affects women. Women are under-represented on boards and on all political bodies, but local government is one area in which they have better representation. If funding of further education is removed from elected local councils we shall be left with a less democratic and less accountable system. Women will have no influence at all on the funding councils to be nominated by the Secretary of State. This too is a retrograde step.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: I wish to refer primarily to the fundamental flaw in the Bill, to which several hon. Members alluded—the removal of further education institutions from local education authority funding and control. In addition, I shall make some remarks about adult education generally.
  The glaring fault, the San Andreas fault, that runs through the Bill—I refer to the centralised control of further education colleges—can be justified neither in terms of past failure nor in terms of likely future improvement of organisation and provision. It cannot be said that under the local education authorities the further education system has failed to prosper. Indeed, it has prospered and been popular. There is no evidence at all that the further education colleges do not have the approval of their communities, and they have earned the commendation of Her Majesty's inspectorate—although perhaps, under the present Government, that is the kiss of death.
  Nor can the polytechnics be cited as a precedent. Their removal from LEA control can be justified in terms of their role as national providers. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said much about that point. In any case, there are only 29 such colleges, plus, of course, the national colleges. They exist as a national network, have operated under the national advisory body and have developed their own internal structures. On the other hand, there are more than 500 institutions for the 16 to 19-year-olds. These are essentially local in orientation and provision, so there is no close parallel with the polytechnics; thus, the polytechnics should not be cited as a precedent. In that regard, therefore, there is not much justification for such a radical move.
  What, then, are the likely consequences? Is there any justification there? Perhaps the change has overriding advantages. Will it, perhaps, result in greater coherence in strategic planning? Let me quote Hendon college:
  "School sixth formers will continue to exist side by side with the institutions in the newly formed post-16 sector and will be able to offer places to adults and part-time students. There is every potential that the new arrangements may lack coherence in terms of patterns of provision of education and training across the country, which must take into account local and regional, as well as national, imperatives."
  Will good use be made of local knowledge and expertise? It is said:
  "It is proposed to remove all LEA reps from governing bodies. No good reason is put forward for this, and there are strong grounds to continue some representation to maintain links with the rest of the local education service, including

  883
  adult education, schools, the career service and the youth service. (And, indeed, also as the major employers within the area.)"
  That is the view of Conservative-controlled London borough of Redbridge.
  What about local accountability? Redbridge states:
  "The removal of the colleges from the LEA sector will also remove the colleges from the local democratic accountability that they now have, replacing this by a body of governors which is, in effect, a self-perpetuating oligarchy."
  These reforms are ill-judged, rushed and unwanted. They have no justification in terms of efficiency and national planning. Any justification can be based only on doctrinaire policies. As the Conservative leader of Hampshire county council said, it is "government by denigration".
  The LEAs are left with the problem of coping with a system that separates 16 to 19-year-olds who are still in school, for whom they are responsible and who belong to a different network of provision from the majority of their cohorts. That is an administrative nightmare and young lives are being disadvantaged. We must consider also the fate of 16 to 19-year-olds who have chosen to go to sixth form colleges, which come under schools regulations and which are soon, according to the Bill, to come under further education regulations. I respectfully suggest that the Secretary of State and his Ministers take a closer look at the implications of the Bill for the 16 to 19-year-olds who are trapped on the wrong side of the tracks, or between the tracks.
  Leisure courses, which are split off from adult vocational courses, are another major responsibility for LEAs. They are itemised in schedule 2. The LEAs will provide leisure courses on a discretionary basis by means of funding that is provided through revenue support. That means in effect that costs will be passed on to students. They will be pitched at levels that many clients can ill afford. As a result, the courses will not be viable. Accordingly, their range will be reduced drastically, and in many areas they will disappear.
  Voluntary providers such as the Workers Educational Association, and many others, are limited in what they can do. They hope that they will be part-funded by the new funding councils, but they are uncertain about their relationship. If they are part-funded, they are certain that it will be to a level that will force them to pass costs on to students. The result will be similar to those that I have already described.
  The comments of one or two clients are revealing. One course client wrote:
  "My return to a more formal vocational education started by simply attending a ladies' keep fit class and a craft class. This was the first time since leaving school that I had taken up any form of learning. These classes, no matter how trivial or unimportant they are perceived to be by more learned people, were the stepping stones to my education."
  I could read many letters of that sort.
  Access is all-important and it is short-sighted to put adult education at such risk. The Bill puts adult learning under threat. The adult literacy and basic skills unit has been an important avenue for access to basic skills education. It has ranged from relatively informal adult education to a more formal approach. I approve of the inclusion of basic skills in schedule 2 as a statutory responsibility. It is an advance on the vagaries of discretionary LEA funding, which has often marginalised the work of the ALBSU. I am sure that there will be a positive response to that opportunity.
  884
  I make two pleas on behalf of the adult literacy and basic skills unit. First, the funding council should fund these courses on the basis of agreed standards and not on the basis of competition and market forces, to which they are not amenable. Secondly, the opportunity should be taken to free this part of education from the margins of funding by allocating a guaranteed proportion of funding to it that is more than the average of 1·5 per cent. of the present adult and further education budget.
  A related issue is that specific provision should be made for students with special needs. There seems to be a dearth of references to that principle, which is well-established in the schools sector.
  Another major means of access to formal further and higher education is the open college networks. Members of the open college network are a consortia of providers, which operate a national credit transfer framework and are subject to its processes of quality assurance. The open network accreditation provides a framework of rigorous validation. The accreditation processes require the identification of clear routes of progression as a condition of course recognition, but open college networks do not themselves provide courses. Perhaps, in Committee, Ministers will consider an amendment to clause 5, allowing a funding council to give financial support to an institution established by providers of further education for the purpose of operating credit accumulation and transfer arrangements related to the types of education set out in schedule 2—in other words, an open college network.
  I see that I have run out of time. I ask Ministers to give serious consideration to parts of the Bill that merit further examination.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: We have had an interesting opportunity to debate further and higher education. I suspect that, although we may have had many debates on higher education over the past decade or so, we have had few, if any, on further and adult education, and for that reason alone today's debate is welcome. It is interesting for another reason, however: we have heard a number of valedictory speeches today. I refer to the voluntary ones, although one or two may be in a different category. Several hon. Members have said that their speeches today will probably be their last in the House of Commons.
  I have heard most of today's speeches. I have always enjoyed the contributions of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas)—who is not in the Chamber at present—to education debates. Those of us who served on the Standing Committee that considered the Education Reform Bill in 1988 welcomed his voice—a voice of freshness and difference—and it is sad to see him retire from the House and go to other pastures at such a young age. I say that with some feeling.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House will no doubt want to add to the comments that have been made about the final speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir R. Rhodes James). We will all have noted the substantial and significant contribution that he has made to our education debates over the years. He has introduced a voice of experience and learning; a voice from the academic world, which should be listened to and respected. I look forward to observing his continued work as a

  885
  researcher and scholar, and I am sure that, in both capacities, he will continue to make a substantial contribution.
  We shall miss the hon. Gentleman's contributions to education debates. It was characteristic of him to say that we should set up a non-party, apolitical committee to consider education issues. I am sure that that is the way in which he would approach such issues—although I tend to feel that such characteristics will not dominate our education debates over the next few weeks.
  It would be remiss of the Opposition to suggest that we do not support parts of the Bill—and we shall support them in Committee, while trying to improve some elements. I refer in particular to the end of the binary divide. Let me echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and others in congratulating the polytechnics on the success that they have achieved so far. It would be churlish to argue about the nature and cause of that success. As the Minister has pointed out, I have a vested interest; let me simply congratulate the staff of the polytechnics. It is right that the divide between the two sets of higher education institutions should now be abolished.
  However, that raises questions that need to be answered. My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Dr. Kumar) talked about the need to ensure quality of funding and treatment and to define the purpose of further and higher education, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) also referred. It is important that those issues are addressed. The hon. Member for Cambridge, who is now back in his place, made some important points about research and about the nature of the mission of higher education institutions.
  To get the record correct, we must remind Conservative Members that it was the Labour party that tabled amendments to end the binary divide when we considered in Committee what became the Education Reform Act 1988. I was slightly amused earlier when the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) devoted at least eight minutes of his 10-minute speech to getting rid of the binary divide. I looked up the report of the 1988 Standing Committee and noticed that he voted against such a measure. One thing is clear—this may apply to other Conservative Members: time has moved on and perhaps Conservative Members now recognise the strength of new arguments, which have always been the Labour party's arguments. Nevertheless, we are glad that that divide is now to be abolished.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: We are winning them over.
  Mr. Fatchett: Indeed, we win them over bit by bit, but unfortunately that process will not go on for much longer—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friends say, we are winning the intellectual argument bit by bit, and that will certainly continue, but unfortunately we shall be unable to win over sufficient numbers of Conservative Members because there will not be so many of them when we return after the election—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends are right; I personalise these things too much. I should not worry about redundant Conservative Members because they usually do very well.
  I hope that the Minister of State will give us some reassurance on an important point tonight because it is a
  886
  matter on which we shall seek to table amendments in Committee. I refer to the higher education institutions that had been preparing for polytechnic status, such as Luton, Derby, Southampton, Bolton, Cheltenham and Gloucester. Those institutions now seem to be at the other side of a new binary divide, providing high quality education that has been approved by the Council for National Academic Awards. They are doing good work, but are unable to be part of the new funding council, as they wish. An artificial divide has been created. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) knows one such institute and the pressures that it faces. These institutions should be given the opportunity to obtain university status if that is what they wish. I look forward to the Minister of State giving us an assurance on that either tonight or in Committee. I advise him that, despite the limited amount of time that will be available for any form of debate in Standing Committee, we shall seek to amend the Bill to give those institutions the rights that are enjoyed by other institutions.
  The contentious part of the Bill is that dealing not with higher education, but with further education. It was clear from his speech that the Secretary of State could not find much support for his measures. He has no mandate. The Bill was not part of the election manifesto on which Conservative Members fought the last election.
  It is also clear that there is no support for the Bill among the local authorities or those who commented on the White Paper last year. The Secretary of State did not follow the practice of his right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), the current Home Secretary, who, when he was Secretary of State for Education and Science, published the responses to the White Paper that led to the Education Reform Act. The current Secretary of State did not do so. It is interesting to believe that the Home Secretary is the champion of open government while the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) likes to keep things under wraps. Having analysed what Conservative authorities have said, it is clear that there is no support for the provisions among the Conservative shire counties, the very bodies which, as has been pointed out, will be asked to knock on doors and to canvass support for the Conservative party in the next few weeks.
  Let us start with Essex—many would say that there is no better place to start. Let us begin by considering the comments of Essex county council which is not, by any means, a Labour authority. It said:
  "The White Paper's proposals failed to make a convincing case why FE Colleges and Sixth Form Colleges are to be removed from local authority control."
  So there is no support there.
  Then we go to Surrey, the local education authority of the right hon. Member for Mole Valley. One would have thought that with his persuasive charm he could have influenced Conservative Members. What was the response? It said that the proposals were
  "without any reasonable explanation or justification."
  Again, no support.
  The third example is from the west midlands. It is Hereford and Worcester LEA, one which has always been a little troublesome to the Government and whose members have been prepared to defend local government. The local authority made a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) made earlier. It pointed out that, in order to establish some local

  887
  knowledge, the further education funding council would have to establish regional committees and that those regional committees would cover 5·2 million people. It said:
  "The needs and aspirations of its 5·2 million inhabitants require something more than a regional committee of 12 or so members, none of whom will be democratically representative of the community nor will they be accountable to that community for their actions."
  Is not the crucial argument that the Government have taken out of democratic control such an important service as further education and are placing it in the hands of an unaccountable, undemocratic bureaucracy? In so doing, they face opposition from not only Labour but Conservative local education authorities.
  Why are the Government centralising and nationalising the further education colleges? One argument may simply be that which the Secretary of State used in his statement in March last year. He said that Britain lagged behind its competitors. It was an interesting statement because it recognised that the Government had been in office for 11 years and Britain still lagged behind in post-16 education and training provision. That point was recognised by Lord Belstead in the Second Reading debate in the other place. He said:
  "I would not stand before your Lordships today and say that participation rates in further education after the age of 16 are entirely as they should be".—[Official Report, House of Lords; 21 November 1991, c. 1022.]
  That was a Minister talking about his Government's record. It is a record of failure recognised by the Secretary of State and by a Minister in the Department of Education and Science.
  Mr. Turner: And by the Select Committee.
  Mr. Fatchett: And by the Select Committee, as my hon. Friend says.
  If there is a reason for that failure, it is not that the further education colleges are at fault. The reason is the failure of the Government to give any direction, meaning or leadership in post-16 education and training in Britain. For a decade we have lived with the short-change, quick-fix approach to post-16 training. The Government have seen youth training as a means not of providing vocational qualifications and easy access to qualifications for the labour market but of massaging the unemployment figures. That is why they claim now that they have achieved some improvements in staying-on rates.
  But the only way that the Government can point to an improvement is by including youth training—a scheme that is discredited by European standards and gives only a quarter of those who enter it any valid and marketable qualification. That is the record of the Government. Incidentally, it is a record which shows itself in another way. The Secretary of State says that he has now discovered further education and post-16 education as a priority. Perhaps he has not looked at his Department's record. In the past three years, that record shows that the investment per student from 1987 to 1990—these are the Government's own figures—fell by 10 per cent. in real terms. The Government have not invested in further education.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Those are ridiculous figures.
  Mr. Fatchett: They are the Government's figures.
  Mr. Clarke: I am sorry, I did not intend to put the hon. Gentleman off. He used a ridiculous figure which shows the worthwhile advance in reducing unit costs. He then said in the next phrase that those figures showed that we had failed to invest. The record over the past three years is of rapid increases in investment and enormous increases in the number of students. The hon. Gentleman uses the stupid statistics which the Opposition constantly use to denigrate a programme of rapid extra investment in education.
  Mr. Fatchett: I should have thought that even this Secretary of State could have done better than that. When talking of schools, the Secretary of State likes to use the figures per pupil. When it comes to colleges, he has to use other terms. As he knows, there has been a cut in the level of investment per student in the college sector.
  The Government have failed further education, have failed to provide leadership and have now introduced a measure which is simply aimed at centralising and giving more power to the Secretary of State. The measure is against the wishes of the Government's friends in local government.
  However, the further education provisions are crucial to the nature of the Bill because the Government have never seen the consequences of their actions. The worst of those consequences will be the Bill's effect on the adult education service, which is a matter of pride for students, for local education authorities and for those who work in the service. Indeed, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Sir R. Maxwell-Hyslop) argued strongly about that aspect of the Bill, mentioning the link with the community in terms of pre-16 and post 16-year-old students and adults and the impact of the Bill on education provision and the life of a community.
  The Bill will put adult education at risk throughout the country. When the Secretary of State was asked to justify the new system, he said that it was neat, it was tidy and that it would work. Then we went into some of the details and the various layers in the bureaucracy. There will be a bid to a further education college in the hope that funding will be available. If it is not available, there will be a bid to the further education funding council. If the money is not available there, the college will have to go to the local education authority.
  Is it not nonsense for the Government to believe that local education authorities—stripped of their further education functions, and colleges, rate-capped and under great pressure because of the poll tax in many areas—will pick up the tab from central Government to fund adult education? Have not the Government given a clear message to every local education authority that the Government value vocational adult education but not non-vocational adult education? The division does not exist intellectually or in practice, but the Government want to hold to that division because they believe that it will save money when providing adult education services.
  If my hon. Friends are in any way doubtful about what will happen to the adult education service, let them look at the record of what has happened in Conservative-controlled local education authorities in the past few years. When they have been under pressure to keep down the poll tax, what service has been cut more than any other? It will always be the non-mandatory, discretionary services. In

  889
  Warwickshire, it was the virtual abolition of the youth service—written out by the Conservative local education authority.
  Mr. Pawsey: That is a gross exaggeration. The youth service in Warwickshire will still attract a budget of more than £450,000 and the county council does not propose to sell off any buildings or plant. So the youth service remains. Warwickshire county council wishes to involve the voluntary sector more in its proposal.
  Mr. Fatchett: That was probably one of the weakest defences that I have heard. I am glad that I will never be in a position to have to employ the hon. Gentleman as a counsel in my defence because, as he knows, Warwickshire is basically opting out of its responsibilities for a youth service.
  We also know that throughout the country Conservative-controlled LEAs have cut back on adult education, because it is a discretionary service and they see the oppportunity to save money in that area.
  The Government offer one hope to the millions of people who look to the adult education service—that local authorities which are squeezed, in Tory areas against adult education, will then pick up the bill and maintain the service. The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) was right to raise the issue. It is important and it will not go away. In Committee, we shall push the Government further because we want guarantees to ensure that the adult education service survives.
  There is no educational or democratic justification for taking further education colleges out of local education authority control. The Bill came about for one reason—to massage the poll tax and to save the face of Conservative Members. They are so deeply worried and embarrassed by the weakness of their arguments that they are not prepared to spend time in Committee to defend them. They are running away from the argument. Parents have no confidence in the Government's provision of education. The Government have lost the confidence of parents and they have lost confidence in their own arguments. After this Bill, they will be on the way to defeat at the next election. The Bill will be a further nail in their electoral coffin.
  9.40 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): We have had an interesting debate which has been dominated by distinguished ex-lecturers and the ex-teachers on the Opposition Benches. We have enjoyed the quality of their arguments.
  I do not have a lot of time, but I shall try to deal with the points raised by Labour Members and my hon. Friends. It is fair to say that there has been a consensus in welcoming the higher education provisions in the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) raised a couple of items that were still of concern to him. The first related to the condition of grant under clauses 68 and 81. I assure my right hon. Friend that the condition of grant under the Bill, as amended, may not relate to the appointment of particular staff, to the admission of particular students or to the duration of
  890
  particular courses. The power of direction in clause 81 is an important long-stop power for the Secretary of State to protect taxpayers' interests.
  Although the wording of the clause may not be clear as my right hon. Friend would like, it is the result of extensive discussions in another place. It is unlikely that, however much oil is burned between now and Report, we would find a clearer form of words that would be more acceptable to all. We now have the complete agreement of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to that wording.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) raised the issue of the quality assessment committees of the funding council. Those committees will consist of a majority of independent members, and the assessment staff will largely be former members of Her Majesty's inspectorate. It is extremely unlikely, to put it gently, that their judgment will be affected in any way by the fact that they are working for the funding council rather than Her Majesty's inspectorate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir R. Rhodes James) and the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr) asked about the funding of pure and strategic research in higher educational institutions. It is accepted that applied research is intended to be essentially self-financing. We do not intend to make specific resources available for its support. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge that the dividing line between applied and pure research is not perhaps as simple
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) made the important point that the allocation of funds between new and existing university institutions should be on a basis of departmental, rather than institutional, performance. I completely agree with him, and we intend to proceed in that way.
  I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge on his contribution. While we of course regret his departure from this place, I look forward to reading an increased output from his pen. I have greatly enjoyed the books that he has produced over the last 15 years or so. I recall, before coming to this place, attending a small party political meeting not far from the House which he addressed on the subject of the way forward for a future Conservative Government. It was the most stimulating and original presentation that I had heard during the late 1970s. I appreciate, as an individual, how effective he can be as a communicator and lecturer. Lucky indeed are his future students.
  The subject of further education has dominated the debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State explained clearly the broad thrust of the Government's policies and the main features of the Bill. It is worth repeating that we are freeing FE colleges from local authority control and giving them a powerful incentive, through the new funding regime, to recruit additional students.
  FE college funding will be student-led, and colleges will be rewarded for attracting increased numbers. In that way they will have every incentive to respond to local needs and demands and to expand participation locally in the way that they think is best for their communities. They will be the masters of their own destinies, to the benefit of their students, local employers and the country as a whole. Far from centralisation, as those on the Opposition Bench

  891
  have charged, the Bill is about putting the decision-taking powers where they belong—with colleges at a very local level so that they can respond to local needs.
  Some of my hon. Friends expressed concern about the effect of the Bill on adult provision in certain parts of the country. One was my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). I see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who has not been able to speak in the debate, but I know of his concern about what is the almost unique position of Richmond adult and community college. It is widely recognised that that is an excellent college which serves the local community well. I am well aware of the concerns felt in Richmond about the future of the college, and I wish to put them at rest.
  As my hon. Friends know, Richmond college is not included automatically in the Bill's provisions which govern the funding of FE colleges by the new funding council, but should the college wish, it can apply to be funded directly by the FE funding council. The means is through incorporation under clause 16, a provision expressly designed to cover cases such as Richmond college.
  Clause 16 would not be in the Bill had we not expected colleges like Richmond to want the option of taking advantage of it. It would not be there if we did not expect the funding council to be willing to propose to the Secretary of State that such colleges should be funded as part of the new sector. I see no reason why the Secretary of State would turn down such a proposal from the funding council.
  However, as I said in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes, the decision is for Richmond college alone. If it decides not to apply under clause 16, it is also covered by clause 6(5). It can have all its provision on the funding council side considered for funding by the council by applying through an FE college. The regional committee will have an important role to play in advising the council on such an application. If Richmond college were dissatisfied with the handling of its application, it has a right to turn to the Secretary of State. All those who use Richmond college should be aware that there is no reason to believe that the Bill will harm the further education of adults in Richmond or elsewhere.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton (Sir R. Maxwell-Hyslop) and for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) in particular raised the issue of community colleges. Those are important in many parts of the country and we want them to flourish. That is why we introduced clause 6(5), which enables community colleges to apply through FE colleges for schedule 2 provision. The FE colleges must then forward the application to the council where they believe that provision would otherwise be inadequate in the area. That relates to the overall provision in an area, not the provision to be made by the FE colleges themselves.
  If the FE college does not forward the bid, the council can intervene and, together with its regional advisory committee, it will need to understand the circumstances of each locality in the country. The council and committees will need to pay particular attention to the accessibility of provision and the role of community colleges. I assure my hon. Friends that, through guidance to the further education funding councils and advisory committees, we shall ensure that they do just that. We should also remember that the Secretary of State may review the
  892
  decisions of FE colleges and of the council on grounds of unreasonableness or failure to perform a duty. Taken together, those are substantial safeguards for the continued support of schedule 2 provision in community colleges.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton spoke about timing. May I reassure him about that? The timing for colleges applying under clause 6(5) will be the same as for colleges within the new sector. The council will lay down a timetable for applications and ensure that there is plenty of time for those applications to pass through the sponsoring FE college and, where necessary, for an appeals procedure. There is no reason why that cannot be dealt with in the normal annual timetable for determining public expenditure, and we shall take steps to make it absolutely certain that those timing requirements are made widely known not just to LEAs but to community providers.
  The remarkable aspect of this debate is that, after about five hours, the House is still no clearer about the Labour party's policy on further education. The sum total of our knowledge is that Labour Members favour giving further education colleges corporate status as an extension of their local management, but want local authorities to fund the colleges and to retain a major role in planning. They have not answered the most elementary questions.
  Would the Labour party incorporate all colleges, or would there be criteria for incorporation? If so, what criteria would there be? We did not know at the start of the debate; we do not know now. Indeed, it is not clear from Labour's proposals what the point of incorporation is. Labour Members say that they want to make no accompanying changes to funding. In that case, why on earth do they want to introduce incorporation? What is the point of setting up FE colleges as independent, legal entities when they have no more control over their decisions and funding than they have at present and when Labour Members want power to remain, as at present, with LEAs?
  Let us look at the performance of Labour-controlled LEAs. Sandwell LEA set about trying to destroy what is widely recognised to be an excellent and highly regarded FE college. Now the LEA has announced out of the blue that it wants to cut £2·8 million off Sandwell college's budget for next year. The LEA and the Labour party say that that is all part of strategic planning. I call it strategic victimisation. They are strategically seeking to benefit the LEA at the expense of an excellent FE college.
  Let us see what is happening in Labour-controlled Birmingham. Many people there believe that the LEA has deliberately operated a system designed to keep the Birmingham colleges in deficit. Now the council has apparently announced that it will withhold a further £1 million that it was planned to distribute before the end of March for reasons which, according to the city's chief executive as reported in the local press, include
  "A visit to a Government Minister by representatives of Sutton college to complain about the authority".
  Another reason is
  "Governors from one college calling in financial consultants to challenge the authority's distribution of funds."
  That is the reality of local Labour LEA control of good FE colleges. At the very moment when the countries of eastern

  893
  Europe are ditching the dead hand of socialist interference and strategic planning, we see it alive, well and working in Labour LEAs like Birmingham.
  One of the most interesting things has been the letters that we have had from FE colleges in Labour-controlled areas, explaining the kind of mechanisms that Labour LEAs have used to control FE colleges. Some of the devices
  "used by my own Labour authority to do this are as follows: they issue the authorised delegated budget late in the financial year and ensure that it is substantially cut from the draft budget which is indicated at the start of the year. At the final outturn the LEA refuses to accept all of the recharges made against it for fees, examination fees, block grants, mandatory awards, etcetera."
  In other words, the reality of Labour-controlled LEAs is what has driven so many FE principals and governing bodies to welcome the proposals. They recognise the reality of Labour LEA control. An overwhelming two thirds of FE principals deliberately want to follow our proposal.
  The Labour party is taking the same attitude to choice with further education colleges as it takes to parental choice. What it wants is control by Labour LEAs. It wants socialist dictation and socialist planning. That is what we reject in this Bill, and that is why I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 206.

  Division No. 77]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Alexander, Richard

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Allason, Rupert

  Burt, Alistair

  Amess, David

  Butler, Chris

  Amos, Alan

  Butterfill, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Carrington, Matthew

  Ashby, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Atkins, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Chope, Christopher

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Baldry, Tony

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Conway, Derek

  Batiste, Spencer

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Beggs, Roy

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cran, James

  Bendall, Vivian

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

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

  Benyon, W.

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Day, Stephen

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Devlin, Tim

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dicks, Terry

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Boswell, Tim

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bottomley, Peter

  Dover, Den

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Dunn, Bob

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

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Eggar, Tim

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Evennett, David

  894

  Fallon, Michael

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Latham, Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forth, Eric

  Lord, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Franks, Cecil

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Freeman, Roger

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  French, Douglas

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Maclean, David

  Gill, Christopher

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Madel, David

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Malins, Humfrey

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mans, Keith

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Maples, John

  Gorst, John

  Marland, Paul

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Marlow, Tony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gregory, Conal

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Grist, Ian

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Ground, Patrick

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hague, William

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mills, Iain

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hannam, Sir John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Moate, Roger

  Harris, David

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hayes, Jerry

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hayward, Robert

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Mudd, David

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Hill, James

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hind, Kenneth

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

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

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Norris, Steve

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Page, Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Irvine, Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Jack, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Jackson, Robert

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Janman, Tim

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jessel, Toby

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Portillo, Michael

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Price, Sir David

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Redwood, John

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Key, Robert

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Riddick, Graham

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Knapman, Roger

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Knox, David

  Rost, Peter

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Rowe, Andrew

  895

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tracey, Richard

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Tredinnick, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Trippier, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shelton, Sir William

  Viggers, Peter

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Shersby, Michael

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Sims, Roger

  Walden, George

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Waller, Gary

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Ward, John

  Speed, Keith

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Squire, Robin

  Watts, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Whitney, Ray

  Steen, Anthony

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stern, Michael

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wilkinson, John

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Wilshire, David

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stokes, Sir John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Sumberg, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Summerson, Hugo

  Wood, Timothy

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

  Mr. John M. Taylor.

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Allen, Graham

  Corbett, Robin

  Alton, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Anderson, Donald

  Crowther, Stan

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cryer, Bob

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cummings, John

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dalyell, Tam

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

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

  Barron, Kevin

  Dewar, Donald

  Battle, John

  Dixon, Don

  Beckett, Margaret

  Dobson, Frank

  Beith, A. J.

  Doran, Frank

  Bell, Stuart

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bellotti, David

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Eadie, Alexander

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

  Eastham, Ken

  Benton, Joseph

  Edwards, Huw

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Enright, Derek

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Blair, Tony

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Blunkett, David

  Farr, Sir John

  Boateng, Paul

  Fatchett, Derek

  Boyes, Roland

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bradley, Keith

  Fearn, Ronald

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fisher, Mark

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Flannery, Martin

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Flynn, Paul

  Caborn, Richard

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Callaghan, Jim

  Foster, Derek

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Fraser, John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Fyfe, Maria

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Galloway, George

  Carr, Michael

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clelland, David

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Cohen, Harry

  Gordon, Mildred

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Gould, Bryan

  896

  Graham, Thomas

  Mullin, Chris

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Murphy, Paul

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Nellist, Dave

  Grocott, Bruce

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hain, Peter

  O'Brien, William

  Hardy, Peter

  O'Hara, Edward

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Haynes, Frank

  Patchett, Terry

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Pendry, Tom

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Prescott, John

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hood, Jimmy

  Randall, Stuart

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Redmond, Martin

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hoyle, Doug

  Robertson, George

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Rogers, Allan

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Ingram, Adam

  Rooney, Terence

  Janner, Greville

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Salmond, Alex

  Kennedy, Charles

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lamond, James

  Short, Clare

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Skinner, Dennis

  Leighton, Ron

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

  Lewis, Terry

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Litherland, Robert

  Snape, Peter

  Livingstone, Ken

  Soley, Clive

  Livsey, Richard

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Speller, Tony

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Loyden, Eddie

  Stephen, Nicol

  McAllion, John

  Stott, Roger

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Strang, Gavin

  McCartney, Ian

  Straw, Jack

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McFall, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  McLeish, Henry

  Turner, Dennis

  McMaster, Gordon

  Vaz, Keith

  McWilliam, John

  Wallace, James

  Madden, Max

  Walley, Joan

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Maxton, John

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

  Wilson, Brian

  Meacher, Michael

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Michael, Alun

  Worthington, Tony

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Morley, Elliot

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Mrs. Llin Golding and

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Mr. Eric Illsley.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION [Lords] [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Further and Higher Education Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—
  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by a Minister of the Crown—

  897

  (a) for making grants to any of the following bodies established by the Act, that is, the Further Education Funding Council for England, the Further Education Funding Council for Wales, the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, and

  (b) for defraying his administrative expenses under the Act, and

  (2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—[Mr. Boswell.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Further and Higher Education Bill [Lords] (Allocation of Time) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to delay you and the House but today 15,000 unarmed Kashmiris sought to cross the border from Azad Kashmir into Indian-occupied Kashmir. They were turned back by Pakistani authorities and one person has been killed. The organisers are planning to resume their march tomorrow and, through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Government to pass on a message to the Governments of India and Pakistan, urging that maximum restraint is shown tomorrow when these unarmed Kashmiris again demonstrate their desire for self-determination, freedom and the unity of Kashmir.
  Mr. Speaker: That point of order has nothing to do with the next debate, but I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard by those on the Government Front Bench.

  Further and Higher Education Bill [Lords] (Allocation of Time)
  10.17 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

  Committee
  1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 26th February 1992.
  (2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on 26th February may continue until 9.30 pm., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 27th February.
  2.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated—

  (a) shall meet on 18th, 19th, 20th, 25th and 26th February; and

  (b) on each of those days shall sit at half-past Ten o'clock and half-past Four o'clock.

  (2) The proceedings to be taken on each of those sittings shall be as shown in the second column, and shall be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column, of the following Table:—

  TABLE

  Sitting

  Proceedings

  Time for conclusion of proceedings

  1st

  Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2

  —

  2nd

  Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of

  —

  3rd

  Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of

  —

  4th

  Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of

  —

  5th

  Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of

  —

  6th

  Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of

  —

  7th

  Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of

  —

  8th

  Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of

  Midnight

  9th

  Remaining proceedings

  —

  10th

  Remaining proceedings so far as not disposed of

  9.30 p.m.

  Report and Third Reading
  3. The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

  Procedure in Standing Committee
  4.—(l) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
  (2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the member who moves, and from a member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
  5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee.

  Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
  6. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
  Dilatory Motions
  7. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  Extra time on allotted days
  8. If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
  Private Business
  9. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  10.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed to the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

  (c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or that Motion is made by a member of the Government;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

  and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

  (b) the beginning to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  11.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by
  900
  this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  12. Nothing in this Order shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which this Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by this Order; or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Recommittal
  13.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation etc.
  14.—(1) In this Order—
  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
  "the Bill" means the Further and Higher Education Bill [Lords].
  (2) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) and Standing Order No. 103 (Business sub-committees) shall not apply to this Order.
  The House knows that we have a full programme involving both Houses in a great deal of work this Session, so it is essential to manage the programme in such a way as to ensure the orderly progression of Bills through their various stages. This timetable motion is part of that process.
  I made it clear in my evidence to the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), that I support—I am speaking personally—the much wider use of timetable motions for Government Bills, particularly in their Committee stages. I am much encouraged to see that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) agreed with that. I understand that most of the evidence to my right hon. Friend's Committee on that point favours the timetabling of Bills.
  The purpose of the timetable motion is to structure the debate in Committee—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Would hon. Members who are below the Gangway come into the Chamber or leave, please?
  Mr. MacGregor: The purpose of the timetable motion—
  Mr. Jack Straw: Will the Lord President confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has never supported the introduction of a guillotine on the proceedings of a Bill without any agreement with the Opposition? He has not done so either in his evidence to the Committee or on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. MacGregor: What I have said before in the House is that the hon. Member for Copeland supports the principle of the timetabling of Bills. I spoke about the

  901
  much wider use of timetable motions. I referred not to this one but to the principle. I hope that the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will put proposals to the House that we can then debate.
  The purpose of the timetable motion is to structure the debate during the Committee stage to ensure that sufficient time is devoted to all the elements requiring detailed consideration. It is in line with the precedent of the timetable motion on the Local Government Finance Bill, which is generally held to have worked well and provided for effective consideration of the Bill.
  I am very pleased that, in so far as it is possible, we have been able, through the usual channels, to accommodate the wishes of the Opposition on the allocation of time to different parts of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, acceded to Opposition requests that 80 per cent. of the time available in Committee should be spent on clauses 1 to 14, which deal with further education funding councils. I understand perfectly well why that should be so, as the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made clear in the Second Reading debate his support for the higher education reforms, which account for quite a large part of the bulk of the latter part of the Bill. I hope that this allocation reflects the wishes of the House as a whole. As was made clear in the debate today, there is agreement—on both sides, I think—on the latter parts of the Bill dealing with higher education, although here, too, we are providing reasonable time for consideration in Committee.
  The Bill has been given extensive consideration in another place—a total of about 65 hours, including four days in Committee and three days on Report. The time that this timetable motion provides for the Committee stage will be ample for consideration of the issues that the House as a whole has shown it wishes to raise. The timetable provides for a minimum—I stress that it is a minimum—of 50 hours in Committee, and the Committee may go beyond that if it wishes to do so.
  Another issue is the need for speedy processing of the Bill. That reflects two things—first, the shortened nature of this parliamentary Session, giving rise to the need to proceed with our Bills in an orderly way through Committee if we are to dispose of as many of them as possible; and, secondly, the importance that we attach to this Bill, which is symbolic of the high priority that we give to the reform of further education, as well as higher education.
  Mr. Derek Enright: As the passing of the Bill is being given such high priority, will the Leader of the House guarantee that all the evidence will be put before the Committee—that some of it will not be suppressed, as the Secretary of State suppressed evidence put forward by colleges of further education?
  Mr. MacGregor: Having heard the exchanges earlier today, I do not think that there has been any suppression. Certainly, I know that in very many colleges of further education there is substantial support for what the Bill seeks to do.
  Mr. Dennis Turner: I appeal to the Leader of the House to ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science to do what he has been
  902
  asked repeatedly, during and before the debate, to do—publish the survey information that has been sent to him by colleges of further education. It is as simple as that. If the Secretary of State for Education and Science does not want to be charged with the suppression of evidence, the Leader of the House should appeal to him to come clean, go public and reveal the evidence.
  Mr. MacGregor: I certainly know of further education colleges that are very enthusiastic about the Bill and whose one concern is that it may not complete its passage during the current Session. That is why we are discussing the motion. We are providing ample Committee time for consideration of evidence of the type about which the hon. Gentleman is talking.
  It is vital that we should not lose the momentum on these important reforms. There is a great demand from universities, polytechnics, further education colleges and sixth form colleges to implement the reforms as quickly as possible so that we may avoid the damaging effect on morale that delays and uncertainties could cause. The sooner the funding councils are started up and are able to discuss detailed formulae and arrangements for the distribution of funds to institutions of higher education and institutions of further education, the better.
  The Bill also means big changes for further education and sixth form colleges. They, too, need to know without delay where they stand so that they can prepare to work in and with the new structures and make their own bids for funds. It is essential that these councils are set up as soon as possible so that they may start work on all the detailed arrangements and consultations that will be necessary if a smooth transition to the new funding system is to be ensured. As I am constantly told by many who get in touch with me, uncertainty and delay would be damaging to the whole of the further and higher education sector. That is why it is essential that we make progress with the Bill as quickly as possible, consistent with proper discussion and consultation—not so much consultation as consideration—in the House. [Interruption.] At this point it is consideration in the House. I readily acknowledge the need for time to debate the Bill in Committee. I believe that the timetable that we are proposing offers a sensible and balanced way of achieving all the different objectives, including the legitimate desire of the House to consider the Bill fully, and I commend it to the House.
  10.24 pm
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: There is a small part of me that feels that, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I should welcome what the Leader of the House has said. As we all know, it is a matter of only a few weeks before the joyous day when the boot will be on the other foot and the right hon. Gentleman will be sitting on the Opposition Front Bench making speeches on timetable motions. Part of me thinks that he is setting a useful precedent.
  The right hon. Gentleman has explained how important it is that the rights of the Opposition should be restricted. Apparently, it is a mistake to spend too many hours discussing a Bill. When the time comes, as it certainly will, for a Labour Government to introduce quite a lot of progressive legislation that the country desperately needs, I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends will wish to oppose it. He will not really be able to do that, however, because he will

  903
  be obliged to stand at the Opposition Dispatch Box and commend any guillotine motion that we bring before the House on the basis that the Labour Government are faithfully following the precedent of 13 years of Tory government.
  The Leader of the House may not operate in quite that way. I think that he will learn the tactics of Opposition rapidly. I hope that he learns them well, because he will need to deploy them for a long time.
  Let me make it crystal clear—I have done it before and I do not mind doing it again—that I do not have any fundamental or irrevocable objections to timetable motions. I do not know whether I speak for all my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Leader of the House was right to say that there were many who said, in giving evidence to the Committee which he set up, that they think it right that Bills should be the subject of timetables.
  However, the right hon. Gentleman completely misrepresented the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who has been quoted, by implying that we, the Opposition, would be happy if timetable motions were introduced without any attempt to secure an agreement on what the timetable should be, and without any reciprocal arrangement that improved the rights of the Opposition. There are many ways in which that could be done. When there is a Labour Government and the Leader of the House finds himself sitting on the Opposition Benches, that Administration will be gracious to the then Opposition. We shall discuss ways in which the rights of the Opposition can be observed. It is—[Interruption.] Some of my hon. Friends are not as generous as I would be prepared to be.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend talks about rights. I ask him to remember that there are the rights of the Opposition and the rights of those outside the House, who ought to have the opportunity to influence our decisions. This guillotine motion will make it extremely difficult for those outside to make representations to those who consider the Bill in Committee following its Second Reading. When my hon. Friend is discussing rights, I ask him to accept that it should be emphasised that a guillotine gags Parliament and many others outside.
  Mr. Grocott: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. He and I think that consideration should be given to allowing Committees to bring people before them to give evidence on a Bill during its passage through Parliament. Many reforms are possible, and a new and reforming Government will consider them all.
  Whatever our views on guillotine motions, one or two matters must be put on the record. All Governments use guillotines, but no Government have used them with the frequency of this Administration. No Government have used similar means. The figures that I am about to present to the House will embarrass the Leader of the House, but I shall get them on the record none the less.
  The right hon. Gentleman has answered one or two questions on the frequency of the Government's use of the guillotine procedure. Indeed, he answered such a question on 8 November 1991. I am sure that this was inadvertent—perhaps the wording of the question was not as precise as it should have been—but the answer did not begin to present an accurate picture of the number of times that guillotine motions have been brought before the House by
  904
  the Government. I am sure that hon. Members will not mind if I put one or two statistics on the record. To be fair—after all, if I do not do it, I am sure that someone else will —I shall go back to the time of the last Labour Government.
  In the period of five years and two months between February 1974 and May 1979, a Labour Government introduced 20 guillotine motions. In a four-year Parliament, the 1979–83 Tory Government introduced 19. In another four-year Parliament, the 1983–87 Tory Government introduced 17. In four years and eight months, the current Government have introduced 35. The Leader of the House may want to check that, and put his own figures right to make sure that the record is straight. Let me give the details: it will take about 30 seconds.
  Let us start with 1987. Three guillotine motions were tabled for discussion of the Bill that became the Education Reform Act 1988.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Should we not remind the House that that legislation was supposed to stand the test of time? Because it was rushed through, another piece of legislation is now needed to put matters right. Is that not a very good illustration of the problems to which misuse of the guillotine to ram legislation through the House and the country can lead? In this instance, a second Bill has had to be presented, and most people in the education system have found themselves in a mess in the intervening three years.
  Mr. Grocott: My hon. Friend has made a powerful point. Exactly the same is true of the Government's shambolic efforts in regard to local government finance.
  Between 1987 and now, there were guillotine motions on the following: the Local Government Finance Bill two; the Social Security Bill one; the Firearms (Amendment) Bill two; the School Boards (Scotland) Bill; the Housing Bill; the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill; the Water Bill two; the Official Secrets Bill two; the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill two; the Dock Work Bill; the Football Spectators Bill; the Children Bill; the Companies Bill; the Local Government and Housing Bill; the Employment Bill; the National Health Service and Community Care Bill two; the Social Security Bill two; the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Bill one; the Education (Student Loans) Bill; the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill; the Dangerous Dogs Bill two; the Local Government Finance Bill; the Education (Schools) Bill; the Further and Higher Education Bill—which we are now discussing—one. According to my arithmetic that adds up to 35 guillotine motions, which is unprecedented in modern times—indeed, ever, so far as I can judge.
  I do not know why the Leader of the House bothers with his Committees, given that he has apparently introduced a major constitutional innovation without any agreement from them. Not only are guillotine motions being introduced with phenomenal frequency; they are being introduced at a very early stage. Let us take the last five for which the right hon. Gentleman has been responsible. The guillotine motion on the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill was introduced on 26 March last year, before any Commitee debate had taken place. The motion on the Dangerous Dogs Bill was introduced on 10 June last year—again, before any such debate had taken place. The motion on the Local

  905
  Government Finance Bill—which set a record—was also introduced before debate had begun. The Education (Schools) Bill motion was a minor improvement on the Government's previous record; it was introduced on Report and Third Reading. The current guillotine motion, however, has been introduced without any attempt to decide whether it was necessary.
  The Government have used the guillotine in a way that no other Government have—with alarming frequency and absolute severity. They have imposed their will on the House. Despite having a huge majority in the past five years of over 100 Members, they have still felt the need to do what, until he became a member of one, Lord Hailsham used to describe as playing the game of being an "elective dictatorship". That is the way in which the Government have operated.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: It happens to be worse than that—[Interruption.] Oh, it is. I smell a rat here—I really do. The Secretary of State for Education and Science sits on the Treasury Bench, treating us over this Bill just as he did when he was Secretary of State for Health. I remember the time when you and I, Mr. Speaker, had a few words because of what was happening because of the Secretary of State for Health—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh yes, I remember it well and I am sure that you do, Mr. Speaker. I apologised to you anyway—[Interruption.] Sherwood can shut up. The important thing is the rat, which is the question of the report on the survey—
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Haynes: The Secretary of State need not shake his head. He is ducking out of his responsibilities as Secretary of State for Education and Science, just as he did on health. On top of all that, he is rushing everything through to deny us the report on that survey. It is a shocking state of affairs, and the Secretary of State should be ashamed of himself.
  Mr. Grocott: My hon. Friend raises a point that has been raised many times before. Perhaps he should have directed his appeal directly to honest John sitting opposite me on the Treasury Bench, who may well be able to persuade his fellow member of Cabinet that he should—
  Mr. Haynes: I am glad that my hon. Friend has given way again, because it is some time since I smelt a rat in the Chamber, but there is one knocking about tonight. The Secretary of State should come clean. I do not know what the people back in Rushcliffe think about him when he messes about in this way. He messed around with health, and look at the mess we are in. Now he is messing around with education, and look at the mess that that will be in. It has got to stop. The people will decide in not many weeks' time. I know that I will not be here, Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] The right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Leader of the House and all those on the Treasury Bench know that the people outside will not stand for this kind of activity—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State is supposed to be listening. That is how he ducks out of his responsibilities and will not come clean——[Interruption.] Now I shall sit down.
  Mr. Speaker: Is this an intervention or a speech? [Laughter.]
  Mr. Grocott: Sadly, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) will not be with us after the election, but my experience of him suggests that if he opens his mouth in Ashfield, we shall hear him down here—
  Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I shall hear it.
  Mr. Grocott: The details of the timetable motion allow for just five days' debate on a Bill which is 103 pages long, contains 94 clauses and nine schedules and which must report back to the House by 26 February. I have listened to fair chunks of the debate tonight, and there can be no doubt whatsoever that considerable complexities need sorting out, many of which have been raised by Conservative Members. I am sure that they need the time to debate the Bill just as much as anyone else.
  I ask a simple question to which I know that there is a simple answer, but I still think that it is worth a little time to discover it: why are the Government in such a desperate hurry to get the Bill back to the House on 26 February? I offer one or two possible explanations in an attempt to be generous to the Government. Is it, for example—this could be one reason—because a clear manifesto commitment must be fulfilled, so Conservative Members feel obliged to rush the Bill through at the end of the Parliament?
  I have searched through the last Conservative party manifesto. There are many references in it. There is a copy here if Members want to browse through it in the small hours of morning. Perhaps they will find a section that I have missed. There are lots of references to bringing the crime rate down, economic miracles and all sorts of things like that. But I can see no reference whatever to the Further and Higher Education Bill [Lords]. So there is no possible justification for introducing the guillotine motion on the ground of an election commitment.
  The second possibility is that the Government have moved the guillotine motion on the ground that an inordinate amount of time has already been spent debating the Bill. We have already answered that point. Of course that is not the case: we have not even reached the Committee stage, so the guillotine motion cannot have been introduced on those grounds.
  A further possibility is that the guillotine motion has been tabled because massive opposition to the Bill is anticipated. This is a more difficult one to answer. Of course there is strong opposition to some parts of the Bill, to which many of my hon. Friends have drawn the attention of the Minister, but it also has to be said that, perhaps unusually for Government legislation, there is a large part of the Bill on which there is a wide measure of agreement. That is the part which deals with the ending of the binary system in higher education.
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: That is Labour party policy.
  Mr. Grocott: As my hon. Friend says, that is Labour party policy. But better than that, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I am sure that you will allow 30 seconds indulgence here—I remind Conservative Members, although they were not all present at the time, of a Bill introduced way back in 1976, if we can have a trip down memory lane. I have

  907
  not checked the Division list closely but some Conservative Members present tonight were here then. I know that the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) was not here at the time, and he will not be with us much longer, but many Members who are present tonight were here then.
  I draw the attention of the House to 18 May 1976, when the Comprehensive Higher Education Bill was introduced under the ten-minute Bill procedure. Modesty prevents me from spelling out which Member introduced it. The motion was:
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to end distinctions between the various types of educational institutions that cater for people over 18 years of age, and to provide for a genuinely comprehensive system of higher education under democratic control."—[Official Report, 18 May 1976; Vol. 911, c. 1227.]
  That was not too bad but, like most ideas ahead of their time, I am afraid that it was voted down by 182 votes to 170. On checking through the Division list, I found that among the Members who sadly threw out that advanced piece of legislation were the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) and other interesting names. I do not have time to check them all.
  If the Leader of the House had had the foresight in those early days to see the merit in that legislation, he would not have felt it necessary tonight to move a savage guillotine motion to curtail debate on the measure. That fine piece of legislation would have long since passed into law and we would have had lots of time to spend on Opposition days, motions of censure and other matters on which we could spend our time much more effectively.
  So it will not do to say that the reason why the Government found it necessary to curtail debate on the Bill was that they felt that there would be massive opposition to it. There is a whole section of the Bill on which there is a great deal of agreement. We all know why the Government want the Bill back by 26 February. They want it back by then because, on 10 March, they will have a quick fix Budget and then, some time after, if all goes according to plan from their view, they will fix a quick-fix election on 9 April. That is what it is all about.
  I would not have minded the motion tonight quite so much if it had been given an honest title, such as the General Election (Clearing the Decks) Motion, or whatever title the Leader of the House wanted to give it. He has this "honest John" face but sometimes he betrays what he is thinking. I thought he looked weary as he presented the timetable motion. It is so similar to the language that he used on previous timetable motions that I do not know why he does not take a tape and mime to it. There is no doubt about it—he knows perfectly well the reason why he is introducing this guillotine motion.
  However, the Government are still feeling some degree of nervousness. The timetable might not operate this time. After all, the Prime Minister has run away from three election dates. He was all set to go last spring, and he ran away. He was all set to go in the summer, and he ran away. He was set to go in the autumn, but he did not run away from that one—he got the editors of five friendly newspapers to run away for him. Opposition Members desperately hope that he will not run away this time. Let us hope that for once he will stand up and be counted and go down fighting—as go down he assuredly will. Let us have no more of these silly guillotine motions. Let us have a general election.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: I feel uneasy about this guillotine motion. I have felt increasingly uneasy about such motions in recent months. It seems that we all spend far too little time examining legislation closely. We all know the problem: we legislate too much, and that must apply to all of us.
  I became a Member of the House in 1983 on a promise from various people that we would legislate less, that we did not want to legislate all the time, and that we would examine matters more carefully. However, as soon as I got here I realised that we were on a treadmill of legislation. Legislation from the various great Departments of State was pushed upon the House. I think that I am not alone in saying that I have not properly done my job of examining in detail some of the legislation which has come before us.
  I wish that we would legislate less and would spend more time considering what we do. This may be my last utterance in the House before the next general election, but I hope to be back—although that is not a matter for me. I would tell any future House of Commons to study legislation more carefully and to legislate less.
  This is an important Bill, relating to adult education. How many thousands of millions of people in our constituencies are concerned about this issue? In November last I raised, in an Adjournment debate, the question of adult education in Croydon and Mr. Speaker was in the Chair because of his great interest in the subject. My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) was also here. In that debate I was able to say that in Croydon in 1991 there were more than 40,000 enrolments for higher education, representing 20,000 to 30,000 students. So many people have an interest in this topic and would therefore expect us to spend a good amount of time on it.
  Unless I have read the guillotine motion incorrectly, it seems that the time available to discuss clause 15 through to the end of the Bill amounts to about a day. Yet the Bill contains about 90 clauses, some of which are very important. It is not for me to suggest ways in which the Bill should be improved now; that is a matter for another day. However, clause 28 is important. It relates to the crucial argument about whether continuing education and training services—such as the one in Croydon, which does such a lot of good locally—will be able to bid direct to the funding councils rather than through the new sector colleges.
  I raised that matter on the Adjournment of the House. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State understood my concern, but thought that institutions such as those in Croydon should be interested in exploring the possibility of incorporation within the new further education sector by reason of the balance of provisions that they make. That has been mentioned again today. Many of those institutions would not seek incorporation for the obvious reasons. It is important that the close link with the local authority remains.
  The adult education service in Croydon is well supported by the local authority. It is important that that service is not barred from applying direct to the further education funding council. The possibility of incorporation represents a difficult route because of the close involvement and commitment of the local authority to that service, which is beneficial to it. That service has

  909
  associations with many local agencies and voluntary organisations. It has its roots in the communities of Croydon. There is a good argument for amending clause 28 on Report to enable institutions such as those in Croydon to bid direct.
  The Bill relates to issues which are crucial to many people—perhaps as many as 60,000 adults in Croydon. There is a great need for the type of adult education which is provided in Croydon, which has a multi-racial society. Many need extra help in English and other types of subject. The adult education service does a lot of good in such circumstances. It is a pity that we cannot spend more time just looking at some of the issues—for example, clause 28, which is quite important—which affect adult education.
  I hope that, in future, this House of Commons, of which we are proud to be Members, will spend just a bit more time looking at what hon. Members do day after day. We should not just go through the Lobbies—half the time I do so without knowing for what I am voting. We should look more carefully at what we are doing and we should legislate less. We should spend more time trying to bring whatever expertise we may have to bear on the subject in question.
  10.51 pm
  Mr. Michael Carr: It was interesting to hear what the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) said about the need for deliberation and careful consideration of the issues which come before us. I agree wholeheartedly with him.
  I accept that there may be a case for the use of the guillotine, but surely only after consultation with the official Opposition and the other parties. There was no attempt to consult with us prior to tonight about whether this guillotine should be introduced. We deplore that.
  The Bill concerns major issues because it will determine the future of further, higher and adult education for many years. However, the debate on these issues will be held in the run-up to the general election at the fag-end of the Parliament. We are already aware that, more often than not, many hon. Members now use debates in the Chamber as an opportunity to score party political points. Why, oh why, could not the debate on the Bill be held after the general election?
  The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West mentioned the number of students who attend adult education classes in Croydon. Throughout the country more than 3 million people attend adult education classes. They will study the motion and the Bill closely. They will want to know why the Government have decided to shove the Bill through in the final weeks of this Parliament. Surely some Conservative Members will concede that it would be far better for the debate on the Bill to take place in an atmosphere free from the heat of an imminent election.
  I have no doubt that the Government's huge majority, caused by a distortion of the electoral system, will result in the guillotine motion being approved. I regret that, and we on this Bench will vote against it.
  10.55pm
  Sir Peter Emery: I had not intended to speak on the motion, but I feel that I must bring to the attention of the House certain points made by the Select Committee on Procedure in two reports to the House on the passage of legislation.
  One is that we should try to ensure that all parts of a measure are debated. The Committee has pointed out that nothing is more foolish than to have timetable motions introduced after a Committee has sat for some sessions, perhaps debating the first two or three clauses of a Bill, and then, the guilloting having been introduced, the rest of the Bill—perhaps 60, 70 or 80 clauses—is rushed through with hardly any debate. That must be the worst way of dealing with legislation.
  I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) that an examination of other elected assemblies which can be paralleled to ours in Europe, America or elsewhere shows that we in the British House of Commons spend three, four or even five times longer debating legislation.
  Opinions about timetabling motions have altered massively since I took over the chairmanship of the Select Committee on Procedure nearly nine years ago. In those days, nearly everybody was against the concept of timetabling. Now, Members in all parts of the House who have served on the Select Committee on Sittings of the House agree that it is essential to find a proper, reasonable and practical way to deal with legislation in Committee and on Report. Many take the view that there should be timetabling at the start of legislation to enable it to be seen that Members are dealing with all parts of legislation from the word go.
  The knockabout, nice party debate that we are having, allowing the Opposition—whichever party is in power—to have a field day attacking the Government, does not achieve much. It happens with only a handful of Members in their places and achieves little, if any, coverage by the media. It could be considered a waste of prime parliamentary time. It would be better to have the whole thing established as part of our Standing Orders, adopting one of the suggestions of the Select Committee on Procedure.
  As a member of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, I give nothing away—because it has been said in public session—when I say that consideration must be given to the views of the Lord President and the shadow Leader of the House about the timetabling of legislation, following some of the thinking on the subject of the Select Committee on Procedure.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) suggested that we need to ensure a proper amount of time for outside organisations to lobby the House. Everybody wants that, but outside organisations have been lobbying the House—they have certainly been lobbying me, and I am not in a special position—ever since the matter was being debated in the House of Lords. So although it is an important issue, it falls in this case.
  If those on the Opposition Front Bench are right and there is an election on a certain day in April, the Government are right not to allow many hours of debate on the first few clauses so that subsequent clauses are rushed through without sufficient consideration. They are

  911
  right to impose a timetable at the start of the Committee stage to ensure that all parts of the Bill are properly dealt with.
  I was trying to calculate the exact number of hours which the motion allows the Committee to spend debating the Bill. The time set for one of the days is midnight, but it is not clear how long the Committee might sit for the first six days. It will sit at 10.30 am and then again at 4.30 pm, but it is not clear at what time it rises. It appears that it could rise after midnight. So hon. Members need not worry about keeping the debate going, because no rising time has been set; therefore, if the Opposition so wish, they have all the time in the world to debate the Bill.
  Mr. MacGregor: I agree with many of my hon. Friend's comments. We are endeavouring to give maximum flexibility to how clauses 1 to 14 are considered. Therefore, there will be plenty of time, with no fixed limit in the early sittings.
  Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted that I have been able to hit on that point, because the flexibility means that the Opposition cannot claim that they will not have enough time to debate those clauses. They can continue to debate them all night, and even until the following morning, if they so desire.
  However, my Committee does not believe that that is the best way to deal with legislation. We have always suggested that the proper time to rise is after 10 o'clock.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is so distinguished that it may be some time since he has sat on a Standing Committee. He omits a small detail in the form of the Government Whip. My hon. Friends who will sit on the Committee will be entertained to hear that they can debate the Bill for as long as they wish, but sadly it will be open to the Government Whip to stand up whenever he wishes and move the adjournment. As he knows that the Government will get the Bill in any event, nothing stops him doing that.
  Sir Peter Emery: That is absolutely true. Moreover, nothing about time or my distinction would stop that happening. However, once Governments of either party know that they will complete a Bill on a certain day, they hand much of the power over to the Opposition to decide how they want to use that time to debate the proper timing and clauses. It is an integral point, but one that we well understand.
  I am delighted to see that the Government are willing to introduce a timetable motion at the start of Second Reading. Years ago, they would never have done so. It will ensure that we do not waste time purely trying to show the Opposition's strength in delaying tactics, which gets nobody anywhere. Such parliamentary procedure in Committee is coming to an end, as it is being seen as a useless use of time. I congratulate the Government on introducing a timetable motion at the very start of the Committee stage.
  11.4 pm
  Mr. Michael Foot: I am glad to have the chance of following the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Select Committee, although I strongly disagree with his suggestions, for reasons that I have given before and hope to repeat this evening.
  912
  The House of Commons would make a great mistake if it accepted the proposition that this is the right way for it to operate. I understood the eagerness of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) in anticipating the events of the rest of the year. I shall rejoice greatly when they occur. I advise him and others to be extremely reticent in proceeding to the supposedly automatic system of introducing guillotine motions, especially after our experience of the past few years under the Government. My hon. Friend gave the details and I shall return to them in a moment.
  Sir Peter Emery: I omitted one fact: there will be sadness on both sides of the House when the right hon. Gentleman no longer is a Member of the House, following his distinguished service.
  Mr. Foot: Hon. Members will not be able to have a proper debate on a guillotine motion without me. I hand on some of my experience of these matters to both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin talked of the boot being on the other foot. I thought that rather an inelegant phrase and I shall return to it.
  I do not intend to speak for hours, but I should like to make a few further comments. The House would be wise to listen to the warnings from the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins). He stressed how unwise it was for the House to curtail Committee stages. In some respects, Committee is the most important stage —the atmosphere can be changed and the follies of Government can be corrected. Indeed, at the end of this Parliament, hon. Members should have learnt the lesson better than ever before.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) emphasised how important it was not merely for Members of Parliament but for our constituents to put their case. They will have little chance of doing so on the Bill in the circumstances in which the Leader of the House has introduced the guillotine.
  I know that there has been discussion in the House of Lords, but that makes the offence worse. That may tempt more Governments to introduce more Bills there. That is the wrong way to proceed. I do not think much of the House of Lords anyhow, but it is essential for the proper performance of parliamentary government that the major Bills—this is one—are introduced first in this House. The House of Commons has the right to say first what it thinks of a Bill. The proper way to proceed is for Members of the House to consult their constituents and consider the whole Bill in detail first. The Government should have learnt that better than anyone.
  The hon. Member for Honiton talked as if there were a great wave of support for the view that he and others advocate on this matter. I am not saying that there has not been considerable support for it, and he can report that to the House. I repeat, however, that a guillotine greatly injures the way in which the House operates. Of course, Governments like the guillotine, but the House is not in existence only to protect the rights of Governments and the Executive. It is even more than that—the House is here to protect the rights of different Oppositions.
  I have said a good deal more on Government Back Benches than I have on Opposition Back Benches and very often it has been what has been done on Government Back Benches that has saved even Labour Governments from some of their follies. Even Labour Governments can

  913
  occasionally commit follies. They did not in the measures involving the five guillotines which I introduced. They were all excellent measures, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin who voted for them so enthusiastically, will confirm. I do not say that they all had the high quality of the measure that he introduced, but they were very fine measures indeed. On all, there had been a full chance for the House to discuss matters before the guillotine motions.
  It is true that, without guillotines then, the Bills could not have been brought into operation. They had all figured prominently in the election manifesto of the Labour party at the time. That, of course, is not at all the circumstances now.
  I do not expect shame from Ministers, but I should have thought that all the Ministers present, and all the others who might come in later, would be a little wary about pressing this matter. They all know that the Bill has been brought to the House in this form only because of the catastrophe of what happened on the Bills that were guillotined a few years ago—the poll tax Bills. Without them, we would not have had this legislation.
  All the Ministers present are poll tax Ministers, as far as I can see. All of them, including the Leader of the House, voted for the poll tax. The right hon. Gentleman was a keen supporter of the poll tax. He had at his side that second eager poll tax supporter, the Secretary of State for Health. He may have been involved in some other misdemeanours at the same time, but he was also supporting the poll tax in the Cabinet. Then there is poll tax Patten. Why do we not have his intellectual contribution to this debate?
  I remember many debates on poll tax motions when the chairman of the Conservative party came along. He was usually the person most eager to get the guillotine through. On this occasion, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin and others have pointed out, he has a special interest in being here. There has been real rudeness on the part of poll tax Patten, if I may use that unparliamentary way of describing him, but everybody knows who I mean. I have some difficulty in distinguishing between the parliamentary popinjays, or whatever they call themselves —the Pattens, the Patties and the patsies—I cannot tell the difference. All I know is that they all supported the poll tax and they all voted for the guillotines that carried through the poll tax legislation. I cannot recall a single one making any objection—except, of course, that great, noble figure, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), and even he did not object to the poll tax in Scotland. He thought that it should be tried out on the Scots. The Government did not have to worry about them; they are all anti-Tory anyhow. Along with all the rest of them, he voted to apply the poll tax, through that guillotine procedure, against all the Scots, as well as against all the Welsh and all the English. There are a few prominent poll tax Welsh Members sitting on the Government Benches today. They, too, voted with equal enthusiasm for the poll tax.
  Had it not been for the guillotine debate, for the way in which the Government put the pressure on, for the way in which they shepherded all the sheep, ministerial and other, through the Lobbies, we would not be here today. We might even have had a decent election and the country might have been saved a good deal earlier, but everyone
  914
  knows that that is how we got here. It is shocking that a guillotine motion should be produced in such circumstances.
  My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin has proved to the hilt that there has been a greater, easier and more eager resort to the guillotine than at any time in English parliamentary history. [Interruption.] There was nothing on that scale in the Labour days. My hon. Friend gave the figures, and if a Conservative Member wishes to dispute them he is free to intervene and do so. There is no disputing what my hon. Friend has put on the record—the Government, who have a huge majority, have increasingly resorted to the use of the guillotine. That has merely shown their intellectual arrogance.
  The House used to have the assistance of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), or Oswestry as it was, until he was sacked. I have often thought that almost the most foolish act perpetrated by the previous Prime Minister was her sacking of the right hon. Gentleman. Apart from a few Labour competitors, he was the best Leader of the House that I have seen, certainly in a Conservative Government. The right hon. Lady got rid of him because he obviously used to say to the Cabinet, "You won't get away with this, you know. You can't go through with that. If you try to do it you will bulldoze the House and eventually the Members will revolt." The right hon. Gentleman may not have put it in quite such strong language, but no doubt that was the way in which he put the case to the Cabinet.
  One of the important jobs of a Leader of the House is to report to the Cabinet and tell it what it cannot do. Unfortunately, the last three or four Leaders of the House — I have forgotten the count—have not done that. They have merely said, "Oh, no, we shall have a few more guillotines." I am afraid that the present Leader of the House has added to that ignoble record.
  For all those reasons, I hope that the House will reject the idea of permanent guillotines. I hope that hon. Members will remember the Government's bad example. The Government thought they could force through legislation by that means, and legislation on a range of topics became worse and worse. We do not know whether this Bill will be any better. A major piece of legislation was introduced in the most shabby way in the other place. That did not happen in the better days that have gone. We now have to vote on the timing of its procedures, even though we have not had a single hour of discussion in Committee. That is the wrong way to run the House, and any Government who set such an example do grave injury to parliamentary government. That is the last thing that the Opposition wish to see.
  11.17 pm
  Sir John Farr: I oppose the guillotine motion.
  I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Blaenau. Gwent (Mr. Foot). Over the years I have listened to many forceful speeches by the right hon. Gentleman, who always speaks common sense, and I have often agreed with him. The House will be the poorer after the election when the right hon. Gentleman will not be with us.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said it was stupid to have such a debate late at night. I think he said that the media did not pay attention

  915
  to us. Perhaps he does not know that I have a suitcase full of letters from constituents who are desperately concerned about the Bill.
  The reason why some of us have voted against the Second Reading and will vote against the guillotine is that, unless we put into effect this procedure of opposition, there is no proper way in which objections can be fairly and adequately considered. It is not a question of media time; it is not a question of wondering whether the media are listening. I have a duty to nearly a thousand people from the Leicester area who have written to me about adult basic education and community further education.
  We have been lucky enough to see the Minister of State; he has been very kind and we have had really good discussions with him. Nevertheless, the fact remains that some of the points that we put to the Minister have not, in Leicestershire's view, been adequately met.
  If this guillotine motion goes through, what do I do about the thousand or so letters that I have downstairs? I know that an election is coming, but as a conscientious Member I cannot treat them as so much confetti. All the letters suggest different ways in which the Bill can be improved, but if we accept this awful timetable motion tonight a Bill of nearly 100 clauses will have very limited time for discussion, and the guillotine will fall in Committee. How can any of the amendments be properly considered?
  That is the tragedy of it all. That is why I think that the Government are desperately wrong. I say publicly that they are mistaken in trying to push this Bill through in the face of severe and fierce opposition, not just from committed Labour supporters but from rank-and-file Conservatives and from people who have no particular
  We were lucky enough to see my hon. Friend the Minister of State a couple of times, and we tried to explain to him how we in Leicestershire would lose out. We pointed out to him that we have in that county a structure of adult basic education and community further education which the rest of the country can only dream of. We made it clear to him that we have many examples in Leicestershire of one-for-one adult education in the home.
  916
  If people want to better themselves, they are entitled to enjoy this sort of instruction: it should not be denied them in a civilised society.
  If the guillotine goes through tonight, what happens to all my amendments? I have sent dozens of letters to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science. The last one that he answered was, I think, dated October. None of my November, December or January letters about the Bill has even been acknowledged. I sent him an amendment to clause 5 of the Bill in December; it sought to improve the Bill by taking account—the wording was carefully considered—of existing providers of quality further and adult education. That is all we wanted in a small amendment to clause 5.
  Our first discussion with the Minister of State took place four weeks ago. Last week he asked us to bring our experts along from Leicestershire to meet his experts and have a discussion. During the course of that discussion there was no way in which the Minister could do other than acknowledge that, after the Bill goes through, the existing privileged structure of adult basic education and further education in the county of Leicestershire can be other than damaged.
  There is no way in which I can vote for a guillotine which so severely curtails debate in Committee. Moreover, what chance do I have of serving on the Committee? I have great respect for my right hon. and hon. Friends, but they will choose those of my hon. Friends who are in favour of the Bill, and I think that the Bill stinks. The Government are remiss to press on in the face of careful and constructive opposition, which has been voiced by experts from the county of Leicester and other parts of the country.
  There is no way that I will support the guillotine motion. My fear is that I am not likely to serve on the Standing Committee, although I volunteer for such duty if the opportunity be there. The danger is that, if the guillotine motion goes through, the writers of the suitcase full of letters from my constituency will feel outraged, and they will express that outrage in the way that one would expect.
  11.25 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). It is important to recognise just what a major contribution to education Leicestershire, Cambridgeshire and the other counties that have developed community colleges have made. I simply regret that more counties did not develop such a system, and I am delighted at the way in which Conservative Members are fighting for what was good provision, developed in a bipartisan way over many years.
  The first point that I want to make to the Leader of the House is just how bad the guillotine motion is. As I understand the timetable, not only is the Bill being rushed through the Committee, but the timetable is set up in such a way that it looks as though Ministers will refuse all the amendments tabled in Committee. If the Bill leaves Committee on 28 February, and has to be reprinted to take account of amendments, it will only just scrape through, presumably on the Monday, before the Budget. If any amendments have been made, the Bill will have to return to the other place. That would be a tight schedule.
  I suspect that the Government will resist all amendments. In that case, is there any point in having a Committee? I will watch the Committee with a great deal of interest to see whether the Government are prepared to make any concessions on either principle or detail. I very much fear that they have decided that the Bill that left the House of Lords is the Bill that will go on to the statute book, and all the proceedings in this House are a formality. If the Leader of the House wishes to intervene to assure us that, if reasonable amendments are tabled in Committee, the Government can accept them, within the timetable, I shall gladly give way, I suspect that they are determined to push the Bill through without further amendments.
  Mr. Straw: I invite my hon. Friend to press the Leader of the House to give a clear undertaking that amendments may be accepted, on their merits, by the Government. This is of critical importance to whether the Government are treating the House with contempt.
  Mr. Bennett: I do not need to press the Leader of the House. If he wants to assure us that the Government intend to accept amendments, tabled either from Conservative or Labour Members, even if they are minor, he is welcome to intervene.
  Mr. MacGregor: I cannot comment on the merits of amendments that have not yet been tabled, so I do not want to talk about the principle of any amendment. However, I can say that, within the procedures laid down, it would be possible for amendments to be moved and voted on, and, if the Government think that there is merit in them, to be accepted.
  Mr. Bennett: The Leader of the House has not answered the question. I asked whether the pressure of the timetable would be such that the Government would decide that there were no merits in any of the amendments. It will be difficult for the Government to get the Bill through if they are prepared to accept amendments, because the Bill will then have to return to the House of Lords. I have every sympathy for those hon. Members
  918
  who serve on the Committee, but I suspect that they will be lucky if they persuade the Government to reconsider one jot of the Bill.
  We started this Parliament with the so-called great Education Reform Bill. When the then Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), introduced that measure, he tried to compare it to the Education Act 1944. He claimed that it would stand the test of time. I suppose that, by comparison with the poll tax that he dreamed up, it has stood the test of time. But was it really such a good education reform measure? Of course, the then Secretary of State had to use the guillotine. He slammed that Bill through the House.
  We have seen all sorts of problems develop. Opposition Members suggested, especially in Committee, that a little more time ought to be devoted to the whole question of the national curriculum, particularly those aspects of it relating to testing. The Secretary of State was confident that everything could be done, but we all know what a fiasco the test for seven-year-olds has turned out to be, and how the Government have had to keep rethinking it. If only they had taken a little more time in Committee, if only they had listened to some of the arguments, if only they had not been so determined to rush forward, much damage to seven-year-olds would have been avoided.
  Then there was the whole question of the opting out of schools. Opposition Members opposed the idea of grant-maintained schools. We opposed the principle, but we also told the Government that, if they intended to go ahead, they ought to consider some of the problems that might arise if grant-maintained schools should go wrong. But the Government insisted that there was no chance of a grant-maintained school's going wrong, as the great and the good would be on its governing body. Everything would be perfectly all right, so there was no need to build into the Bill any provision by which the local authority could step back in, or any mechanism to sort out problems. The Government pushed ahead with great enthusiasm. The Bill was bashed through the House of Commons and through the Committee.
  The Secretary of State may be aware of Stratford school down at Newham. It seems that the rules and regulations provided for in the legislation were not able to sort out that situation with any ease. It must be embarrassing for the Government to face the first grant-maintained school to have gone wrong and publicly got into so much difficulty. If only they had taken the time to listen to some of the arguments in Committee, they would have realised that our opposition was valid. Some safety mechanism ought to have been built in to deal with the worst scenario, but the Government were determined to push the legislation through.
  The Government are determined, under the Bill that we are considering tonight, to set up colleges of further education as free-standing institutions. Have they considered what will happen if one of these colleges should go wrong? They are relying very heavily on the quality of the principal and of the governing body.
  We all hope that no college will get into difficulty, but the likelihood is that somewhere in the country a principal and his governing body will be at loggerheads, or a college will not be run as efficiently as it ought to be. I wonder whether the Government have put into this Bill a mechanism to deal with such a situation. Regardless of the

  919
  merits of taking the control of colleges away from local authorities, that is a matter of detail that ought to be considered very carefully.
  During the passage of the Education Reform Act 1988, we had a long argument about whether we should get rid of the binary divide. Again the Government brushed us aside and accused us of talking nonsense: of course the binary divide had to be kept. This is a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) referred on Second Reading today.
  Within three years, the Government saw the good sense of what Opposition Members had said. If they had taken a little more time in Committee, if they had allowed a little more debate at that stage, they might have seen the good sense of our case. The Government, instead of timetabling lots of Bills, ought to provide sufficient time to debate one or two of them effectively.
  The Government seem to set their face against local democracy. They sought through the Education Reform Act 1988 to take powers from local authorities and they seek to do so by means of the Bill. There is a common strand. I do not understand why the Government hate local democracy so much, unless it is that Labour councils are elected. Belief in local democracy hangs on whether we are prepared to let those with whom we disagree have their point of view and, if necessary, run institutions.
  The Government claim that they are democratic and believe in democracy, but when it comes to local democracy, they remove powers from local authorities and give them to unelected appointees. They assume that that is somehow better than having elected representatives. Yet they are so pleased that in eastern Europe Governments are getting rid of people who were appointed rather than elected; they consider that that is good. I merely say to the Conservative party that it should show some faith in local democracy. If it or the Government have no faith in local democracy, it is hard for them to have faith in national democracy.
  Guillotine motions are an erosion of the democratic process. They hand over power to the Executive. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has been a continual enthusiast of guillotines and timetabling. I do not know whether that is because he is a part-time Member with other interests who does not want to spend as much time in the House as some others, but unfortunately the hon. Gentleman misleads the House. I have been a Member of this place since 1974, and I have not served as a member of a Standing Committee in opposition when the Opposition have not timetabled consideration of the Bill from the beginning. They have worked out how they want to allocate time.
  It is not true to say that the consideration of Bills is not timetabled. It is a matter of who does the timetabling. The tradition of the House has been that the Opposition have the right to arrange the timetabling until such time as they demonstrate to the Government that they are not prepared to deliver the Bill. In the main, the idea that entire sections of Bills are not properly debated is nonsense. Occasionally an entire clause will not be debated, but that will be because it has appeared in previous legislation, and it is clear that there is no political controversy. All those who are consulted outside the House see nothing wrong with that. Why should we spend an hour debating a clause if no one can see any problem with it?
  Time will be allocated to clauses when there is party controversy or drafting problems, but to spread the idea
  920
  that Bills are not timetabled is to spread nonsense. In the Committees on which I have served in opposition, those that have been well run—the majority—have proceeded with a clear allocation of time that has been well in everyone's mind, and there has been adherence to it. There have been very few filibusters on the Bills with which I have been involved. It is dangerous for the House to try to change its procedure because in any one Session there have been one or two Bills on which there have been filibusters as opposed to genuine attempts to scrutinise.
  I use what is now the Education Reform Act 1988 as an example of a Bill that was slammed through the House, including its consideration in Committee, with all its warts remaining. The Government made no attempt to modify it, and they are now paying the penalty. I hope that the Government will not introduce more guillotine motions and that even at this late stage they will say that they want a proper Bill for further and higher education, and they want a proper scrutiny. The Government have clearly created a major problem for non-vocational further education. It has not been overcome, and it will have to be resolved by introducing further legislation after the general election. It would be far better to bring consideration of the motion to an end and to have proper scrutiny rather than to rush another measure on to the statute book that will quickly have to be amended or repealed.
  11.38 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: I have listened with interest to what Labour Members said about the timetable motion. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that they have very little objection to the vast majority of the clauses on higher education. Articles in the education press say that Labour is offering the Government a deal in respect of putting the Bill on the statute book before the general election. If that is so, very little time will be needed in which to consider the higher education part, and there will be more than enough time in which to discuss matters that I regard as important—for instance, the question of a pay review body for lecturers, which has been raised with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
  It is no good saying that we cannot have such a body because quite large sources of funding for universities, colleges and polytechnics are connected with sponsorship, given that, with today's graded posts, it is possible to build into sponsors' contracts agreed amounts representing the salary of the lecturer involved, and also to make sure that the salary keeps with the recommendations of the pay review body. We could and should consider the matter during the passage of the Bill.
  There will also be adequate time for us to consider the question of the naming of some polytechnics and, particularly, institutes of higher education. The Government's policy of freeing the polytechnics and institutes of higher education from the control of local authorities has been one of the major successes of Government policy on higher education. Alongside that development, there is the fact that in 1979 one in eight school leavers went into higher education, while today's terrific figure is one in four. That is an increase of 270,000.
  It is now only logical to allow those same colleges and polytechnics to consider themselves universities, particularly when we bear in mind that they are now

  921
  degree-awarding institutions. I shall seek—and no doubt will find, in the time available—an opportunity to make a special plea for Edge Hill institute of higher education in Ormskirk, in my constituency, to be allowed to adopt the title of university college. I have expressed that view to the Secretary of State, and I hope that he will give it serious consideration.
  The important part of the Bill on which the timetable motion will have an impact deals with the further education colleges' becoming independent free-standing institutions and having their own funding council. Clearly, following the success of the polytechnics' independence, that is a logical extension of the policy and the time available should be directed towards discussion of the matter.
  Especially important is a problem that we face in Lancashire which has been brought about by the Bill and which—as a consequence—the timetable motion actually helps. I would go so far as to say that what Lancashire county council is doing makes it essential that the Bill is debated in full and passes into law. I refer to the fact that the council is behaving as if the Bill were already on the statute book. Despite representations made by Conservative county councillors, it has cut from its budget £4 million in grants and fees for adult students going into full-time further education. Representations have been made on the finance committees to reduce that cut, and there have been alternative suggestions—for instance, that £265,000 should be taken from administration or £160,000 from that sacred cow of the Labour party in Lancashire, Lancashire Enterprises Ltd. Unfortunately, a blind eye has been turned on that. The livelihoods and futures of 900 FE students in Lancashire are being deliberately ignored and abused by the Lancashire county council Labour group.
  This is one of the meanest cuts ever to have been made in local government expenditure—from a local authority with a budget of more than £1 billion which could afford to make cuts elsewhere to save the education of 900 FE students. However, the local authority is not prepared to do that, which is a great shame upon it.
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Mr. Hind: I give way to the apologist for the Labour group on Lancashire county council, the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Science.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman did not vote against the local government finance Bills that have led to the capping and the potential capping of county councils such as Lancashire. He voted for those measures to control Lancashire county council's total spending and that of every other authority. That authority is being forced to cut the budgets of colleges in his constituency and in mine because he voted for the budgets to be cut. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends alone bear the responsibility for what is happening in Lancashire. There is no way in which the hon. Gentleman can get out of that, and his electors understand that all too well.
  Mr. Hind: I totally reject what the hon. Gentleman says. He should look at parallel authorities, such as Hampshire and Cheshire and other well-run Conservative authorities, which manage such funding from within their budgets and which are not facing the same problems
  922
  because they are not profligate, spend, spend, spend authorities. The hon. Gentleman should advise the Labour group on the county council to think again on behalf of those 900 students—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
  Mr. Hind: I give way to my hon. Friend—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Perhaps we should return to the allocation of time motion.
  Mr. Hind: You are right to call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I return to the question why the timetable motion is vital. During our discussions, we shall have to look for ways to help those students. They will certainly not get that help from Lancashire county council because that authority will not do anything about their problem.
  I speak also on behalf of the 10 FE colleges in Lancashire, including Skelmersdale college, that are affected because, although the budgets of those colleges will be greater under the funding council that is proposed in the Bill, the formula that will follow in years to come may be affected because the very students whom we wish to help by funding their grants and fees may not be able to get the assistance to take up their places in the future, which will mean empty places and wasted funds.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend believe that there will be time, under the timetable, to discuss the fact that, although our colleges of further education and our adult education sector take only 15 per cent. of the county's education spending, 65 per cent. of the cuts will be inflicted on that sector? I repeat: although that sector accounts for only 15 per cent. of education expenditure, it is being asked to take 65 per cent. of the cuts.
  Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Clearly, the time that is to be made available will enable us to discuss that matter.
  It is also important for the Committee to consider the fact that, since the introduction of an FE formula for the FE sector, the budget of the FE college at Skelmersdale in my constituency increased in the first year by 40 per cent. and by 20 per cent. last year. That is the result of central Government intervention, which is being built on by the Bill. It is another important reason why the timetable motion should be passed and our consideration of the Bill should proceed.
  I hope that the time provided by the timetable motion will give us an opportunity to discuss the position of the deaf students who will be attending FE colleges following the passage of the Bill. Lecturers in FE colleges who deal with the deaf have expressed their concern to ensure that their students are properly funded and cared for. I hope that that issue, along with adult education, will be dealt with.
  It seems to me from the attitude of Lancashire that the Labour party is saying to itself that the timetable motion and the Bill are bound to go through and therefore it will act accordingly. It is almost planning for the future as if it will not win the general election anyway. It accepts that the Conservatives will be returned to the House and that the Bill will be the pillar of further education in the future. Therefore, we ought to give it a fair wind.

  923
  The only thing that I would say to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) is that I hope that, when we debate motions such as this in the future, Opposition Front Benchers, who will inevitably be Labour Members, will read all his speeches on guillotine motions and use them as a model. Undoubtedly, we shall hear them for many years to come from the Opposition Dispatch Box.
  11.50 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: I wish to speak against the guillotine motion because I am worried that there was not enough time in the Second Reading debate, and there will not be sufficient time in Committee, to discuss some of the important issues in the Bill.
  The Bill covers a wide range of further education and higher education institutions. There may well be a consensus on some of them, but the Bill is so wide that I cannot see how the issues about which there is anxiety can be given the hearing and debate that they deserve. Nor will it be possible to take into account the representations which all Members of Parliament have received, particularly on adult education.
  An example of a matter on which I do not believe that there will be adequate discussion is sixth form colleges. The John Leggott sixth form college in Scunthorpe has a first-class reputation. It has done well under local authority control. There is bewilderment about why such a successful education institution has to be taken away from the local education authority and put into central Government care and control. We know that the reason is not that it will make education any better. The reason is the poll tax and the desire to reduce local government expenditure by taking a set of budget headings under central Government control.
  Several issues which affect sixth form colleges need to be considered, and I doubt whether there will be time to consider them under the timetabling. They include the lack of responsibility for local strategic planning which will result from greater centralised control of education; the mechanisms that will be used by the funding councils to determine the level of funding for local sixth form colleges; who will decide and control the curriculum of sixth form colleges; and the developments within individual institutions. These are matters of great concern to the staff in my local sixth form college. They see no educational benefits in being taken away from local authority control.
  Many hon. Members raised the subject of adult education. There are issues of real concern about adult education. I still have not heard Ministers explain to the House why organisations such as Humberside adult education service, a large and successful organisation, will have to go through the FE colleges to obtain funding for their vocational sector. That seems to undermine the principle of a successful scheme. Many thousands of adult education students do not see the benefit or logic of taking part of adult education away from LEAs, thus splitting it and undermining it.
  Why cannot the Government allow large institutions such as Humberside adult education service to bid in its own right to the funding councils to ensure that it can continue in its own successful way?
  A number of concerns have been mentioned to me. One issue influences me most of all, and I doubt whether there will be time to discuss it properly in Committee. A
  924
  successful adult education service works on a devolved basis. Within my constituency many smaller towns and villages benefit from such a service. It provides a wide range of services, qualifications and courses. Under the proposals in the Bill, that service stands to lose approximately half its courses and half its staff. Yet it will be expected to continue to maintain the same level of infrastructure, comprising colleges and centres around the county, especially in the rural areas.
  Women will be the main losers from the changes. One of the advantages of an adult education service which operates in villages and small towns is that it is convenient for women, many of whom wish to improve their qualifications and return to work, to attend courses near their homes.
  Humberside adult education service also provides crèche facilities for many courses. That facility is also likely to be undermined by the approach in the Bill.
  I do not wish to criticise the local further education college because it also does a good job. The relationship between the college, the adult education service and the sixth form college is very good. It is fortunate that, with Humberside education authority under Labour control, we have such a good record on education in the county that local institutions have been so successful.
  However, I am concerned that, because of the timetabling of the Bill, there is a suggestion that the Government will be unwilling to accept any amendments, because if they do the Bill will have to go back to the other place and there will be a risk of delaying it. I strongly urge the Government to listen to the representations that they are receiving and will receive from thousands of students of adult education.
  I am pleased that some Conservative Members have also suggested, succinctly and eloquently, to the Government that there is a risk of damaging a first-rate service simply because they have not given enough thought to adult education. It is a victim of their drive to tinker about with the education service, for no good reason, and of their hatred of local government. I do not understand why they hate local government so much. It is not a party matter—they hate Conservative, Liberal and Labour authorities alike. At least they are consistent in their dislike of local government.
  Local government has done a good job in education. It is close to the people it serves, and local people put it there to ensure that it delivers that service. All over the world centralised structures are being broken down, but the Government are more intent on taking away devolved accountability and moving towards a centralised, bureaucratic structure, which will not deliver the same levels of service and will not be responsive to local people's needs.
  The Bill is fatally flawed and undermines the principle of adult education and the provision of a certain level of service for thousands of people who depend upon it. If the Government do not allow proper discretion in Committee and do not accept a reasonable amendment to allow adult education services to bid separately, the choice will be clear to the people. If the Government will not do it for them, the forthcoming Labour Government most certainly will, and people will know how to mark their ballot papers.
  11.58 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: The Opposition know that I am a fair person; I shall not speak at great length. I appreciate that, when an Opposition is faced with a large Government majority, often the only weapon that they have is time.
  When Bills are debated, often so much time is taken up on the earlier clauses that, unfortunately, there is insufficient time to study later clauses that are equally important. The Bill is of great importance to education and therefore it is right that we should have a timetable which ensures that sufficient time is available to discuss each clause sensibly and in depth. That also means that hon. Members on each side of the House may call upon the Secretary of State and his ministerial team to give specific assurances or undertakings.
  We are seeking the pursuit of excellence, because without it we will be unable to compete with the rest of the world. Therefore, the Government are concentrating their attention on those vocational and academic courses that lead to national certification. That is the only way in which we will be able to compete, educationally, with the rest of the world.
  In common with some Opposition Members, I am anxious about community education, so I need enough time to discuss it. I am worried about whether LEAs will have sufficient funds to enable important community classes to continue without the need for high subscription charges. Recreational and leisure courses give people self-esteem, they get people out of the house, and they have an important social function. Often such courses give people the self-confidence to undertake more vocational courses, and I want enough time to receive assurances from the Government about their future.
  Littleborough and Saddleworth are covered by the two boroughs of Oldham and Rochdale, and they are worried about the Bill. About 20,000 people in each borough undertake leisure and recreational courses, and long may they continue to do so. My right hon. and learned Friend has given us reassurances about those courses, but it is important that there is sufficient funding to ensure that they continue.
  I appreciate that, in many cases, the Opposition play fair and that they do not take up time unnecessarily in Committees. However, I am sure that the Opposition also appreciate, and probably accept, that, on occasion, time is the only weapon left to them, especially when faced by a large Government majority. Therefore, they seek to frustrate legislation with which they are not too pleased by taking up all the available time. Often that means that we end up in a mess because we have only one and a half hours to debate remaining clauses which we need more time to consider. Therefore, a timetable is common sense.
  I do not want to say any more because I wish to be fair to the Opposition. I believe that the Bill is most important and that, therefore, it is right to ensure that we set aside enough time for each of its clauses to be considered in depth.
  12.2 am
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I do not believe that the comments of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) on the guillotine motion were appropriate.
  926
  Anyone in the Strangers Gallery who listened to the debate leading up to the vote at 10 pm would be entitled to think that the purpose of the guillotine motion was to prevent Conservative Back Benchers from having the time of their lives by attacking the Bill and expressing the strength of public feeling that exists in the county seats that they mainly represent.
  It will prevent them from outlining the destruction that the Bill may wreak on the provision of adult education and further education in their areas. This is the first time that one could interpret the imposition of the guillotine as a means of preventing Conservative Members from having their say about a piece of last-minute Conservative legislation. I am sure that anyone who heard the earlier debate would agree that that is a fair conclusion to reach.
  It is important to consider the perils of rushing through the legislation by imposing a timetable. We should remember that such timetables inevitably mean that consideration of legislation is rushed. That means that one forgets to consider how the Bill fits in with other existing legislation on further and higher education. We have been asked to rush the Bill through without attempting to debug the problems that it will raise. Therefore, one ends up with a legislative Molotov cocktail. That cocktail is aimed at the heart of my constituency for rare, if not unique, reasons.
  I have in my constituency a building of which I have fond memories. The count was held there when I was first elected. It used to be called Llandaf tech, part of what was the South Glamorgan institute of higher education, recently renamed the Cardiff institute of higher education. Most of those with whom I was at school went there, after leaving school at 15 to do apprenticeships and so on, on their day release and for night school studies.
  Within the Cardiff institute of higher education are a large number of further education students. One effect of rushing through legislation such as this is that we shall shortly be introducing a split between further and higher education. The Cardiff institute has four campuses, but the biggest problem concerns the one in my constituency. There are 900 FE students and 40 members of staff teaching them, making it equivalent to an average FE college. So it is a college within a college—a college of FE that is housed in an HE institution.
  Rushing the Bill through without considering the side effects will result, next September, in those 900 students and 40 members of staff being in serious danger of being out on the street. They will have nowhere to go and no alternative premises.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Really!
  Mr. Morgan: The Secretary of State may screw up his nose at that, but I assure him that I am describing the situation. Negotiations are taking place between civil servants at the Welsh Office—as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales will confirm—the two colleges, including the nearest FE college, and the county council.
  I will explain how this unusual situation has come about and why the Secretary of State must give more thought to the Bill to ensure that all the problems are out of the way before the Government start shovelling legislation off the back of a lorry in this way before the election, without considering the plight of 900 students

  927
  and 40 members of staff who are in serious danger of being homeless. We are talking of a college with no name, as it were, but it will soon be a college with no home.
  Most places have an adequate network of FE colleges, but we in South Glamorgan have not. We have only two, and they are at each end of the county. There is not one in my area, so the central section of South Glamorgan—having a population, including bits of other constituencies, of 150,000 to 200,000—is without an FE college. When the FE students are brought out of the Cardiff institute of higher education, consider what will happen.
  Obviously, the institute will not want to house those students any longer because to fulfil the funding requirements of this measure, if it is not amended—and we shall not have time to consider such issues under the guillotine—all the FE students will have to leave, Where will they go? In most other areas, they would go into an FE institution nearby. What happens if, as in my area, there is not one nearby?
  The Bill also has the effect of removing all co-ordination between the LEA and the FE colleges and HE institutions. Up to now, all of them being under the same management, they could easily integrate. South Glamorgan county council's education department could say "We appreciate why the institute of higher education wants to get the 900 FE students and 40 members of staff out, so we will lease a temporary building to the institute, or to Barry college of further education, to house this college within a college."
  But as soon as the council says that, the Welsh Office replies, "In that case, it will be a building used for further education, and as soon as you lease it to us, we will grab it and pass it over to the FE funding council." That will happen because the Bill has not had adequate debate. That will seriously increase the danger of 900 students and 40 members of staff on courses such as plumbing, catering and hairdressing, enabling young men and women to enter vocational courses, perhaps finding themselves out in the middle of Western avenue doing their work because there is nowhere for them to go. Western avenue is a lovely dual carriageway bypass, but it is no place to begin one's further education.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: That is obviously a Welsh Office problem and the hon. Gentleman will no doubt correspond with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office. However, I do not understand why the further education part of the college is being thrown out, as the hon. Gentleman fears. It is not unusual for higher and further education to be combined in various parts of the United Kingdom. Nene college at Nuneaton combines higher and further education, and the funding arrangements in the Bill will accommodate continued funding for both parts of its activities. Nene college has existed under the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council for some years, and has also accommodated the funding of its further education.
  The hon. Gentleman will have to give more details about why somebody has decided to throw the college off its site before the Welsh Office can respond adequately, as it will no doubt do in due course. I can see no rational reason why the college should appear to be in such a stark crisis.
  Mr. Morgan: I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who is sitting next to the Secretary of State
  928
  now, can confirm that his civil servants have been negotiating with the education department of South Glamorgan county council and the two colleges—the present Cardiff institute of higher education and the Barry college of further education—for several months to devise temporary and permanent solutions, such as a temporary annexe to house students.
  It is up to the Secretary of State to explain his legislation, but I understand that civil servants have been devoting time to the problem, and I presume that they would not do so if it was not a problem. With the advantages of their education and qualifications, and the firm leadership of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, they would have solved the matter in five minutes flat.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Who owns the property, and why have the owners—I presume that it is an authority—taken it into their collective head to throw the college off the site?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not the right moment to debate the matter. The hon. Gentleman was saying that he thought that time should be available to debate the matter. It should not be debated now.
  Mr. Morgan: I have gone to enormous lengths, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to avoid offending the strictures of speaking on a guillotine motion as distinct from a substantive Bill.
  Without adequate time, the Secretary of State is liable to fall into the trap of waiving problems, as he is now trying to do, rather than seriously studying them. He tries to pretend that the problem does not exist, even though it obviously does. The attempt by civil servants from the Welsh Office to find a solution to it proves that there is a serious problem. We have about six months to avert disaster to the foundations of vocational further education in my county, and particularly my constituency, unless the Government find a way to ensure that the Bill is adequately debated long before it has any chance of becoming the law under which education must operate.
  Mr. Clarke: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman and get us back into order. The hon. Gentleman obviously does not know the cause of that great problem. I accept his assurance that civil servants at the Welsh Office do, and I assure him that he will receive a reply in due course from my hon. Friends the Minister of State or the Under-Secretary of State, whose Parliamentary Private Secretary is on the Bench listening to the debate.
  Mr. Morgan: The Secretary of State is doing his best to waive the problem. I think that I know what is wrong with the Bill, but it is not my job to explain the legislation to the House. I understand that the consequences of the Bill will combine with other recent legislation, which is why I referred to a legislative Molotov cocktail aimed at the heart of further education in my constituency. The dual effect of the so-called autonomy of further and higher education colleges, combined with the funding arrangements for higher education, will mean that, to make their buildings pay, higher education colleges must fill them with students of higher education. They will therefore have to remove further education students as quickly as possible, preferably by next September, from their present buildings.
  Normally, that would not pose a problem, but in areas without a full network of FE colleges it does. My constituency is outstandingly short of FE institutions. It

  929
  does not matter whether they can be integrated under the local authority. Given that there is a firm separation between the school sector, which is still in local authority ownership, and the new further and higher education colleges, which are autonomous and report to the further education funding council for Wales and the higher education funding council for Wales, all three institutions will now be separate. The Government have not thought ahead to the consequences in areas such as Cardiff, West, where there is no place of further education half-empty or with a little spare capacity which could absorb the transfer courses from the higher education institutions where FE is taught on the same campus as HE.
  I can assure the Secretary of State that that poses a problem that we do not have long to solve. I am horrified that the Bill will be rushed through when it is on the point of creating serious problems.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that I am not responsible for education at the Welsh Office; that is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. He is unwell this evening, so I am sitting in listening to the debate. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will draw his remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention. He will get a full letter on the subject, and my right hon. Friend will undoubtedly discuss the matter with him.
  Mr. Morgan: In that case, I am happy to draw my remarks to a close. Obviously the Under-Secretary is taking a different attitude from that of the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The hon. Gentleman suspects that there is a problem, whereas the Secretary of State does not accept that but tries to wave the issue away as though it does not exist, even though Welsh civil servants have been heavily engaged in trying to figure out the problem.
  There are no transitional arrangements for easing the path of FE work as it moves out of fully integrated local authority control into the autonomous, semi-independent institutions of which the Government are so fond. The Government do not realise that sometimes there are not the buildings. Sometimes, any offers by the county council to provide funding are rejected or constructively suggested with a "Yes, fine—you spend the £2 million in South Glamorgan, and we will take over the new asset that you are about to create." That is a wholly inadequate response. Obviously it would be financially irresponsible of the county council to spend £2 million of its own money only to have the further education funding council for Wales say, "Thank you very much, we will grab it and use it for ourselves."
  The problem must be solved. Without its solution, the Government will stand condemned of having destroyed the foundations of further education in south Glamorgan and, in particular, my constituency.
  12.17 am
  Mr. Derek Enright: It grieves me that in the self-styled mother of Parliaments I should see not the Secretary of State, his two hirelings, or some rebellious Back-Bencher, but the Leader of the House himself attempt matricide. For what reason does he have his hands
  930
  bloodied?—for a Bill that is, to say the least, cheap and ill-thought-out and that should not be appearing before the House.
  The Secretary of State has shown on every occasion possible his ignorance and lack of concern about education. On this occasion he has done so not even for reasons of ideology. In a sense, I could excuse the timetable if he had ideological reasons for doing what he wants to do, but it is sheer prejudice. It is his paranoia about local government, to which he returns time and again. This is a cheap way of saving a little money.
  We know that the relationship between adult and further education has been nurtured not by central Government but by local government of both political complexions. Let me mention the old West Riding, when it was under Conservative control, and the work that it pioneered in further education and adult education. It was careful work, because it demanded that one put together in a delicate way the relationship between the two. As with the distinction between pure and applied, the distinction between adult education and FE is very fine indeed; and one merges with the other. The way in which the Secretary of State is proposing to deal with them, in the most cavalier fashion, means that he is intent upon destroying their spirit. He has not, for example, thought out carefully the funding of adult education, and the special experiments that have been started by local government, not by his Department, which are succeeding and which are adding quality to people's lives.
  I am thinking, for example, of the Castleford women's centre in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), which also serves my constituency, and the pioneering work that it has done. It has become part of the community, is helping in reducing juvenile crime and is running a range of positive courses which contribute to the members' own satisfaction. All that is being put heedlessly at risk. It is also geared to New college, which is a sixth form college, quite different from the existing further education college, to which it is also allied. It has an intricate relationship with the University of Leeds, the sixth form college and the college of further education.
  The Secretary of State does not understand what he is doing with this Bill, and he never will, because he wishes to push it through without the evidence being put before him. We know what the Secretary of State does with evidence. If it is inconvenient to him, he suppresses it, as he has done with this Bill. He will not publish; he refuses to publish. That is typical of the way in which he approaches something which is of value to society, because he does not recognise its value; he thinks only, as Oscar Wilde would say, of its price.
  Therefore, we must reject the Bill. We have to make sure that we can properly examine what is being done in further education and adult education so that we may save for future generations the gems which the Minister wishes heedlessly to destroy.
  12.22am
  Mr. Rupert Allason: As a matter of principle, I am opposed to all timetable motions because I regard them as a negation of the democratic process. I had intended to make my point in an intervention in the speech

  931
  of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind). I will be brief, because I understand that there are Opposition Members who want to speak.
  My concern is fourfold. I have community colleges in my constituency, and it is my belief that such colleges demand and earn the respect of all people. They are extremely important and they offer an extremely good service to the community.
  My worry is whether, by passing this guillotine motion, we shall reduce the amount of time that can be spent in examining whether under this Bill community colleges in rural areas such as Devon will be disadvantaged in comparison with similar colleges elsewhere in metropolitan areas, where I accept that there is a certain degree of competition between the colleges. Anxiety has been expressed to me about the composition of the regional councils. I hope that setting a timetable will not make it impossible to examine not only the structure of the regional councils but their composition. Who exactly will sit on the councils?
  I do not regard the Bill as an attack on local education authorities or, indeed, on local democracy, but it is important that we take time to examine every aspect of the funding councils to ensure that we are not abandoning local education authorities in favour of what is in effect a pig in a poke. There is certainly great anxiety about funding, because until now it has been an easy option to cut adult education and non-vocational courses in the colleges. They have been an easy target in the past. If one of the Bill's objectives is to steady or perhaps increase funding of the colleges, it will gain my support. However, I am concerned about the future of community courses, especially in Devon, and when the Minister replies I urge him to give an undertaking that the aspects of the Bill that I have highlighted will not be disadvantaged by the passing of the guillotine motion.
  12.25 am
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: I shall address the substantial points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). He spoke about two matters, the first of which was the danger of hasty legislation and how it eventually catches up with us. The second was the danger of forcing such a tight timetable on legislation that important lobby organisations with much valuable advice to offer do not have time to give that advice. He gave various examples of such legislation but failed to mention the most recent example of a guillotined Bill, the Education (Schools) Bill. The Opposition remain convinced that that Bill contains many chickens waiting to come home to roost. Examples are the quality control of privatised inspectors, the possibility of cosy relationships between inspectors and the schools that hire them, the possibility of inspections going wrong and the question of what happens if a school finds itself in trouble at an awkward point in the cycle of inspections.
  In Committee, we argued exhaustively about a range of issues, but none of our advice was accepted, and we are convinced that an ill-thought-out Bill is on its way into law. I have here a document that ilustrates not only that point but the difficulty faced by important lobby organisations in trying to give advice during the passage of the Bill. It is a briefing document from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of Universities in the United Kingdom, and I saw it on my board this afternoon
  932
  as I was coming into the Chamber for Second Reading. It was marked urgent, which is indicative enough, and it draws urgent attention to clauses 68 and 81. When I read what had been referred to, it seemed that clause 66 and not clause 68 was the relevant one. That illustrates the haste with which this august body, the CVCP, had to produce the briefing document.
  Clause 68—I think that that is the one that was meant —is of horrendous significance. The report of the debate on the clause in the other place in early February covered 27 columns of Hansard, and amendments were made on Third Reading. The clause refers to the terms and conditions attached to grants made to, and from, the funding councils. That is of great importance.
  There is an overt intention in the clause that the Secretary of State should be able to attach terms and conditions to the grants made available to the funding councils. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals does not object to the general application of such a clause, but it finds some difficulties, and here is something that strikes at the heart of the integrity of the higher education system. The difficulties arise when it comes to the matters on which the Secretary of State is able to lay down terms and conditions and the extent to which he can override the funding councils' discretion to release funds to individual institutions. He can make exceptional determinations in relation to individual institutions.
  The Department of Education and Science, I am told by the CVCP, stated that the Secretary of State thought that he had those powers under the Education Reform Act 1988, but this has been put in doubt by judgments of counsel. The DES claimed that it was always intended that the powers of the Secretary of State should be used in that way, but the previous Secretary of State gave a categoric assurance:
  "I have no intention of using my power to attach conditions to influence the allocation of funds to individual institutions. That is properly a matter for the Funding Councils." [Official Report, Standing Committee J, 16 February 1988; c. 1446.]
  He gave a similar assurance on 24 March, but I will not burden the House by reading the full text of that assurance. It reiterated what he had said earlier.
  At no time during the passage of the Education Reform Bill were such intended uses of the powers discussed with the CVCP. Representatives of the CVCP's views argued this clause through 27 columns of the Official Report of the House of Lords, such was the importance that they attached to the principle. They managed to get an amendment, which I shall read to the House. Clause 68 says:
  "The Secretary of State may make grants to each of the councils of such amounts and subject to such terms and conditions as he may determine."
  Then we come to the amendment:
  "The terms and conditions subject to which grants are made by the Secretary of State to either of the councils—
  (a) may in particular impose requirements to be complied with in respect of every institution, or every institution falling within a class or description specified in the terms and conditions … before financial support of any amount or description so specified is provided by the council in respect of activities carried on by the institution".
  As the CVCP says,
  "Subsection 2(a) of the clause is now worthy of the Plain English Society's gobbledegook prize and the CVCP's lawyers advise that it could still be used by ministers to interfere with individual institutions or groups of institutions."

  933
  The CVCP still regards the issue as not yet having been satisfactorily determined.
  It is evident to me from the debate on Second Reading and from many contributions in this debate that the first eight sittings of the Committee will be more than adequately occupied by the business of clauses 1 to 14 and schedule 2. There will be no spare time in those sittings to allocate to business on the 70 or so other clauses.
  I know that it has been said that the Opposition accept many of the Bill's provisions for higher education. I am happy to agree with that, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said that he smelt a rat. I am sure that the dramatic pointing of his arm was a rhetorical and not a demonstrative gesture. I, too, smell a rat—in clause 66. I wonder how many other rats should be smelt out but will not be because the time available is inadequate to scrutinise the details of the Bill.
  The CVCP says that it is claimed that clause 81 is
  "a power of last resort to provide for a proper level of accountability for public money."
  That is an important issue of principle in the way that we conduct the business of the House. At the moment, these powers are subject to the negative procedure, and the CVCP, and I am sure all responsible Members of Parliament, regards it as important that such powers be subject to affirmative resolution.
  All this shows that, if the guillotine motion is agreed, the time allocated to the Bill will be inadequate to allow debates on the many important issues in it that need still to be examined. I offer the Secretary of State some advice. There is a story in Greek mythology that Odysseus, when he came home after 10 years of warfare in Troy and 10 years of tribulation and storm at sea, and decided that he wanted some peace, took an oar from his ship and walked inland. When, eventually, a local said to him, "What are you doing carrying a winnowing fan on your shoulder?" he decided that there was the place to settle down in peace.
  Many teachers, at all levels, who are suffering under the Government would dearly love to walk inland wearing their mortarboards and stop when someone offered to buy them so that they could be used to plaster walls. My advice to the Secretary of State is that he roll up this Further and Higher Education Bill and walk away with it. When, eventually, someone comes up to him in agitation and asks him why he is carrying round—I will not be polite and call it a toilet roll, but will call it something even more insulting—a Tory tabloid newspaper, he should then take out the Bill, look at it and re-examine its purpose and its value.
  12.37 am
  Mr. Harry Barnes: As this is supposed to be a debate, I shall refer to three speeches from Tory Members, although none of those who made them is here to listen to any debating points that I may make.
  The first is the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), who claimed that the advantage of the timetable motion was that the Bill could be chopped up into little bits, thereby allowing adequate time to consider each item. If he examined the motion, he would discover that it is not like that at all, and that it is possible for 96 clauses and eight schedules to be dealt with on 26 February, finishing at 9.30 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): The hon. Gentleman might like to know that the precise timetabling was arranged at the request of the Opposition, who asked that 80 per cent. of the available time should be spent on the first 14 clauses.
  Mr. Barnes: It is quite possible to provide a considerably longer period and still allocate 80 per cent. of the time to those clauses. If more days were available in advance of the remaining 20 per cent. of the time, the matters to which I have referred would be much more likely to be brought up.
  Mr. Haynes: What my hon. Friend is saying may fit a rumour that is flitting around the House. The rumour, which I heard last night, is that the Government are considering going to the country before 9 April. In fact, it goes further; it says that they will go without a Budget. If my hon. Friend thinks about that, he will see the need for this timetable. [Laughter.] As I speak, a member of the Cabinet is laughing his head off. There is something going on. As I told my hon. Friend earlier, there is a rat in this Chamber, and it is running around like hell.
  Mr. Barnes: Obviously, my hon. Friend has smelt two rats.
  The second contribution to which I want to refer was that of the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), who said that there was no great dispute over part II of the Bill, which deals with higher education. So far as the end of the binary divide is concerned, that is certainly true, but it is an argument for excluding part II from the provisions of the timetable. Part II could be considered seriously and at greater length.
  The Transport and Works Bill was not divided upon. When that measure went into Committee, some time was spent on it, and a considerable number of amendments emerged. Although Members wanted to improve it, there was no division about the general principles. In the case of this Bill, a similar situation could be created if a particular element of it were excluded from the timetabling arrangements.
  The third Member to whom I want to refer is the Leader of the House, who said that he was in favour of automatic timetabling. I am afraid that we might be pushed into automatic timetabling, the abolition of Friday sittings, and a rising time of 7 pm. In those circumstances, what would 650 Members do, especially if Committee debate were timetabled? Perhaps the number of Members would have to be greatly reduced. I can envisage difficulties. If each Member were to have a constituency twice as big as his current one, he would need better facilities.
  We are now in a silly season, when electioneering is to the fore in the House. I realise that, in one sense, what goes on in the House is a continuation of the hustings. It is right that it should be so, but I am concerned about the extent and the triviality of such debate. The extended campaigning gives rise to certain legislative worries.
  We are faced with two extremes. Either business is rushed, as this Bill is being rushed, to fit in with some future timetable, or we scrape around for things to do in the remaining time, and the Government often put matters forward simply as part of a media circus that is organised elsewhere—a circus in which the Government present the issues that form the basis of their campaign.

  935
  Rushed debates led to the farce of the council tax, and now further and higher education are threatened by a timetable motion. The Government must have strong reasons for wishing to impose a guillotine at such an early stage. As I have said, we move from one extreme to the other, with the result that many Members have lost interest in what is taking place in the House. Last night, for example, without the Democratic Unionist and Ulster Unionist parties coming to the Government's rescue, they would have lost their Northern Ireland industrial relations order.
  It seems fantastic that we are considering a guillotine motion on of all things a Further and Higher Education Bill. Surely a well-organised society should look towards further and higher education. It should see the education process from nursery education on to primary and secondary education and onwards as something that is preparing people for later stages in their life, when they can fully develop within further and higher education.
  Education cannot be rushed, despite what the Government think. They think, for example, that at Ruskin college and Northern college, two-year courses can be chopped by one year so that twice as many students can pass through the system, with results that are twice as good. By chopping courses in two we kill that which existed. It is not half of a two-year course that takes place in one year, because the second year is based considerably on what took place in the first. Education cannot be confined to modules and rushed forward. People need time to mature within education institutions, provisions and arrangements.
  That principle should apply to the consideration of education legislation, and especially that which is directed to further and higher education. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State talked for a while about the principles and philosophy of education. He suggested that people move into and out of education and back again, and that there was a continuing process. He said that that was extremely beneficial. If he is to adhere to that approach, there should be serious consideration of a measure that will attract masses of representations.
  When we deal with education, there will always be many outside with backgrounds in education who will send briefs and write letters to us. They will wish to acquaint us with their views, and they tend to be among the most articulate members of our society. They have many important ideas to present and consideration of education Bills is better when dialectical debate and argument can take place. The outcome is improved understanding.
  I doubt whether the Secretary of State fully appreciates what the principles of education should involve from the perspective of democratic socialism, to which I adhere. We should look for three main elements, one of which is individual self-fulfilment. That enables individuals to move into and out of vocational and non-vocational education, for example, to pick up what is beneficial to them at different stages of life. Education is a continuing process, and students and teachers should see themselves as studying together. Are we really producing legislation that will point us in that direction? Given time, could not enough amendments be tabled for us to improve the Bill?
  Secondly, education should supply skills that the population in general can use if we are to become a modern, technologically advanced society, with the social requirements that go with that. Specific skills may be
  936
  involved in some instances, but they should operate, and be controlled, within the general pattern of developing a bright population, who are given an opportunity to study the subjects that grab them.
  Mr. Haynes: My hon. Friend has given this matter real consideration. I know the contribution that he has made to the education system over many, many years.
  The population of this nation are now living far longer. Many of my constituents who have retired and are now on pensions wish to educate themselves further, and that is something that we should address on the Floor of the House and in Committee. Conservative Members are not bothered; they are pushing the Bill through like nobody's business. I give credit to the hon. Members who have spoken against the Bill tonight: they are being honest with themselves, and with their constituents.
  We shall need time for a proper debate in Committee. In tonight's debate, I have heard no mention of the group of elderly people in our nation who wish to educate themselves further. Some, indeed, would want to enter higher education if they were able to do so. This lot are stopping even that happening, let alone stopping us having an opportunity to debate the Bill properly by tabling this damned timetable motion.
  Mr. Barnes: There is a widespread movement in favour of a "university of the third age" for people over 50 who have organised themselves and formed a link with educational institutions. Increasing numbers of retired people will want to develop skills and make use of abilities that have been acquired over a lifetime. We should be able to discuss such matters properly and fully in Committee.
  If the Opposition table amendments in Committee, how much time will we have to deal with them? Some items may tie in with part II of the Bill, which deals with higher education; but, as only 20 per cent. of the available time has been devoted to the subject, we may not be able to deal with it adequately.
  My third point about the importance of further and higher education relates to the skills that can be developed to allow democratic participation in society. Education is not just for individuals; it does not simply mean that someone is producing something that is economically worth while for the rest of us. It is important because of its collective, participatory, sharing nature. Measures that seek to undermine democratic moves and controls, and the role of local education authorities, seem to me entirely contrary to the spirit of education philosophy. The Secretary of State put his toe in the water on that issue, but he has not sought to develop it. We need much more time to discuss these serious matters before the Bill goes into Committee.
  12.54 am
  Mr. Jack Straw: This is the second time in two weeks that the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Leader of the House have sought to guillotine education Bills. The Government have no mandate for either Bill and there has been little enthusiasm for either, even from Conservative Members. Indeed, in some respects, there has been extensive Conservative opposition to both Bills. The hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) stated his opposition in uncompromising terms, saying that the Bill "stinks" and that he has no intention of voting for it or for the guillotine

  937
  motion. That view was reflected in the speeches of many of his hon. Friends. It is my belief that if there were an opportunity for Conservative Members to vote on the Bill according to their judgment, rather than according to their Whips, the Secretary of State would barely have a majority on his side, let alone in the House as a whole, for the Bill.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said in his fine speech, democracy is about giving rights to those with whom one disagrees. Democracy is about the rights of minorities, as well as of majorities. Democracy withers if the House fails to give a proper opportunity to speak to those who disagree with those who are in power.
  The guillotine means that there will be a wholly inadequate opportunity to examine the Bill in Committee and to improve its terms. It is no good the Secretary of State or the Minister of State saying that the Opposition have agreed to the timetable within the overall framework of the guillotine for the allocation of time between clauses. That is correct, but the Secretary of State and the Minister will also confirm that the last thing to which we agreed was this guillotine. They know that very well, and they also know that, if they had sought our agreement to the guillotine, we should never have agreed to one covering five consecutive sittings, spread over two weeks.
  Another reason why the measure is unnecessary is that the Minister of State and the Secretary of State have every reason to know that, on every education Bill on which I have served, apart from the very long Education Reform Bill at the beginning of this Parliament, there has been agreement between Opposition and Government about a voluntary timetable for getting Bills out of Committee. If the Government had come to us, there is no reason on earth why we would not have agreed to such a timetable on this Bill.
  Another reason why the Bill should be given more time is to give the Secretary of State the time to visit one or two sixth form colleges and further education colleges to find out about the nature of the services that they offer, their relationships with the local authorities and why, contrary to what he thinks, there is extensive opposition to a centralised takeover of further education.
  Mr. Eggar indicated dissent.
  Mr. Straw: The Minister of State shakes his head. As at 24 July, the Secretary of State had visited only one further education college and one sixth form college throughout his period in office. There is a—[Interruption.] Well, there is a further education college slap bang in the middle of the Secretary of State's constituency. It is called the South Nottinghamshire further education college. How many times has the Secretary of State visited that college?
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have not been there since I have been Secretary of State, but I have visited it and know it well. I visited a sixth form college last Friday. The hon. Gentleman, who has no education policy and little view on most of the Bills that we consider, scratches around in the statistics of my visits. I visited a sixth form college last Friday and another one before Christmas. A poll of principals shows that 62 per cent. agree with us, with only 21 per cent. agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. Having no policy and no clear views of what the Labour party would do, the hon. Gentleman would obviously spend his time as
  938
  Secretary of State—if he ever got to that office—swanning around, doing photo-calls, visiting schools and colleges all over the country. We have a job of work to do. All the polls show that the Bill is supported by the principals of the colleges, which are regularly visited by me and by the remainder of my team of Ministers.
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has given way and he ought to take a little time while I respond, as he invited me to do, to think about what he is going to say about the guillotine motion and the contents of the Bill.
  Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State admits that he has not bothered to visit the further education college in his constituency at any time since he became Secretary of State. I will tell him something else. The college in his constituency has no recollection of his having made a visit at any time in the past four years. Indeed, some people cannot remember a visit in the past 10 years.
  If the Secretary of State criticises me for visiting schools and colleges, it is a criticism that he should also level at his predecessors, both the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), who is now Lord President of the Council, and the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). To do them justice, they went out to find out what was happening in the education service. The reason why the Secretary of State has made so many errors in education policy, which will damage the Conservative party grievously at the election, is that he does not understand what goes on in the education service—
  Mr. Clarke rose—
  Mr. Straw: No, the Secretary of State will have his time to reply.
  Mr. Clarke rose—
  Mr. Straw: Sit down.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order.
  Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State does not understand the education service. He does not visit it. He takes no notice of it. That is how he blundered into the privatisation of the inspectorate and into dismembering the adult education service. It is also why he is creating a binary divide between further education colleges and sixth form colleges and other sixth form provision at precisely the time that he is adopting Labour party policy to end the binary system in higher education.
  In his reply to the Second Reading debate, the Minister of State came out with some puerile nonsense about east European regimes. One of the characteristics of such regimes was that they had weak local authorities and authoritarian central Governments. That sounds to me like a description of this Conservative Administration and where it would like to go. It is also a description of the way in which the Government operate in the dying days of this Administration before the election.
  The House knows that there will be inadequate opportunity to debate the detail of the measures on further and adult education within the terms of the guillotine. The only reason that the Government seek to force the guillotine through is the imminence of the general election, which at last the Prime Minister may have the guts to call

  939
  by 9 April. The Bill and the guillotine will be one more reason why the Government will be defeated whenever the election comes.
  1.2 am
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): As everyone has expressed personal views about procedure, may I say that I am not a great supporter of guillotine motions. I do not go so far as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), who said that he was always against them. They are undoubtedly required by all Governments to get essential business through. Personally I am not in favour of timetabling all Bills on all occasions. I have considerable sympathy with the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) and by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who expressed reservations about the sudden rush to reform our procedures.
  However, I realise that there are cases in which the timetabling of a Committee's proceedings in due course enables every part of the Bill to be debated at adequate length. Like the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, I find myself from time to time speaking on guillotine motions, although I have never rivalled his record of moving five guillotine motions in a day, as he did when he was Leader of the House.
  On some occasions guillotine motions have to be tabled and sometimes they are fiercely contested. As someone who is not keen on guillotine motions, I have found myself replying to two debates on guillotine motions recently. One was on the Education (Schools) Bill, with which the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) dealt at some length. The other is on the Further and Higher Education Bill this evening. They are among the least fiercely contested guillotines that I can remember, and both arose in rather curious circumstances—almost by accident.
  Last week we were dealing in a day with the Report and Third Reading of the Education (Schools) Bill for which the Opposition had asked for only one day. It became clear during the course of the evening that some Opposition Members were filibustering but others were not. The Opposition Front Bench appeared to veer round during the evening. It also became clear that the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen did not know why they were filibustering. The result was that we moved a guillotine motion at 10 o'clock in the evening to get back to some sensible discussion and spent two days in the House dealing with the matter compared with the one day which the Opposition had previously asked for.
  Today's situation is rather unusual, but it is clear that, with the generous timetable that has been laid down, we can have a more ordered discussion in Committee than we might otherwise have had.
  We all know the background. This Parliament has a limited amount of time to run. That has been spotted by the Opposition, who took the unusual step of advertising the fact in The Times Higher Educational Supplement. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) made it clear that the Opposition's intention was that, because of the imminence of the general election, the higher education provisions of the Bill—supported by his party—were on offer, and could be got through. He also made it clear that the further education parts of the Bill would be filibustered
  940
  for as long as was necessary to ensure that they did not get through. I cannot think of a clearer invitation—to save everybody from a great deal of wasted time in Committee, debating the sittings motion and initial clauses—to have a timetable motion to allow some orderly debate.
  Mr. Fatchett: If the Secretary of State reads my comments in that report, he will see that there is no mention of filibustering on our part. As we said in the debate, we accept the principle of the higher education provisions and we want to debate the further education provisions. There is room for extensive debate on the latter. The Secretary of State seems to be suggesting that, if Members object to any of his provisions, they simply do not have the right to debate them.
  Mr. Clarke: I agree that the word "filibuster" was not used by the hon. Gentleman. When I filibustered in opposition, I never described it as filibustering, certainly not in advance of the start of the debate.
  In the supplement the hon. Member for Leeds, Central made a noble offer. He said:
  "We would do all we could to facilitate the dropping of FE clauses, subject to certain objectives concerning quality control and academic freedom in higher education."
  I have to warn the Opposition and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who will be serving on the Committee that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has provided a most generous allocation of time. Indeed, it is a staggeringly generous allocation of time, which I confidently predict that the Opposition will have considerable difficulty in filling, because they agree with half the Bill. They are not opposed to the higher education part of the Bill. It is no wonder that they have asked that 80 per cent. of the time should be devoted to the first 14 clauses because they have scarcely made a speech all day about the remaining clauses, which do not concern many hon. Members.
  For example, the Opposition have had difficulty in sustaining the debate on the guillotine motion. The hon. Member for Knowsley, South did his duty. He has been speaking frequently on these occasions. He spoke at great length on the Education (Schools) Bill last week. He read an out-of-date brief from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. He got the wrong clause of the Bill—he was using the clause before it was amended in the House of Lords, which, in my experience, falls prey to lobbies easily. But no one there read out the brief—or certainly not an out-of-date brief. That is now clause 68.
  The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals' amendment has been accepted. As far as I am aware, it drafted the clause. When I spoke on Second Reading I said that we would not try to reverse it, and that battle is long over. It occupied 15 minutes of the guillotine debate, which was interesting for the record and for future historians, but it did not seem to show that there is a huge number of issues to be debated seriously.
  Hon. Members will see from the Order Paper that the debate in Committee will be open-ended for the first four days. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) leapt up to say that, of course, the Government Whip could bring the debate to an end at any time. He would be horrified if I told him that the Government Whip would not do so but would give the Opposition four all-night sittings. They would never be able to sustain that.
  I agree that serious issues have been raised about adult education, in particular, and community colleges, which

  941
  were adverted to by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and others. I spoke about adult education on Second Reading, and I would be out of order if I were to dilate on our case now. We have not altered the policy on adult education. We have not altered the legal duties of local authorities towards the courses described, and we are not threatening their source of money. Nevertheless, I accept that serious points must be made.
  However, I could not accept the seriousness of the oddest point, which was raised by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright). He appeared to believe that all our proposals were something to do with saving money. We are certainly not expanding the provision for further and higher education in anticipation that the cost of that provision will drop.
  The powers of the further education funding council and the methods by which it will be possible for community colleges to go first to a further education college and then, perhaps, to that council to look for funds are covered in the initial part of the Bill. The Opposition have, with respect, been sensible in asking that the one knife that is included in the guillotine motion falls where it does.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough remains opposed to the Bill. I hope that our Committee discussions will persuade him because four days will be available for debate on clauses 1 to 14 and schedule 2, which establish the new framework. Therefore, there will be plenty of opportunity for amendments to be tabled and considered on the main clauses concerning the structure of adult education—clauses 3, 5, 6(5), and 11 and schedule 2. The first to the eighth sittings of the Committee are open ended.
  Sir John Farr: I realise the opportunity that exists, but it can be of no interest to me unless my right hon. and learned Friend can give me an undertaking that I am likely to be selected to serve on the Committee. I have heard from the usual channels that that is unlikely.
  Mr. Clarke: That is not within my gift. I am sure that my hon. Friend's comment has been noted, but, before he volunteers, I should point out to him the amount of time that will be taken up on the Committee. Were all the time described in the motion to be occupied, the members of the Standing Committee would be droping exhausted from the tedium of the repetition of important arguments that we have covered over many hours today.
  This is a sensible way to proceed for the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave. We have our divisions of opinion on the Bill, but they are not as wide as people claim. We are totally agreed on higher education, and hon. Members on both sides of the House want to expand further education. No hon. Member wants to do any damage to adult education, of which we are all in favour. We are arguing about whether it is right to take further education colleges and sixth form colleges out of local government control.
  Given the management of the change and the expansion that I have already described, delay can be damaging. The worst thing that can happen to the institutions, which we are all purporting to support, would be another 12 months
  942
  of uncertainty, delay, doubt and political debate. The House must debate the issues in a reasonable time, but we simply cannot afford to drag out the debate for ever because it will have an debilitating effect on the institutions.
  For reasons of good policy, and in the interests of the education service, for which we have all expressed our support, we should proceed with the Bill with reasonable expedition. The guillotine is generous. It arises in curious circumstances and it is nothing like the ferociously fought guillotines of the past when they right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent really got worked up on the subject, either in support of or in opposition to the guillotine—depending on from which side of the House he spoke. I therefore suggest that the House gives a reasonably peaceful approval to this sensible guillotine motion.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 182.

  Division No. 78]

  [1.13 am

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Alexander, Richard

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

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Allason, Rupert

  Day, Stephen

  Amess, David

  Devlin, Tim

  Amos, Alan

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dicks, Terry

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Ashby, David

  Dover, Den

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dunn, Bob

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Baldry, Tony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Eggar, Tim

  Batiste, Spencer

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evennett, David

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Fallon, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Boswell, Tim

  Forth, Eric

  Bottomley, Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Fox, Sir Marcus

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

  Franks, Cecil

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Freeman, Roger

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  French, Douglas

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gale, Roger

  Brazier, Julian

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Burns, Simon

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Burt, Alistair

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Butler, Chris

  Gorst, John

  Butterfill, John

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gregory, Conal

  Carttiss, Michael

  Grist, Ian

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Ground, Patrick

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hague, William

  Chope, Christopher

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Colvin, Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Conway, Derek

  Hannam, Sir John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

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

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Harris, David

  Cran, James

  Haselhurst, Alan

  943

  Hayes, Jerry

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Groffrey

  Hayward, Robert

  Pawsey, James

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Porter, David (Wavaeney)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Portillo, Michael

  Hill, James

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Price, Sir David

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

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

  Redwood, John

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Hunter, Andrew

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Irvine, Michael

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Jack, Michael

  Rost, Peter

  Jackson, Robert

  Rowe, Andrew

  Janman, Tim

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Jessel, Toby

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Shelton, Sir William

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shersby, Michael

  Knapman, Roger

  Sims, Roger

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Knox, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Latham, Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Squire, Robin

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Steen, Anthony

  Lord, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Stevens, Lewis

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Steward, Andy (Sherwood)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Maclean, David

  Sumberg, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Summerson, Hugo

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Madel, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Tracey, Richard

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Tredinnick, David

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mills, Iain

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Viggers, Peter

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Moate, Roger

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Walden, George

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Waller, Gary

  Moss, Malcolm

  Ward, John

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Warren, Kenneth

  Nelson, Anthony

  Watts, John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Whitney, Ray

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Norris, Steve

  Wilkinson, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Wilshire, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Page, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wolfson, Mark

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Wood, Timothy

  944

  Yeo, Tim

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Mr. John M. Taylor.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Gould, Bryan

  Allen, Graham

  Graham, Thomas

  Alton, David

  Griffiths Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Anderson, Donald

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Grocott, Bruce

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Hain, Peter

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Hardy, Peter

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Barron, Kevin

  Haynes, Frank

  Battle, John

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Beckett, Margaret

  Hinchliffe, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Bell, Stuart

  Hood, Jimmy

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

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

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Benton, Joseph

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hoyle, Doug

  Blair, Tony

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Blunkett, David

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Boateng, Paul

  Ingram, Adam

  Boyes, Roland

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Bradley, Keith

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Caborn, Richard

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Callaghan, Jim

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Leighton, Ron

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Carr, Michael

  Lewis, Terry

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Litherland, Robert

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Clelland, David

  Livsey, Richard

  Cohen, Harry

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Corbett, Robin

  McAllion, John

  Cousins, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Crowther, Stan

  McCartney, Ian

  Cryer, Bob

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Cummings, John

  McFall, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Dalyell, Tam

  McLeish, Henry

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McMaster, Gordon

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

  McWilliam, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Madden, Max

  Dixon, Don

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Dobson, Frank

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Doran, Frank

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Martlew, Eric

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Maxton, John

  Eadie, Alexander

  Meacher, Michael

  Eastham, Ken

  Michael, Alun

  Edwards, Huw

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Enright, Derek

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Morley, Elliot

  Farr, Sir John

  Murphy, Paul

  Fatchett, Derek

  Nellist, Dave

  Fearn, Ronald

  O'Brien, William

  Fisher, Mark

  O'Hara, Edward

  Flannery, Martin

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Flynn, Paul

  Patchett, Terry

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Pendry, Tom

  Foster, Derek

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Foulkes, George

  Prescott, John

  Fraser, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Fyfe, Maria

  Randall, Stuart

  Galloway, George

  Redmond, Martin

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Reid, Dr John

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Robertson, George

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Gordon, Mildred

  Rogers, Allan

  945

  Rooney, Terence

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Turner, Dennis

  Ruddock, Joan

  Vaz, Keith

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Walley, Joan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Short, Clare

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

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

  Wilson, Brian

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Soley, Clive

  Worthington, Tony

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wray, Jimmy

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Stott, Roger

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Strang, Gavin

  Mr. Eric Illsley and

  Straw, Jack

  Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

  Committee
  1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 26th February 1992.
  (2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on 26th February may continue until 9.30 pm., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 27th February.
  2.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated—

  (a) shall meet on 18th, 19th, 20th, 25th and 26th February; and

  (b) on each of those days shall sit at half-past Ten o'clock and half-past Four o'clock.

  (2) The proceedings to be taken on each of those sittings shall be as shown in the second column, and shall be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column, of the following Table:—

  TABLE

  Sitting

  Proceedings

  Time for conclusion of proceedings

  1st

  Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2

  —

  2nd

  Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of

  —

  3rd

  Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of

  —

  4th

  Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of

  —

  5th

  Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of

  —

  6th

  Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of

  —

  7th

  Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of

  —

  8th

  Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedule 2 so far as not disposed of

  Midnight

  9th

  Remaining proceedings

  —

  10th

  Remaining proceedings so far as not disposed of

  9.30 p.m.

  Report and Third Reading
  3. The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

  Procedure in Standing Committee
  4.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
  (2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the member who moves, and from a member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
  5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee.

  Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
  6. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
  Dilatory Motions
  7. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  Extra time on allotted days
  8. If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
  Private Business
  9. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  10.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed to the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

  (c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or that Motion is made by a member of the Government;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

  and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  947

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

  (b) the beginning to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that motion.

  Supplemental orders
  11.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  12. Nothing in this Order shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which this Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by this Order; or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Recommittal
  13.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation etc.
  14.—(1) In this Order—
  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
  "the Bill" means the Further and Higher Education Bill [Lords].
  (2) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) and Standing Order No. 103 (Business sub-committees) shall not apply to this Order.

STILL-BIRTH (DEFINITION) BILL [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Still-Birth (Definition) Bill, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other enactment, being an increase which is attributable to provisions of that Act altering the meaning of "confinement" for the purposes of statutory maternity pay.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

PETITION

  Mr. John Hall
  1.25 am
  Mr. Keith Vaz: I beg leave to present a petition of some 10,000 signatures on behalf of the case of my constituent, John Hall, who lives at 35 Shetland road, Leicester. Mr. Hall served as a nuclear test veteran on Christmas island in the 1950s. As the House knows, the matter has been raised on several occasions during our proceedings. Some 10,000 people support his claim for compensation. The petition is directed at the Prime Minister in the hope that he will further investigate the claims of Mr. Hall and the other nuclear test veterans.
  The petition reads:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House call upon the Prime Minister, John Major, and his Government to act upon his recent pledge to investigate further the claim for compensation along with that of other Christmas Island test veterans for ill health caused by those tests.
  Although we recently had a letter from the Prime Minister, the campaign goes on and the petition is presented in support of it.
  To lie upon the Table.

Hospitals (Allocation Formula)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
1.26 am
Mr. Denis Howell: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise with the Under-Secretary of State for Health the formula for the allocation of funds to hospitals and area health authorities in places of great deprivation. [Interruption.] I do not know what the little conversation on the Government Front Bench is about, but as this is likely to be the last time that I shall speak in an Adjournment debate I should appreciate the attention of the Minister for the Arts as well as the Under-Secretary in this debate.
As I am concerned about Dudley Road hospital, where in the past 12 months I have had three periods of hospitalisation, I get a sense of satisfaction in raising this matter on its behalf. I may be performing a service to it. It carries an enormous weight of care for people in deprived circumstances, and it deserves every possible support. I am glad to pay tribute to the excellence of the work of the surgeons, physicians, nurses and ancillary staff, without whom we would be in serious difficulty in the city of Birmingham.
The debate arises because of the Government's crazy attempt to rationalise health service expenditure in a way that seeks to take money from areas of the greatest deprivation to build up other districts with nothing like similar social problems. As we are talking about the health of thousands of people, that is not only financially unjustified but morally indefensible.
I am concerned about the effect of this recently imposed formula, particularly as it affects West Birmingham health district. I have had correspondence with the Secretary of State about it and I appreciate the courteous way in which he replied, although I am raising this matter now because I am not altogether happy that the situation will be rectified, particularly as it affects Dudley Road hospital.
This matter affects not just hospitals in Birmingham. I understand that other hospitals and health authorities serving inner-city areas of deprivation are equally affected: in Wandsworth, Camberwell, Southwark, central Manchester, north Manchester and Hackney, among others. I learned today that those authorities are coming together at the end of the month to discuss this common problem, which now affects many hospitals and health authorities.
I have to acknowledge that, as a result of recent protests, there have been some changes in the formula concerning births, and I welcome that. There have been adjustments, I am told, to provide a 2 per cent. improvement at Dudley Road hospital. Although that hospital will be 2 per cent. better off under this formula, it will still be 20 per cent. worse off overall. The hospital believes that it will lose £15 million a year, which will be an absolute disaster. Anyone making proposals to take away such a large amount of money from such a hospital must be out of his mind, and I hope that the Government will give urgent consideration to that matter.
As I said, Dudley Road is a wonderful hospital, and it serves an area with the highest deprivation in the country. I have had three spells in the hospital in the past three months and one cannot lie in the vascular surgery ward that I was in without seeing the tremendous devotion of
950
the staff. There was not one moment when I saw an empty bed. I do not know what the Minister for Health is thinking about when she suggests that people are lingering on unnecessarily in hospital wards. That is totally contrary to my experience.
I do not believe that the Minister who is to reply tonight, and for whom I have a high regard, would ever say such a thing. The only people who ought not to have been in a hospital ward when I was there were people for whom the authorities could find no other place. That is regrettable, but we know that it happens, because we do not have sufficient halfway accommodation to deal with it.
What is this formula, which I can only describe as a lunatic formula? It is based on a 10-year population forecast. That in itself, because of population movements in inner cities, renders it very suspect. It certainly ought not to be the basis on which one then calculates funds for hospitals for the next 10 years. Funding should be based on the known workload of each hospital.
The formula for West Birmingham is estimated according to a 3 per cent. reduction in the size of the population, but the grant now applied to Dudley Road hospital is for a 20 per cent. reduction. That illustrates my point about the stupidity of the formula.
Then there is what has come to be known as the mortality factor, which takes us almost to the crux of the matter. Under the formula, a payment is made to the health authority based on estimated population and age. The authority receives £149 per head for people between 45 and 64. For people between 75 and 85, the amount is £927 per head, while for people aged 85 or above it is ®1,452 per head. I presume that those amounts reflect the fact that people who live to an advanced age are likely to require more medical attention, but as I saw for myself at Dudley Road hospital, that is a complete fallacy.
In deprived areas people die much younger. I was appalled to learn that the majority of deaths in Dudley Road hospital are of people below the age of 65. They die as a result of all sorts of illnesses, which I shall shortly describe, and all the patients suffering from those diseases need considerable care and attention. The cost of looking after them, even though they die at a comparatively early age, is just as great as the cost of looking after more elderly people.
For diabetes, there are 8·1 deaths per 1,000 people in the West Midlands region. In the West Birmingham region, at Dudley Road hospital, the figure is 18·1 per 1,000. That means that the load at Dudley Road is 133 per cent. higher than the average. For tuberculosis, which unfortunately is making a recurrence, there is one death per 1,000 people in the West Midlands region, whereas at Dudley Road the figure is 4·7 per 1,000, which is 370 per cent. above the average.
For liver disease, there are 146·8 deaths per 1,000 in the West Midlands region, but in the Dudley Road hospital area 164·3 people per 1,000 die from such diseases, which is 12 per cent. above the average. For strokes, there are 36·6 deaths per 1,000 in the West Midlands region and 41·4 per 1,000 in the health district covered by Dudley Road hospital, an increase of 13 per cent. on the average. There are 30·9 suicides per 1,000 of the population in the West Midlands region, but the figure for the Dudley Road hospital area is 44·5 per 1,000 which is 44 per cent. above the average.
For gastric cancer, the corresponding figures are 113 and 133 per 1,000 of the population, 20 per cent. higher

951
than the average. For colon cancers, the figures are 106 and 120 per 1,000, an increase of 14 per cent. For lung cancers, the figures are 97 and 119 per 1,000, an increase of 22 per cent. There are other astonishing and tragic figures. For example, in the Nechells ward in my constituency, the infant mortality rate is 22 per 1,000 live births. That is a terrible figure, and the highest rate in Europe. It grieves me to relate that information at a time when I am about to leave the service of the House.
All that arises from deprivation. Unemployment is well over 30 per cent. I have corresponded with the Secretary of State on the matter and, to be fair, he has not challenged any of the figures. Therefore, I assume that they are accurate and are accepted. What we need, in order to make sure that funds move to where deprivation causes great social and health problems, is some sort of index of deprivation. I am told that there was such an index, called the Jarman formula, which attempted to assess the level of deprivation, and I should like to know why it has been disregarded under this new formula.
West Midlands regional health authority, and particularly its chairman, Sir James Ackers, shares my concern. I have criticised Sir James many times on aspects of health policy, but I must pay tribute to him here: I am sure that he is well seized of the importance of the matter, and he has assured me today that he will do his level best to see that Dudley Road hospital does not lose out in the new formula. For the year 1992–93, because the Government have made some more money available, which I acknowledge, the region has used the extra money to change the formula so that Dudley Road loses no money this year; but there is as yet no guarantee about future years—which is one of the main reasons for this debate. Nor is there any adjustment that can be made internally, as far as I can see, for what I would term the "fairness" factor to come in, so as to allow Dudley Road not only to maintain the present level of funding but to have the sort of increase that it needs for technological and staffing reasons, to keep on all fours with the expansion that may occur at other hospitals, something that seems to me perfectly reasonable. At present, we have a one-year solution.
In Birmingham yesterday the Secretary of State himself was speaking. He was asked about this matter and he told Dr. Iles of Dudley Road hospital, as reported in the Evening Mail, that health managers did not have to be "formula bound". I am pleased to hear that because it is good news for us in the west midlands. We have not been told before that the regions can depart from this national formula. In a way, that itself is a bit of a nonsense, because if regions can depart from the national formula—if they can, I am sure that in the West Midlands region they will do so, to benefit Dudley Road hospital—it must mean that they will have to take money away from other people who currently expect to receive more; there must be a readjustment within the region. Although I welcome what the Secretary of State has said, I hope that he understands the wrath that he will bring down on his head from other hospitals that will find their formula readjusted.
If the Secretary of State is right—I am sure that he is —I must now call on the chairman and members of West Birmingham district health authority to declare at once that they will take advantage of this statement and make it clear that they will readjust their own formulas to take
952
much greater account of the effects of deprivation as it applies to Dudley Road hospital and West Birmingham health authority than they have done hitherto.
There is one other matter that concerns me, and I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Health is present because I have to take him to task. Although I do not relish the opportunity of doing so, I have to take it. It arises from the speech that he made in replying to the last health debate that we had in the House. In the very last moments of that speech, at about five minutes to 10, he suddenly and with great relish read out a list of hospitals related to the constituencies of his right hon. and hon. Friends, all of which, he told the House to the accompaniment of great cheers from the Government Benches, would benefit from the adjustment of allocations. They all happened to be in marginal Tory seats.
I had not previously put the Minister in the same category as Machiavelli, but as he has exposed himself in that way, I think that we are entitled to ask him for an explanation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): We shall call the right hon. Gentleman's constituency a marginal Tory seat.
Mr. Howell: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would do so if he came to have a look at it. I cannot see any of these unfortunate mothers who are losing their babies at such a rate endorsing the Conservative party in view of that factor.
The reason why the Minister made this extraordinary statement has become apparent to me—it is called development addition. That factor has appeared in the figures of Birmingham regional hospital development board, which makes adjustments. One of the Tory marginal seats to which the Under-Secretary referred was that of Dudley. Under this development addition, Dudley Road hospital, Birmingham, gets an extra £96,000 and Dudley gets £3,138,000. That is disproportionate. The Minister may not have had time to look at this, so perhaps he will write to me about it, because there is considerable concern about development addition, which is one of the matters at which the regional health authority must look when it examines the new opportunities before it.
That is the case that I make tonight on behalf of my constituency and the Dudley Road hospital, of which I was chairman for 12 years and at which I was a patient. I wish to represent them as adequately as I can.
1.46 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) began his speech by observing that this was likely to be the last occasion on which he addressed the House in an Adjournment debate, so it falls to me to say that the House will miss him when he moves on to other things. My first memories of the right hon. Gentleman were when I was a parliamentary candidate, and he was the expert first in the sun and then in the snow—or the other way around. He was a well-known figure throughout the country.
Tonight, the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the fact that he has a long history of interest in the affairs of Dudley Road hospital and the hospital provision for his constituency. Therefore, he speaks not only with great authority but with a background of knowledge in the

953
health service that goes back a long way further than mine. Conscious of that, I approach the subject with due trepidation.
The right hon. Gentleman has concentrated the attention of the House on an issue that is of real importance in the management not just of West Birmingham district health authority but the whole of the national health service, because it is central to the core activity of the NHS that we seek to secure equal access to health care for all our people, whether they come from the relatively leafy areas of Berkshire or Sussex or the more deprived areas of inner-city Birmingham. The formulae that help to determine the allocation of funds within the health service have an important part to play in the practical delivery of that basic objective.
The principle of an allocation formula that reflects a wide range of different pressures including social deprivation is not in dispute. The health service has, throughout the time of the right hon. Gentleman, had a succession of different ways to allocate funds so as to reflect identified need. The RAWP formula—that of the resource allocation working party—was used from 1976, and since the introduction of the health service reforms on 1 April we have changed to the weighted capitation formula. Both were directed to trying to deliver the objective of fair allocation of funds around the health service.
Although the objective is the same, the basis on which we seek that objective under the reformed managment of the NHS is rather different. In the old days, which the right hon. Gentleman will have known in his time as chairman of the hospital board, the health service funded the hospital directly. It was left largely to the local management to use the resources allocated to it to provide patients with the best possible care.
Now, instead of allocating funds directly to specific hospitals, we allocate funds to a health authority, which has an obligation to commission or secure health care for all people resident in its district. I believe that it is true to say that under the old system those who presented themselves at a hospital and knew how to get to the front of the queue tended to get better care than did those who were less skilled at working the system. By setting up powerful purchaser authorities within the health service we are requiring purchasing health authorities to address identified health needs for all groups within their geographic boundaries—something that did not happen previously. One of the key purposes served by that approach is that health authorities are encouraged to use the resources available to them specifically to counteract social deprivation issues such as those the right hon. Gentleman has referred to. The reformed health service seeks first to allocate funds to a purchasing health authority and then to ensure that they are used precisely to address those issues.
Clearly the key to success is the allocation mechanism and the formula that is adopted for the allocation of funds to different purchasing health districts. The formula that we adopt is determined centrally only in so far as it distributes funds from the Department down to regional level. I should like to correct one misinterpretation that the right hon. Gentleman put on recent words of my right hon. Friend. It is not true to say that there is a national formula
954
that regional health authorities are required to observe in the further distribution of funds from regional level to districts. There is a national formula governing distribution from central level to regional level. Below that, it is for the regional health authorities themselves to determine the formula. We have always made that clear. At that level there is not a national formula that may be departed from. Regional authorities may adopt their own formulae for the further distribution of funds to district level.
Mr. Denis Howell: I thank the Minister for making that clear. So far as we are concerned, the statement that he has just made is very profound. The situation has not previously been made clear in the Birmingham region. What I have just heard changes the whole complexion of the situation. It is now clear that our campaign will have to be directed at the regional authority rather than at the Minister or the Secretary of State.
Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, I am not suggesting that we cut ourselves off from the decisions taken in the West Midlands region. The national health service is accountable, through my right hon. Friend, to this House for all the decisions taken there. Of course, we maintain a watching brief on all the formulae that are operated by the regions. However, we believe it sensible to leave to regional discretion the detail of the regional formulae for further distribution to districts so that it may be flexible and responsive to different circumstances.
I shall deal briefly with the factors which are taken into account in the national formula and which regions are encouraged to take into account in their regional formulae for the distribution of funds. First, and most obvious, the formula has to take account of population and weighted capitation. All the emphasis tends to be on the weighting formulae, but first, and most obvious, it is necessary to take account of movements in total population numbers. One of the influences in west Birmingham is that a fall in the population is taking place, which must in fairness be reflected in the level of funding that goes to the West Birmingham health authority. That will be confirmed or otherwise by the 1991 census, when the figures are available later in the year.
Mr. Dennis Howell: I accept that and I understand the importance of the population formula. The Minister will understand that there is a small reduction in population and that the failure of some to register because of the poll tax may be a significant factor.
Mr. Dorrell: I understand that, but there is a danger of double counting. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys will be making an estimate of the degree of undercounting, and that will be included in the population figures that will be published by the OPCS.
From the specific capitation element of the formula we come to weighting. It is important for the right hon. Gentleman to separate in his mind the age structure element in the weighting, which is introduced to reflect the fact that there is a different level of demand for health-care facilities if someone is over 85 years or over than if someone comes within the five years to 14 years group. We believe that health care facilities for people who are older

955
than 85 are about 17 times more expensive than those for the five years to 14 years group. There is a need to take account of the age structure.
There is a need also to take account of the incidence of illness as a separate factor. There we use standardised mortality as a proxy measure. We recognise that it is an unsatisfactory proxy measure for the incidence of illness.
Finally, we must take into account—this is the factor that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to ensure that we take properly on board—the different ways that are open to us to measure deprivation. Some regions have chosen not to
956
include that element in their formula. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the West Midlands has taken it into account in a particular use of the standardised mortality ratio. We do not regard that as satisfactory, but we regard it as recognition of the importance of taking account of deprivation as a factor—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Two o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  House Repossessions
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the number of court orders for house repossession in the area covering the Crewe and Nantwich constituency for the years 1979–80, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crewe and Nantwich constituency is covered by Crewe county court. The figures for the number of orders made on mortgage possession actions for the year 1979–80 are not available. The table shows the number of actions entered and orders made in Crewe county court for the years 1990–91 and the first three quarters of 1991–92. These figures do not indicate how many houses have been repossessed through the courts as not all the orders made will have resulted in the execution of warrants of possession. At this stage the 1991–92 figures are provisional and therefore liable to revision in the future.

  Mortgage possession actions at Crewe county court

  Actions entered

  Orders made

  April 1990 to March 1991

  290

  175

  January 1991 to December 1991

  325

  206

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Attorney-General how many mortgage repossession orders have been granted by the courts covering the city of Nottingham in each year since 1978.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on 6 February 1992 at column 248.

  Derek Bentley
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Attorney-General what action the Lord Chancellor has taken in respect of papers relating to the case of Derek Bentley; and if he will make a statement on his policy regarding making the papers available to the public.

  The Attorney-General
  The Metropolitan police file on the Bentley case held by the Public Record Office is closed for 75 years under a Lord Chancellor's instrument, made under section 5(1) of the Public Records Act 1958. Two excerpts from the Home Office file are likewise closed for 75 years; the file as a whole will not be 30 years old until 1996. The court file is awaiting transfer to the Public Record Office and will be open to inspection on transfer. Questions of access to records which are subject to extended closure under the Public Records Act, or which are not yet 30 years old, are the responsibility of the originating department.

TRANSPORT

  Departmental Correspondence
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington can expect a response from the Minister for Roads and Traffic to his letter of 29 September 1991, requesting a reply to the deputation he received from Shrewley parish council.

  Mr. Chope
  I have written to my hon. Friend.

  Driving Tests, Portsmouth
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average waiting time for a driving test in Portsmouth.

  Mr. Chope
  I am asking the chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency to write to my hon. Friend direct.

  Drivers (Eyesight)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are being taken to ensure that motorists meet the Department's eyesight requirements.

  Mr. Chope
  All drivers are required to pass the statutory number plate eyesight test at the start of their driving test. They are required to meet this standard at all times when driving. Drivers aged 70 or over are required to renew their driving licences at regular intervals, and at each renewal to certify that they meet the eyesight standard. The police have powers to stop and test drivers whom they believe have defective eyesight. There are about 300 prosecutions for eyesight offences each year.

  Roads (Leicester)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated total cost of (i) the A46/A47 link road and (ii) the Leicester eastern district distributor road.

  Mr. Chope
  Both these schemes are the responsibility of the local highway authority, Leicestershire county council.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he received a copy of the kenwood proposals for the Leicester eastern bypass; and if he will instruct the Department's consultants to discuss the kenwood proposals with interested parties.

  Mr. Chope
  Proposals for an eastern bypass of Leicester were received from a Mr. Henwood in 1987. We have no plans to discuss them with other parties.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he first received representations regarding the Leicester eastern bypass; what are the expected dates for(a) the start and (b) completion of the Leicester eastern bypass; and what is the total estimated cost of the Leicester eastern bypass.

  Mr. Chope
  The first correspondence about Leicester eastern bypass following the inclusion of the scheme in the national roads programme was received in summer 1989. Subject to the identification of a viable scheme, the availability of funds and the satisfactory completion of
  419
  statutory procedures, work could start around the turn of the century and would take about two years to complete. The estimated cost of the scheme is £45 million.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions(a) officials and (b) Ministers from his Department visited Leicester to acquaint themselves with the environmental problems associated with roads in the city.

  Mr. Chope
  It is not possible, without incurring disproportionate costs, to determine how many officials have visited Leicester to examine traffic-related environmental problems although officials do visit the city on a regular basis. I chaired the East Midlands regional annual consultative committee in Leicester on 17 December last year.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will commission an independent survey of the traffic flows of eastern Leicester, relating to both the eastern distributor road and the Leicester eastern bypass.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department is already assessing traffic flows in connection with its Leicester eastern bypass scheme. This assessment will take account of the effect of other road proposals in the area.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Leicester western bypass was first proposed; in which years consultation and design took place; and what was the estimated cost of the bypass.

  Mr. Chope
  The Leicester western bypass was added to the national roads programme in 1976. Public consultation took place in 1978 and 1979. Design of the scheme has been a continuous process up to the invitation of construction tenders last month. The scheme is currently estimated to cost £87 million.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the present traffic flow on the distributor road network in Leicester.

  Mr. Chope
  The distributor road network in Leicester is the responsibility of the local highway authority, Leicestershire county council.

  Data Information Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what data information systems his Department has(a) agreed and (b) been consulted about with a view to taking part in; what are the criteria for inclusion in such systems; whether they will be linked to (i) the police national computer and (ii) other computer systems; what data protection provisions apply to them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department has only three data systems with external links or commitments to supply information to which data protection provisions also apply. They are:the register of drivers and vehicles maintained by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, from which information is currently supplied to the police for law enforcement in accordance with existing registrations under the Data Protection Act 1984;
  the traffic commissioners record of licensed goods operators, to which the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the
  420
  Vehicle Inspectorate Agency and the Customs and Excise drugs intelligence unit have access for law enforcement and road safety purposes in accordance with existing registrations under the Data Protection Act 1984;
  the record of licensed public service vehicle operators currently under development which will operate under identical data protection registrations as that for goods vehicle operators.

  In addition the traffic commissioners have access to the vehicle inspectorate's roadworthiness and enforcement database for road safety and law enforcement purposes.

  The Department periodically reviews both the scope of and the means by which protected data is transferred to other agencies. The purpose for any external data request is considered carefully and the Data Protection Registrar would be consulted before any change in registration purposes implemented.

  DVLC (Vehicle Registrations)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) heavy goods vehicles and (b) vehicles in total were registered with the DVLC in each year since 1980; how many (i) motor cars and (ii) heavy goods vehicles are currently registered for addresses in the east midlands region; and what is his estimate for the total number of (1) motor cars and (2) heavy goods vehicles in Great Britain.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is as follows:

  Thousands

  Year

  Heavy Goods Vehicles

  Total Vehicles

  1980

  475

  19,200

  1981

  451

  19,347

  1982

  436

  19,762

  1983

  436

  20,209

  1984

  437

  20,765

  1985

  432

  21,157

  1986

  435

  21,699

  1987

  444

  22,152

  1988

  462

  23,202

  1989

  478

  24,196

  1990

  460

  24,673

  East Midlands Region: 1990

  Thousands

  Motor Cars

  Heavy Goods Vehicles

  1,403

  37

  It is forecast that the number of vehicles of body type car in Great Britain in 2000 will be in the range of 24 to 26 million.

  My Department does not forecast the number of heavy goods vehicles, but it forecasts that HGV traffic in 2000 will be 15 to 27 per cent. higher than in 1990.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 30 January,Official Report, column 632, what steps he has taken to obtain the agreement of the European Community to compulsory three point belts for rear centre seating on all saloon motor vehicles.

  Mr. Chope
  Negotiations are still continuing in the European Community on dates for the fitment of three
  421
  point belts for rear outer seats in new cars. Requiring three point belts in rear centre seats would be technically complex, would take time to develop and, would be unlikely to secure agreement. The quickest and most effective way forward is for manufacturers voluntarily to introduce three point belts for rear centre seats wherever technically possible.

  Transport Supplementary Credit Approvals
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the amount of transport supplementary credit approvals(a) applied for and (b) granted to Leicestershire county council in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Chope
  Supplementary credit approvals were first introduced in the 1990–91 transport supplementary grant settlement. The figures are:

  Bid £ million

  Granted £ million

  1990–91

  0

  0·081

  1991–92

  0

  0·944

  1992–93

  1·163

  1·312

  Travers Morgan
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the contracts let by his Department to Travers Morgan since 1979.

  Mr. Chope
  This information is available only at disproportionate cost.

  New Roads
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the considerations taken into account when proposing new roads.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government's objectives, as set out in the 1989 White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" are:to assist economic growth by reducing transport costs;
  to improve the environment by removing through traffic from unsuitable roads in towns and villages;
  to enhance road safety.

  Taxi Drivers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what appeal procedure is available to a taxi driver who is considered not to be a fit and proper person to hold a taxi licence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Any person who is aggrieved at the decision of a licensing authority to refuse, suspend or revoke a hackney carriage (taxi) driver licence for any reason has a right of appeal as follows:

  In London
  The appeal should be made under section 17 of the Transport Act 1985 to either the licensing authority (the Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis) for reconsideration; or to a magistrates' court.
  An unsuccessful appeal to the assistant commissioner does not preclude an appeal to a Magistrates' court.

  Outside London
  In the case of councils who license under Part II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 the appeal should be made to the magistrates court under section 59 of that Act.
  For councils who have not adopted the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and only license under
  422
  the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, appeals should be made to the crown Court under Section 7(1)(a) of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1890.
  Any appeal to a court must be within 21 days of the licensing authority's decision.
  As far as I am aware in general this system works satisfactorily.

  London Taxis (Wheelchairs)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he is giving to ending the requirements that each new London taxi is accessible to wheelchair users and that by 2000 all London taxis will be accessible.

  Mr. Freeman
  None.

  The requirement of wheelchair access to London taxis was introduced at the instigation of the Department of Transport after extensive research. The availability of such taxis is already making a major contribution to the independent mobility of large numbers of disabled people.

  A6
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether it is his intention that the A6 should become a strategic alternative to the M1 motorway.

  Mr. Chope
  The A6 is already a strategic route within the national network of trunk roads.

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce speed limits of 20 mph in areas immediately adjacent to schools.

  Mr. Chope
  The Road Traffic Act 1991 makes provision for variable speed limits. My Department will be mounting trials involving the setting of 20 mph speed limits outside schools at the times when children are arriving or leaving. These trials will provide a basis for guidance to local authorities on the establishment of such limits.

  Grant Projects
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will list the projects receiving transport support grant in Darlington since 1979, together with the amounts concerned.

  Mr. Chope
  Since 1979 three schemes have received transport supplementary grant in Darlington district. They are:

  £ million

  A6072

  Heighington Bypass

  1·8

  A67

  Teesside Link and Airport Access

  6·3

  A68

  Darlington Cross Town Route Stage 1

  5·7

  The Heighington bypass was completed in 1983 and the Teesside link is now under construction.

  Bus Use (London)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress on the allocation of resources for measures to promote bus use in London.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am pleased to announce the allocation of £500,000 of supplementary credit approvals in 1992–93 for bus priority measures in the boroughs of Haringey, Newham, Camden and Ealing. Table 1 sets out the detailed allocations. Further resources are being held for possible allocation to other schemes in south and west London and Tower Hamlets when details have been considered in respect of firm proposals.

  Table 1

  Local authority supplementary credit approvals for bus priority measures in London 1992–93

  London boroughs

  £'000

  Haringey

  100

  Newham

  200

  Camden

  100

  Ealing

  100

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the percentage of their mainline railway networks which have been electrified for each country in the EC.

  Mr. Freeman
  UIC figures for the percentage of the mainline railway network electrified for each country are as follows:

  Percent.

  Belgium (SNCB)

  65

  Denmark (DSB)

  10

  France (SNCF)

  36

  Germany (DR/DB)

  38

  Great Britain (BR)

  27

  Greece (CH)

  0

  Holland (NS)

  69

  Italy (FS)

  59

  Luxembourg (CFL)

  72

  Portugal (CP)

  15

  Republic of Ireland (CIE)

  2

  Spain (RENFE)

  51

  Source:—UIC International Railway Statistics 1989.

  Norsea
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the prototype launching gear involved in the accident on the Norsea; when this launching gear was fitted; whether similar launching gear is fitted on any other vessel; and when the marine accident investigations branch inquiry will be completed.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  These matters will be addressed during the investigation being carried out by the marine accident investigation branch. It is far too early to say when the comprehensive investigation into this accident will be completed.

  Severn Tunnel
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many railway workers have been arrested in connection with the recent Severn tunnel railway accident;424
  if he will place in the Library a copy of the evidence submitted to the British Rail inquiry; and what guidelines he has issued to the British transport police on co-operation with internal British Rail inquiries.

  Mr. Freeman
  The British Transport police (BTP) have informed me that they arrested three British Rail staff in connection with their inquiries into the Severn tunnel train accident. No charges have been made and the staff have been released on bail pending enquiries.

  Publication of evidence to an internal British Rail inquiry is a matter for BR.

  We are not aware of any lack of co-operation between the BTP and BR in their respective investigations into this incident. BTP are keeping HM railway inspectorate fully informed.

  Life-saving Equipment
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will outline the procedures which govern the testing of prototype life-saving equipment on(a) operational ferries and (b) other vessels.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The procedures for testing the life-saving equipment on all merchant ships are prescribed in the Merchant Shipping (Life-Saving Appliances) Regulations 1986, as amended, and described in detail in the Department's publication, "Survey of Life-Saving Appliances; volume 2". Prototype, modified and production appliances are subject to the appropriate strength and operational tests to ensure that they are safe and will be effective in service.

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has met representatives of Tayside and Grampian regional councils to discuss the financing of the electrification of the main east coast line between Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen; if he plans to do so in the future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Ministers have not met representatives from Tayside and Grampian regional councils to discuss the electrification of the Edinburgh to Aberdeen line. The councils should approach British Rail, as it is for BR to bring forward proposals if it considers there is a case for electrification and that it merits sufficient priority within its investment programme.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total mileage of the United Kingdom's mainline railway network; how many of these miles have been electrified to date; and how many miles are currently programmed to be electrified.

  Mr. Freeman
  InterCity mainline services currently operate over 3,328 route miles of which 1,178 route miles are electrified. InterCity has not put forward any further plans for mainline electrification.

  Fire Engines
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what income has been raised through road fund licences on vintage and private fire engines since exemption from such tax was removed.
  425
  Mr. Chope
  The information requested on the amount of duty collected from previously exempt fire engines is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  There are however approximately 1,300 such vehicles identified prior to the change. If all of these relicenced for the full year in the private and light goods (PLG) taxation class, the revenue raised would amount to £130,000.

  Cargo Straps
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what proposals he has to introduce regulatory control of cargo straps used by road haulage vehicles;

  (2) how many road accidents each year are attributable to failures of road haulage cargo straps.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer Friday 7 February 1992]: There are no national statistics which identify the role of insecure loads in accidents. A recent study, however, estimated that nationally fewer than 30 fatal accidents each year involve insecure loads. It is uncertain how many of these involve cargo strap failure. The most important factor in reducing insecure load accidents is the configuration and type of restraint systems. A revised code of practice dealing with this is to be issued for consultation shortly.

  Vehicle Movements (Greater London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has of the likely number of daily vehicle movements in Greater London for the current year, 1995, 1997 and 2000; and what are the comparable figures for 1990, 1987 and 1980.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer Monday 10 February 1992]: My Department does not have either forecasts or past estimates available in the form requested. Surveys indicate an overall traffic growth rate for Greater London of about 1 per cent. per year through the 1980s. Traffic growth was lower in inner London than in the outer areas. Traffic forecasts for London alone are not available.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Personal Information
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to allow a parent or student to consent to, or be aware of, those uses and disclosures of personal information not obvious at the time the parent or student provides the information; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  Guidance to schools on the implications of the Data Protection Act, issued last November, includes information on the data protection principles.

  Data Information Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what data information systems his Department has(a) agreed and (b) been consulted about with a view to taking part in; what is the criteria for inclusion in such systems; whether they will be linked to (i) the police national computer and (ii) other computer systems; what data protection provisions apply to them; and if he will make a statement.
  426
  Mr. Fallon
  The Department's information systems are concerned wholly with the administration of the Department's business. It has no systems where information is made generally available which is not otherwise publicly available. Where appropriate such systems are registered under the Data Protection Act.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those full inspections which have taken place in relation to grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Eggar
  To date there have been no full inspections of grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what criteria he intends to use for the publication of inspection reports on grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Eggar
  In all cases where an inspection is planned by Her Majesty's inspectorate to lead to a published report, my right hon. and learned Friend has published the reports. The same principle will be applied to any reports on grant-maintained schools.

  Departmental Achievements
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the expenditure and achievements of his Department in North Yorkshire during 1991; and what was the comparable position between June 1978 and May 1980.

  Mr. Eggar
  Most Government support for expenditure on education in North Yorkshire is paid to North Yorkshire county council as unhypothecated revenue support grant. In 1991–92, the Department is making available specific grant to North Yorkshire local education authority of some £3,168,000 through its programme of grants for education support and training, to support expenditure on implementing the national curriculum, local management of schools and a number of other national priorities; and of some £83,000 to support the education of children of travellers, refugees and other displaced persons. There were no similar specific grants between 1978 and 1980. The Department also pays grant to North Yorkshire local education authority to cover the cost of mandatory awards to students undertaking higher education. The Department additionally pays grant to the University Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, which support higher education in North Yorkshire.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Data Information Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what data information systems his Department has(a) agreed and (b) been consulted about with a view to taking part in; what are the criteria for inclusion in such systems; whether they will be linked to (i) the police national computer and (ii) other computer systems; what data protection provisions apply to them; and if he will make a statement.
  427
  Mr. Leigh
  The Department utilises a wide range of information technology systems to provide support in the conduct of its business. A number of these use information from external sources, both within the United Kingdom and in Europe. This information is often commercially available, and increasingly it is available electronically. Furthermore, the Department uses IT systems to provide modern communication facilities such as electronic mail.

  Although much of the Departmental information is not of a personal nature and therefore not subject to the Data Protection Act, in those instances where personal information forms any part of an IT system its use is registered as required under the Data Protection Act. Registration information is available from the Data Protection Registrar. The Department's central personnel system is computerised, and data are exchanged between this system and the HM Treasury pay system at Chessington.

  Data Protection (European Directive)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many meetings he has had with representatives from organisations about the contents of the proposed European directives on data protection and in relation to data protection and communications; how many meetings were with organisations representing the interests of the data users or the telecommunications industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The responsibility for these directives falls mainly to the Home Office, although the Department of Trade and Industry lead on the directive on data protection in telecommunications and the decision on information security. There have been no meetings with DTI Ministers specifically on this issue, but regular representations have been received at official level.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what effect his Department estimates a general agreement on tariffs and trade settlement will have upon clothing and textile employment in the respective regions of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 1 July 1991 to a question from the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), at column 20. Professor Silberston did not attempt a regional breakdown of the effect on employment of ending the multi-fibre arrangement, although he did give detailed consideration to those factors, such as regional levels of employment opportunities, which appeared to be relevant. A successful outcome to the GATT Uruguay round would include strengthened rules and disciplines and increased multilateral market access: this, taken together with the 10-year transitional period for phasing out textile restraints, should mitigate the impact on employment in the industry.

  Beer Complaints
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints he has received from members of the public in Scotland concerning froth on beer.
  428
  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 10 February 1992]: None of the recent complaints I have received has come from members of the public in Scotland. However, surveys by trading standards departments in Scotland have shown many instances in which licensees served less than a full measure of liquid beer.

  Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress with his Department's review of the operation of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985.

  Mr. Redwood
  The issues arising from the review of the operation of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 are being carefully considered. If any changes are considered to be appropriate, the Government will consult with interested parties.

ENERGY

  Departmental Achievements
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the expenditure and achievements of his Department in North Yorkshire during 1991; and what was the comparable position between June 1979 and May 1980.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department does not keep information in a suitable form to carry out the required analysis.

  Nuclear Safeguards
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to the oral answer of 4 February by the Minister for Defence Procurement,Official Report, column 119, how much extra funding Her Majesty's Government will make available for nuclear safeguards inspection under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty provisions.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Negotiations on safeguards agreements between the International Atomic Energy Agency and the former republics of the Soviet Union have not yet begun, and provision for safeguards has not been made in the agency's budget. IAEA activities in Iraq are funded by the special commission. The needs of the safeguards system will naturally occupy a central part of the discussions on the agency's budget.

THE ARTS

  Data Protection Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what data information systems his office has(a) agreed and (b) been consulted about with a view to taking part in; what are the criteria for inclusion in such systems; whether they will be linked to (i) the police national computer and (ii) other computer systems; what data protection provisions apply to them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The Office of Arts and Libraries has no major data information system of its own; it has access to the system of the Cabinet Office/Office of the Minister for the Civil Service, with which it is closely associated. It also
  429
  has a number of stand-alone personal computers to help meet the functions of the Department. My office has not been consulted with a view to taking part in any other data information systems.

  There is no current or planned link to the police national computer. An electronic mail link is being planned by the Cabinet Office to operate between each of its major networks and to other Government Departments.

  The 1984 Data Protection Act applies, and registrations have been made where appropriate.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost of mortgage tax relief in 1991.

  Mr. Maude
  Tax relief is calculated for the fiscal year. Provisional estimates of the cost of mortgage interest tax relief for 1990–91 and 1991–92 are £7·7 billion and £6·1 billion respectively.

  VAT (Bloodstock)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement concerning representations to the European Commission on the Irish VAT rate for bloodstock.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The European Commission, on its own initiative, is currently examining the present practices in Ireland in relation to VAT and bloodstock.

  Tax Allowances and Reliefs
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on Treasury revenues in 1992–93, and in a full year, of introducing an upper limit on all income tax allowances and reliefs of(a) £9,000, (b) £10,000, (c) £11,000, (d) £12,000, (e) £13,000, (f) £14,000, (g) £15,000 and (h) £16,000 giving the number of people affected in each case, distinguishing between (i) basic-rate taxpayers and (ii) higher-rate taxpayers, and giving the number who brought into higher rate tax in each case, in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  It is estimated that at 1991–92 levels of income the introduction of the upper limits specified would yield the following:

  Upper limit for total allowances and reliefs

  Yield in full year

  £

  £ million

  9,000

  930

  10,000

  590

  11,000

  440

  12,000

  360

  13,000

  310

  14,000

  270

  15,000

  240

  16,000

  210

  The number of people who would be affected are as follows:
  430

  Upper limit for total allowances and reliefs £

  Basic rate taxpayers and non taxpayers (000's)

  Higher rate taxpayers (000's)

  9,000

  1,090

  555

  10,000

  250

  385

  11,000

  55

  215

  12,000

  30

  135

  13,000

  20

  100

  14,000

  15

  75

  15,000

  10

  65

  16,000

  10

  55

  Fewer than 5,000 basic rate taxpayers would become higher rate taxpayers.

  The effect on receipts in the first year would depend on the administrative arrangements for applying a limit.

  It is not possible to provide detailed estimates for 1992–93.

  The estimates do not take account of any behavioural effects which might result from the introduction of such a limit.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the average tax allowances and reliefs for those with gross incomes(a) under £10,000, (b) between £10,000 and £20,000, (c) between £20,000 and £30,000, (d) between £30,000 and £40,000, (e) between £40,000 and £50,000, (f) between £50,000 and £60,000, (g) between £60,000 and £70,000, (h) between £70,000 and £80,000 and (i) above £80,000.

  Mr. Maude
  Latest estimates for taxpayers in 1991–92 are as follows:

  Gross income £ per year

  Amount of tax reliefs and allowances set against income £

  0-10,000

  4,200

  10,000-20,000

  5,900

  20,000-30,000

  7,000

  30,000-40,000

  7,800

  40,000-50,000

  8,400

  50,000-60,000

  8,900

  60,000-70,000

  9,500

  70,000-80,000

  9,900

  Over 80,000

  13,300

  Average

  5,500

  Taxation
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people with gross incomes of over £100,000 pay an income tax bill of less than(a) 35 per cent., (b) 30 per cent., (c) 25 per cent., (d) 20 per cent., (e) 15 per cent., (f) 10 per cent. and (g) 5 per cent. of their gross incomes;

  (2) how many higher-rate taxpayers pay an income tax bill of less than (a) 35 per cent., (b) 30 per cent., (c) 25 per cent., (d) 20 per cent., (e) 15 per cent., (f) 10 per cent. and (g) 5 per cent. of their gross incomes.

  Mr. Maude
  Available information for 1991–92 is as follows:
  431

  Estimated number of taxpayers (thousands)

  Income tax liability as a percentage of gross income1

  Gross income over £80,000

  Higher rate taxpayers

  Less than 35 per cent.

  110

  1,590

  Less than 30 per cent.

  20

  1,420

  Less than 25 per cent.

  —

  1,000

  Less than 20 Per cent.

  —

  300

  Less than 15 Per cent.

  —

  —

  Less than 10 Per cent.

  —

  —

  Less than 5 Per cent.

  —

  —

  1 Total income for income tax purposes.

  I regret that a reliable analysis of taxpayers with incomes over £100,000 is not available.

ENVIRONMENT

  Air Quality
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has of breathing air quality levels falling below European Community safety standards; in what respect, what areas and for what duration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information on the concentrations of various air pollutants is collected by monitoring networks operated on behalf of my Department. The European Community has set air quality standards in Directives covering smoke and sulphur dioxide, lead, and nitrogen dioxide. Since 1988–89, there have been only the following exceedences of the Directives' limit values:

  1989
  Lead limit value exceeded in Walsall (21 weeks over the annual mean concentration limit value);

  1989–90
  Smoke/sulphur dioxide limit values exceeded at two sites in Belfast (i) 15 days (sulphur dioxide and (ii) eight days (sulphur dioxide) and six days (smoke); at Newry and Mourne, 17 days (smoke); and at Sunderland, 12 days (smoke);
  Nitrogen dioxide directive breached in west London (27 more hours over the hourly average concentration than allowed by the directive (175));

  1990–91
  Smoke/sulphur dioxide limit values exceeded at three sites in Belfast, (i) eight days (smoke), (ii) seven days (smoke) and (iii) 12 days (sulphur dioxide) and nine days (smoke).

  The breach in west London was merely a technical breach caused by local vehicle emissions from an indoor source adjacent to the monitoring probe. The measured air quality was therefore not representative of human exposure in the area.

  Leigh Barton
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many years Leigh Barton, near Churstow, has been closed to the public; and when it is planned to be reopened.

  Mr. Yeo
  Opening Leigh Barton to the general public has not yet proved possible due to the extensive repair work which was necessary following its acquisition. However, interested groups have been allowed supervised visits since 1986. English Heritage is currently looking at the possibility of a beneficial use which would contribute to completion of the repair work and be compatible with some future public access.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment from whom the hon. Member for Dover is to receive a reply to letters sent to his Department and to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution during the current session regarding work done by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in connection with Orimulsion.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have replied to three letters in the current session in connection with Orimulsion. These were sent to my hon. Friend on 18 November 1991, 16 December 1991 and 3 February 1992.

  Ozone-depleting Chemicals
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those applications for which Her Majesty's Government considers chlorofluorocarbons are still needed and where substitutes are not yet available; when it is expected that each such CFC-producing application can be phased out; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  CFCs are still needed for some refrigeration, air conditioning and solvent applications, and for certain foams and medical aerosol products. The Government have proposed a 1996 phase-out for supply of new CFCs, except for any essential uses for which the Montreal protocol parties agree that alternatives are not available at that time.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek an emergency meeting of the Montreal protocol so that an immediate ban on all ozone-depleting chemicals can be introduced.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ask for an emergency meeting of the Montreal protocol to discuss the recent data on the Arctic and northern hemisphere ozone hole; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on ozone-depleting substances.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Montreal protocol parties are already due to meet in November this year and will consider whether the controls on ozone-depleting substances should be tightened. Official level negotiations begin on 6 April. I proposed to the EC Environment Council last December that the protocol's phase-out dates be brought forward to 1995 for halons and 1996 for other ozone-depleting substances, an acceleration ranging from four to nine years. As far as I am aware, the United Kingdom is so far the only country to have made firm proposals to strengthen the protocol. An immediate CFC phase-out is not practicable—for many applications, such as food preservation, insulating foam and medical aerosols, replacement technologies are not yet adequately developed.

  Community Charge (Liverpool)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cost involved in issuing the 145,000 summonses served by Liverpool city council in the cases of alleged community charge non-payers; and what redress is open to recipients who have paid their community charge.
  433
  Mr. Key
  My Department does not collect information on the costs incurred by local authorities in taking enforcement action against non-payers of the community charge. Following the issue of a summons, the magistrates court may grant the local authority a liability order against an individual only if it is satisfied that his community charge is payable and remains unpaid.

  Leeds Development Corporation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the number of jobs in the area covered by Leeds development corporation at its inception, and on the latest available figures.

  Mr. Key
  The number of jobs in the area covered by the Leeds development corporation is updated annually with effect from 1 April by the development corporation. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities said in his reply of 18 October 1991 at column 283, a total of 31,871 people were employed in the Leeds development corporation's area at the time of inception. The latest available figure is 37,733 as at March 1991.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Leeds development corporation expects to publish planning proposals for the East street area of Leeds 9; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Proposals for the north side of East street are contained in the Marsh lane/Saxton lane and the Low Fold planning frameworks which were published by Leeds development corporation in February 1990, following a period of public consultation. Proposals for the south side of East street are shown in the draft development framework for Clarence dock, which was published for public consultation on 27 January 1992.

  Manchester City Council
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indemnify Manchester city council against any costs incurred as a result of successful prosecutions in relation to failure to fulfil its statutory duty to provide adaptations for disabled people.

  Mr. Yeo
  A local authority is open to legal challenge if it fails to fulfil its statutory duty to provide house adaptations for people with disabilities. There is no express power to compensate an authority for the financial consequences of a successful prosecution.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has made to the letter of 4 February from the chairman of the Manchester city council housing committee about funding for adaptations for disabled occupants of council-owned accommodation.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Secretary of State has received a letter on this subject from the chair of the housing committee of Manchester city council, and I am considering what response should be made.

  Estate Action
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been made available under the estate action programme; how many schemes have been or are being supported; and if he will make a statement.
  434
  Mr. Yeo
  The estate action programme has now passed an important milestone—over £1 billion has been allocated to or earmarked for about 1,000 schemes since the programme began in 1986.

  On 11 February 1991, the programme was relaunched with tougher criteria. We are now looking for a strategic approach which promotes comprehensive regeneration, an effective partnership between local authorities, tenants and the private sector, and housing investment which complements other urban policies.

  We are backing this with substantially increased resources—in 1992–93, the estate action budget will rise to £364 million. I have been encouraged by the extent to which the approach we are advocating is reflected in the schemes put forward by authorities for inclusion in next year's programme.

  Local Government (Structure)
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to publish CSL Group Ltd.'s report on guidance to the Local Government Commission on assessing costs and benefits of change in the structure of local government.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have placed copies of the report in the Library. I have today sent copies of it to the local authority associations and to the Audit Commission, with a request for comments by 13 March.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table indicating for each year of its operation, the total allocation from the Department of the Environment for the urban programme expressed both as net expenditure at current prices and as a percentage of total urban block expenditure; and if he will indicate, for each of the next three years, his best estimate of total urban programme allocation, expressed both as net expenditure and as a percentage total of urban block expenditure.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 4 February 1992]: My Department's urban group of programmes has evolved during the 1980s from the original urban and derelict land programmes to include urban development corporations, city grant, city action teams and most recently city challenge. These various policy instruments have been developed to tackle the complex range of economic, environmental and social problems in inner city areas.

  The urban programme figures include my Department's outturn/provision only. Some variations arise from different arrangements for recording other Government Departments' contributions over the period.

  The figures are as follows:

  Year

  Urban programme provision outturn £ million 1991–92 prices

  Urban programme as percentage of urban block

  1994–95

  plan 238

  30

  1993–94

  plan 232

  29

  1992–93

  plan 245

  30

  1991–92

  plan 242

  27

  1990–91

  242

  25

  1989–90

  259

  29

  435

  Year

  Urban programme provision outturn £ million 1991–92 prices

  Urban programme as percentage of urban block

  1988–89

  277

  41

  1987–88

  326

  51

  1986–87

  331

  55

  1985–86

  366

  58

  1984–85

  291

  55

  1983–84

  261

  50

  1982–83

  268

  57

  1981–82

  168

  58

  1980–81

  220

  79

  1979–80

  193

  80

  1978–79

  128

  70

  1977–78

  12

  40

  1976–77

  12

  55

  1975–76

  16

  100

  1974–75

  24

  100

  1973–74

  7

  100

  Figures before 1973–74 are not readily available.

  Hong Kong (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he took part in party-political activities in addition to official duties on his visit to Hong Kong in September 1991.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 7 February 1992]: My wife and I visited Hong Kong at our own expense in September 1991. We stayed with the governor. I took the opportunity to vist the PSA headquarters.

  Wild Bird Trade
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on United Kingdom participation in the conference in Japan in March 1992 on the wild bird trade.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 10 February 1992]: A number of proposals concerning the wild bird trade have been submitted for consideration at the conference of the parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora to be held in Kyota, Japan, next month. We are considering these carefully, in consultation with our scientific advisers and other interested organisations. I will make a further statement in due course.

WALES

  Toll Bridges
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the figures for the(a) annual income and cost and (b) capital debt outstanding for toll bridges in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Cleddau bridge is the only toll bridge in Wales for which we have published accounts.

  The figures are:

  For 1990–91

  £ million

  1. Annual income (from tolls)

  1·24

  2. Annual cost:

  Operating Expenses

  0·39

  436

  For 1990–91

  £ million

  Debt and Other Charges

  0·49

  Total Expenditure

  0·88

  Outstanding debt at 31 March 1991

  5·78

  Fishing
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will approve the application for byelaws to regulate fishing for sea fish in coastal areas, including the Severn and Dee estuaries submitted to him by the Welsh region of the National Rivers Authority in June 1991, in time to provide protection for migratory fish during the 1992 fishing season; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A decision on whether to approve the byelaws proposed by the National Rivers Authority will be taken shortly.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Moneyreagh Primary School
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the enrolment in each of the most recent five years at Moneyreagh primary school; what plans there are to replace the temporary accommodation at this school with permanent accommodation; what provision is being made at this school for the increasing population at Moneyreagh; what proposals he has for nursery education at Moneyreagh; and if he will make a statement about education opportunities at Moneyreagh.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The enrolments at Moneyreagh primary school in the last five years were as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1988

  134

  1989

  136

  1990

  133

  1991

  129

  1992

  136

  Note: The enrolment figures given are for January in each year.

  The school's approved enrolment and maximum admissions numbers for September 1992 are 171 and 26 respectively and are considered sufficient to meet the immediate demand for places. The position will be kept under review in light of enrolment trends; at present, the South-Eastern education and library board has no plans to increase the accommodation at the school or to replace the temporary accommodation.

  The provision of nursery education at Moneyreagh is, in the first instance, a matter for the South Eastern education and library board; to date no proposals have been made by the board.

  My right hon. and noble Friend the Paymaster-General is satisfied that the school is able to provide appropriate educational opportunities for children in the area.

  Northern Ireland Airports Ltd.
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the annual salary of the part-time chairman of Northern Ireland Airports Ltd.
  437
  Mr. Needham
  £13,385.

  Data Information Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what data information systems his Department has(a) agreed and (b) been consulted about with a view to taking part in; what are the criteria for inclusion in such systems; whether they will be linked to (i) the police national computer and (ii) other computer systems; what data protection provisions apply to them; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All relevant IT systems in the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments are registered under the Data Protection Act and are therefore subject to this legislation. Each Department has registered for various purposes, and disclosure is addressed within each register entry.

  For security reasons, it would be inappropriate to reveal which systems are linked to the police national computer or to other systems.

  Belfast Airport
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of the new freight cargo centre at Belfast international airport.

  Mr. Needham
  £8,175,500.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are liable to pay national insurance contributions who earn between(a) the lower earnings limit and (b) the 1991 equivalent of the 1980 level of the lower earnings limit, revalued in line with earnings.

  Mr. Hanley
  If the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions had been revalued in line with the increase in earnings since 1980, its present level would be £64·00. It is estimated that 15,000 people in Northern Ireland have weekly earnings between this figure and the current lower earnings limit of £52·00.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in 1991–92 are liable to pay national insurance contributions who have earnings between the lower earnings limit and £64·80 per week in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is estimated that, on average, some 15,000 people in Northern Ireland with weekly earnings between £52·00, the current lower earnings limit, and £64·80 will be liable to pay national insurance contributions in 1991–92.

DEFENCE

  Chemical Weapons (Destruction)
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what methods are used for the destruction of chemical weapons taken into custody by the special commission of the International Atomic Energy Authority.
  438
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Chemical weapons are not taken into custody by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The United Nations special commission in Iraq is, however, charged under Security Council resolution 687 to ensure the destruction of Iraqi chemical weapons. Good progress is being made in planning for the destruction of Iraqi stocks declared or discovered to date. The special commission's destruction advisory panel has put forward proposals for the destruction of 122 mm rockets by explosive detonation and the use of fuel thereby ignited to create a destructive fireball. The Iraqis have been asked to construct an incinerator for mustard agent destruction to designs approved by the special commission, and trials of nerve agent destruction by hydrolysis were observed at the end of January 1992 by the chemical weapons inspection team in Iraq. Careful attention is being paid to safety and environmental protection in all destruction methods considered by the special commission.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the approximate cost of the United Kingdom's military commitment in Zimbabwe for training and other purposes each year since 1981–82(a) in cash terms and (b) at 1981–82 prices; and if he will list the percentage increase or decrease on the previous year for each year.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to disclose the cost of assistance to individual countries.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the approximate number of United Kingdom service men operating in Zimbabwe for training and other purposes each year since 1981–82.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The number of United Kingdom service men operating in Zimbabwe (excluding the defence adviser and his staff) since 1982 are as follows:

  Numbers

  1982

  74

  1983

  104

  1984

  58

  1985

  60

  1986

  63

  1987

  50

  1988

  43

  1989

  43

  1990

  61

  1991

  58

  1992

  56

  All figures are at 31 March except for 1982 (31 September) and 1992 (31 January). Figures for 1981 are unavailable.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his policy regarding the presence of United Kingdom service men in Zimbabwe for training and other purposes.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government's military assistance programme in Zimbabwe aims to contribute to the maintenance of stability in the region. Following the country's independence in 1980, a British military training team has been helping to train the Zimbabwean forces. Another team has been involved in training elements of the Mozambican forces at a base in Zimbabwe.
  439
  Both teams are in Zimbabwe at the invitation of the Zimbabwean Government.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom service men while stationed in Zimbabwe have been killed, seriously injured or wounded in the course of their military duties since 1981–82.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Antares
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary for Defence what are the reasons for the delay in the consideration of possible disciplinary action following the sinking of the fishing vessel Antares;what action he has taken to speed up the consideration; when he now expects the consideration to be concluded; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The question whether there should be disciplinary proceedings is entirely the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief Fleet. I understand that his decision will be made shortly. As these matters are still under consideration, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.

  100 (Yeomanry) Field Regiment RA
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under whose operational command 100 (Yeomanry) Field Regiment RA will come; and what will be its place within eastern district.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  On 1 April 1992, 100 (Yeomanry) Field Regiment RA will begin to re-role as a field howitzer 70 regiment supporting one of the British divisions of the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps under the operational command of 3 UK Division. Although administrative command will continue to be exercised through the Regimental Headquarters in London district for the time being, it is planned to move the RHQ into eastern district in the medium term.

  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated net capital cost of the proposed changes in 100 (Yeomanry) Field Regiment RA.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The announced changes to 100 (Yeomanry) Field Regiment RA are part of the overall restructuring of the TA in response to major changes in its role—notably to support the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps. Detailed costings will not be available until clearer plans for locations have been made.

  Iraq (Military Equipment)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall),Official Report, 4 February, column 152, what information he has as to whether any of the military equipment used by Iraq in the Gulf war and examined by the United Kingdom and its allies was (a) manufactured in, or (b) purchased from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Investigations of Iraqi military equipment recovered by the United Kingdom and the United States are continuing. Some electrical items or components of British manufacture have been found.

  Military Ranges
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which ranges will be used by TA Royal Artillery batteries equipped with FH70 for(a) live and (b) dry training; and what assessment was made of the relative ease of access to such ranges by units at (i) Brighton and (ii) Bulwell.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Field howitzer 70 live firings in the United Kingdom can be conducted in training areas in Wiltshire (Salisbury plain), Wales (Sennybridge) and Northumberland (Otterburn). Dry training, at battery level, is available in East Anglia (Stanford) or in the north-west (Warcop); both areas will be used regularly by units and formations which 100 Field Regiment, RA will support in time of war. Proximity to these areas is an advantage, and access is assessed as satisfactory.

  Trident
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money his Department has so far spent on the Trident programme; and how much has been contractually committed.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Total expenditure for the Trident programme to the end of November 1991 was £5,074 million, and the total contractually committed £6,649 million.

  Departmental Achievements
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the expenditure and achievements of his Department in North Yorkshire during 1991; and what was the comparable position between June 1978 and May 1980.

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

  Regiments and Corps (Titles)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any decisions have been made regarding the titles of regiments and corps of the regular Army.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following titles have been approved:The Royal Dragoon Guards (amalgamation of 4th/7th Royal Dragoon Guards and 5th Royal Inniskilling Dragoon Guards)
  The Queen's Royal Hussars (The Queen's Own and Royal Irish) (amalgamation of the Queen's Own Hussars and The Queen's Royal Irish Hussars)
  The King's Royal Hussars (amalgamation of the Royal Hussars (Prince of Wales' Own) and 14th/20th King's Hussars)
  The Light Dragoons (amalgamation of 13th/18th Royal Hussars (Queen Mary's Own) and 15th/19th The King's Royal Hussars)
  The Queen's Royal Lancers (amalgamation of 16th/5th The Queen's Royal Lancers and 17th/21st Lancers)
  The Royal Logistic Corps (The Corps will form in April 1993 by the amalgamation of the Royal Corps of Transport; the Royal Army Ordnance Corps; the Royal Pioneer Corps; the Army Catering Corps; and the Postal and Courier Service, Corps of Royal Engineers; as announced in "Britain's Army for the 90s" (Cm 1595) published in July 1991).
  The titles of other new regiments will be announced when decisions have been taken.

  Army Districts
  Mr. Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in restructuring Army districts.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Wales and Western district is operational, and the new eastern district will be formed in April this year. I can now confirm that the last phase of restructuring will also take effect from April this year, when it is intended that the existing south-east and south-west districts will be amalgamated to form southern district, with its headquarters in Aldershot.

  The new structure will therefore comprise five Districts —Scotland, eastern, Wales and western, Southern and London.

  Implications for civilian staff employed within the new southern District will be the subject of consultation with the trade unions.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Fire Service College
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many student places have been confirmed for(a) local authority financed brigades and (b) industrial and overseas courses at the Fire Service college for the year beginning April 1992; how many student weeks each of these two categories represents; and if he will make a statement on the financial position of the college.

  Mr. John Patten
  Three thousand, three hundred and forty eight places covering 13,019 student weeks have so far been confirmed for local authority fire brigades for the year from 1 April 1992. One hundred and sixty nine places covering 263 student weeks have been confirmed for the industrial and overseas sectors, others being held in reserve until the full demand from the local authority sector, the college's primary customer, is known and met. This position is consistent with the college's business plan, by which it aims to meet its expenditure wholly from income, provide high quality training and deliver good value for money.

  Police Cells
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in police cells committed acts of self-injury or attempted suicide in 1991.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is not recorded centrally.

  Data Information Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Data Protection Registrar has studied the privacy implications that arise from the combination of publicly available council tax information with(a) the sale of the electoral register, (b) public extracts of the community charge register, (c) anonymised census information and (d) county court judgments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The enforcement of the Data Protection Act 1984 is a matter for the Data Protection Registrar, the data protection tribunal and, ultimately the courts. I understand, however, that the registrar is currently studying certain data-matching issues.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what data information systems his Department has(a) agreed and (b) been consulted about with a view to taking part in; what is the criteria for inclusion in such systems; whether they will be linked to (i) the police national computer and (ii) other computer systems; what data protection provisions apply to them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information is not readily available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The Home Office has 151 systems processing personal data registered under the Data Protection Act 1984. All Home Office systems processing such data are registered under the Act and are used as described in their registration. That procedure will apply also to any new systems which may be brought into use in the future.

  Electoral Registration Form
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to introduce an electoral registration form which has a statement indicating that a voter's personal data can be used and disclosed without the knowledge and consent of the voter.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No. The only information taken from the electoral registration form which is published is that which is requried for the register of electors. The purpose of the electoral register is to provide a comprehensive and publicly available list of the names and addresses of those who are eligible to vote. Since the register is a public document, making the information contained in it available cannot be held to constitute a breach of confidentiality.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many meetings he has had with representatives from organisations about the contents of the proposed European directive on data protection; how many meetings were with organisations representing the interests of data users; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Ministers have had two, and officials a number of, meetings with organisations which asked to see the Home Office. All represented data users.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards agreement on the proposed European directive on data protection.
  443
  Mrs. Rumbold
  Discussions in the Council's working group continue. The European Parliament is considering the draft directive. The European Commission is expected to produce a revised draft in the light of the views of the European Parliament.

  Data Protection (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each prosecution brought under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1984 since 1987, detailing the nature of the offence, the section of the Act used, the year, and whether the prosecution was successful; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Prosecutions brought under the Act by the Data Protection Registrar are listed in his fifth, sixth and seventh annual reports to Parliament. Prosecutions under the Act initiated by the Director of Public Prosecutions are not separately listed.

  Isobutylnitrite
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restrictions are in force for the sale of the chemical isobutylnitrate; and if he will add it to the list of solvents known to be damaging to children.

  Mr. John Patten
  I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the chemical known as isobutylnitrite; it is one of a group of chemicals known as alkylnitrites. Isobutylnitrite—which currently has no licit medical use—is not strictly speaking a solvent, but it can be misused by inhalation of its vapours. Sales of intoxicating substances are regulated by the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985 which makes it an offence for people such as retailers to sell or supply intoxicating substances to persons under 18 who they believe intend to misuse them. The Act has no specific list of chemicals: there is a wide range of everyday products which can be misused by inhalation. The Government have provided funding for Re-Solv, which has issued guidance leaflets to retailers advising them how to recognise signs that a young person may be misusing such substances and how to refuse to sell them. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has recommended against bringing alkylnitrites under the control of the misuse of drugs legislation as their use in the community does not appear to pose a serious social problem.

  Malicious Communications Act 1988
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 in(a) 1990 and (b)

  Mr. John Patten
  In England and Wales in 1989, there were 49 prosecutions under the Malicious Communications Act 1988. Information collected centrally for 1990 does not identify offences committed under this specific Act from other summary offences. 1991 data are not yet available.

  Data Protection (European Directive)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the position of each of the other EC countries with respect to the content 444
  of the proposed European directive on data protection in relation to (a) the inclusion of manual files in the directive, (b) the consent requirements, (c) the inclusion of personal data held for national security purposes and (d) the proposals with respect to direct mail and profiling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It would not be appropriate to attempt to describe the position of each member state on each of these issues. Discussion in the Council's working group has shown that some countries tend to favour the approach taken by the Commission's draft directive (SYN 287), which includes manual files and provisions for notification and consent of the data subject. Other countries, have been arguing for a directive closer to the Council of Europe's convention 108 on data processing, which applies only to computerised personal data and does not have consent provisions as such; and other countries favour an element of both approaches.

  Data Protection Registrar (Briefing Materials)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the titles of the briefing materials presented to the Data Protection Registrar in relation to(a) TREVI, (b) Schengen, (c) the DNA database and (d) the new Police National Computer.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I understand that the Data Protection Registrar has received correspondence and documents relating to European police, immigration and customs systems, the keeping of DNA records and the new police national computer. It would not be appropriate or practicable to list correspondence and documents by title.

  Drugs Seizures
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of successful seizures of illegal drugs in the past five years have been made(a) by police and (b) by customs officers.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is contained in table 2.3 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Statistics of the misuse of drugs: seizures and offenders dealt with, United Kingdom, 1990", a copy of which is in the Library. Figures for 1991 are not yet available.

  Crime (Tower Hamlets)
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of burglaries of(a) domestic dwellings and (b) all other buildings in Tower Hamlets for each year between 1985 and 1990.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of notifiable offences recorded by the police in Tower Hamlets for each year from 1985 and 1990.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information for Tower Hamlets is given in the following table.

  Notifiable offences recorded in Tower Hamlets 1985–90

  Burglary

  Year

  In dwelling

  Other building

  Total notifiable offences

  1985

  1—

  1—

  23,967

  1986

  2,484

  2,574

  27,797

  1987

  2,586

  2,305

  25,342

  445

  Burglary

  Year

  In dwelling

  Other building

  Total notifiable offences

  1988

  2,256

  1,931

  23,914

  1989

  2,549

  2,148

  26,218

  1990

  2,463

  2,163

  25,998

  1 Not readily available.

  West Indies
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nationals of(a) Trinidad and Tobago, (b) Guyana, (c) Barbados and (d) Jamaica have (i) been admitted and (ii) been refused admittance and removed each month during the period January to December 1991.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Selected nationalities admitted to, and refused leave to enter and removed from, the United Kingdom in 1991.

  Number of persons

  Total admitted

  Total refused leave to enter and removed

  Trinidad and Tobago

  January1

  1,110

  7

  February1

  800

  13

  March1

  1,100

  7

  April

  1,160

  6

  May

  1,160

  6

  June

  1,710

  4

  July

  2,000

  4

  August

  2,090

  1

  September

  1,680

  4

  October

  1,390

  7

  November

  950

  4

  December

  ..

  7

  Year

  ..

  70

  Guyana

  Total admitted

  Total refused leave to enter and removed

  January1

  300

  3

  February1

  300

  4

  March1

  380

  6

  April

  340

  1

  May

  450

  6

  June

  490

  7

  July

  610

  2

  August

  830

  5

  September

  590

  7

  October

  470

  8

  November

  370

  3

  December

  n/a

  5

  Year

  n/a

  57

  n/a =Not available.

  Bardados

  Total admitted

  Total refused admitted leave to enter and remove

  January1

  360

  5

  February1

  250

  3

  March1

  400

  2

  April

  500

  2

  446

  Bardados

  Total admitted

  Total refused leave to enter and remove

  May

  590

  1

  June

  1,010

  5

  July

  1,200

  4

  August

  1,060

  1

  September

  830

  2

  October

  590

  —

  November

  460

  1

  December

  n/a

  —

  Year

  n/a

  26

  n/a=Not available.

  Jamaica

  Total admitted

  Total refused leave to enter and removed

  January1

  1,700

  33

  February1

  1,340

  32

  March1

  1,650

  37

  April

  1,770

  34

  May

  2,040

  36

  June

  2,800

  32

  July

  3,240

  50

  August

  3,210

  12

  September

  2,640

  28

  October

  1,880

  33

  November

  1,730

  26

  December

  n.a.

  39

  Year

  n.a.

  392

  1 Admissions data have been revised.

  n.a. Not yet available.

  Passports
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanisms exist to enable embassies and high commissions in the United Kingdom, where they have received an application from one of their nationals for a replacement passport, to consult local police forces to establish whether a report has been received of a lost passport or other details about the applicant.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Anyone reporting a lost or stolen passport to a local police station will receive a unique reference number specific to that report. This will enable an embassy or high commission to confirm with the police force concerned that a report was made of a lost or stolen passport. No other details about an applicant would be relevant to such an inquiry.

  Life Sentences (Parole)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recommendations by the Parole Board for the releases on parole or licence of prisoners serving life sentences have been(a) accepted and (b) rejected by him in each year since 1981.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information on the numbers of life sentence prisoners recommended as suitable for release by the Parole Board and the numbers of those recommendations not accepted by Home Secretaries is published in successive annual reports of the Parole Board. For convenience, the figures for 1981–90, which include re-releases following a period in prison after recall from a previous licence, are set out in the table. Parole Board
  447
  recommendations of "suitable for release" have been for dates ranging from the immediate future to up to two and a half years ahead.

  Life sentence prisoners recommended for release by the Parole Board 1981–90

  Year of recommendation

  Recommended

  Not accepted by Home Secretary

  1981

  147

  4

  1982

  144

  5

  1983

  121

  16

  1984

  112

  10

  1985

  94

  16

  1986

  120

  14

  1987

  147

  23

  1988

  91

  13

  1989

  119

  15

  1990

  138

  41

  Mr. Abdul Farooq
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the post in Islamabad was advised to issue a visa to Mr. Abdul Farooq Ref. TH/14646/90, to join his wife in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Walvis Bay
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 432 regarding Walvis bay; and what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking in pursuit of this policy.

  Mrs. Chalker
  When voting in favour of UN Security Council resolution 432, we stated that this issue was best resolved through bilateral negotiation between the Governments of Namibia and South Africa. We have urged the South African Government to negotiate constructively, and welcome the progress made since bilateral talks commenced in March 1991.

  Angola
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on his policy towards the achievement of a settlement in Angola and the representations which he is making to the parties involved.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We attach importance to the convening of free and fair elections in September 1992 in completion of the settlement agreed in Portugal on 31 May 1991 which ended the Angolan civil war. We have regular discussions with both sides, and are assisting in the formation of a new integrated army to help bring stability to the country.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on his policy towards the achievement of a settlement in Mozambique and the representations which he is making to the parties involved.
  448
  Mrs. Chalker
  We seek the earliest possible end to the fighting in Mozambique and have been encouraged by recent progress in the peace talks in Rome. We are members of the joint verification commission, which was set up to monitor the partial ceasefire agreement of 1 December 1990, and have participated in European Community démarches to both parties encouraging them to reach early agreement. In addition to regular bilateral contact with the Mozambican Government, we have urged RENAMO to adhere to the partial ceasefire and reach an early comprehensive settlement.

  Civil Rights
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will take into account the civil rights record of a country and, in particular, its use of capital punishment and the persecution of any group of people in respect of their sexual orientation, ethnic background, religion or minority status before he establishes or re-establishes diplomatic relations.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  When considering whether to establish or re-establish diplomatic relations with a country, we judge each case on its merits.

  Qaiser Khan
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is to be made on the application of Qaiser Khan, Ref. CON/3343, to the post in Islamabad for British citizenship; when his application was submitted; when he was interviewed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Qaiser Khan's application form, which was dated 9 October 1989, was submitted to the British high commission at Islamabad on 6 December 1989. In interview on 27 February 1990, the family were asked to produce a further document in support of the application. To date, that document has not been received and the application therefore remains pending.

  I have asked the high commission for a full report on the case and will write to the hon. Member when it is to hand.

  Albania
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution the United Kingdom has made to the special account for emergency aid for Albania, opened by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I have been asked to reply.

  In conjunction with the local authority associations, the Government launched an appeal on 4 February to help Albanian schoolchildren. Aimed at schools and other educational institutions, the appeal seeks their help in providing a number of essential items such as paper, exercise books, books, pens, pencils and educational toys. Feed the Children, a charity operating in Albania, is administering the day-to-day running of the appeal with financial assistance from the Government towards the administrative costs of collection, storage, transportation and distribution of the material raised.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  East Timor
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the oral answer of the Minister for Overseas Development on 9 December,Official Report, column 607, on East Timor, what review has taken place of the United Kingdom aid programme to Indonesia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  As far as new commitments are concerned, following the shootings in East Timor on 12 November, we concluded that projects already agreed would continue as planned.

  We also concluded that projects under our technical assistance programme should continue to be developed as planned. The next major such project is in support of primary education.

  As for capital aid, the second concessional loan with Indonesia expired in August 1991. No decisions have been made about a successor agreement.

  Development Market Research
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will adopt development market research for the design and implementation of development projects in Overseas Development Administration activities;

  (2) what is the policy of the Overseas Development Administration on the use of market and opinion research in relevant target areas when evaluating the feasibility of development projects;

  (3) if he will consider the use of the "Training Manual for Development Market Research Investigators" recently published by the BBC World Service to benefit aid projects in which Britain is involved.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Aid projects in developing countries are very varied in nature. The Overseas Development Administration takes forecast demand, users' willingness to pay and the views and opinions of people affected into consideration in designing and appraising projects, as appropriate. The techniques used are numerous and are constantly being refined. They could, in some instances, involve procedures used in market research, including those used by the BBC.

  Angola
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy regarding Overseas Development Administration spending in Angola.

  Mrs. Chalker
  British bilateral aid to Angola totalled £1·2 million in 1990. It was divided more or less equally between food and other emergency aid and technical co-operation, mainly in support of English language teaching. The attainment of peace in Angola has opened the prospect of a more substantial aid involvement and present plans include assistance for the forthcoming elections, support for the resettlement of refugees, displaced persons and ex-combatants and continued assistance with the teaching of English, with which we are particularly well placed to help.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy regarding Overseas Development Administration spending in Mozambique.

  Mrs. Chalker
  British bilateral aid to Mozambique totalled £25·4 million in 1990. Of that, £12 million was in the form of balance-of-payments assistance in support of the continuing programme of economic reform, while project aid—devoted primarily to the rehabilitation of transport infrastructure—and technical co-operation
  mainly in the form of manpower assistance, consultancies and training, accounted for some £3 million each. A further £6 million took the form of food and other emergency aid in response to the long-standing emergency. Expenditure is likely to remain substantial in the period immediately ahead.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he intends to take to advertise the new disability allowances; and at what time of day he intends adverts to be screened on television.

  Mr. Scott
  The advertising campaign for disability living allowance and disability working allowance commenced on 5 February. The campaign includes television commercials, supported by advertising in the national, local, specialist and ethnic press, as well as a number of other publications. The television commercials are being shown at various times throughout the day and evening, on both ITV and Channel 4. The current schedule is available in the Library. The advertisements invite people to telephone a freephone number or send off a coupon to a freepost address to obtain the "Guide to New Benefits for Disabled People".

  The advertisements form part of a larger publicity campaign targeted at disabled people, carers, advisers and health professionals. As part of this campaign, we have written to over 1 million existing beneficiaries of attendance allowance and mobility allowance to let them know about the benefit changes and how to claim extra help, if appropriate. We are also writing to organisations of and for disabled people, advisers and health professionals—such as doctors, nurses and therapists—telling them about the benefits and how they can help their clients and patients to claim. We are also making use of the new out-of-hours service BBC Select to broadcast a series of information programmes about DLA and DWA.

  The key materials—including the commercials and advertisements—have been researched with disabled people, and the campaign has been prepared in liaison with representatives of organisations of and for disabled people.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what training and advice has been given to staff in preparation for the introduction of the new disability allowances on 15 April.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the new disability benefits is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief
  451
  executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member, and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to ensure that the personal expenses allowance for those in residential care or nursing homes is ring-fenced from being used to meet shortfalls between the maximum income support limit and the weekly residential care charge.

  Miss Widdecombe
  How the personal expenses allowance is used is a matter for the claimant. From April 1993, local authorities will ensure that people placed under the new community care arrangements will retain an amount of their income for personal expenses.

  Terminal Illness
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the definition of terminal illness used for those cared for in hospices and residential care nursing homes deemed eligible for the higher income support limit; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  People staying in a nursing home which is able to provide a level of care appropriate to someone suffering from a terminal illness may receive the terminal illness limit if they are actually receiving such care.

  Retirement Pension
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people would benefit by increasing the retirement pension for a single pensioner by £5 in each constituency in Merseyside and in the constituencies of Ellesmere Port and Neston; Chester; Warrington, South; Halton; and Lancashire, West;

  (2) how many couples would gain by an increase in the retirement pension for a married couple in each Merseyside constituency and in the constituencies of Ellesmere Port and Neston; Chester; Warrington, South; Halton; and Lancashire, West.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency that the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Community Charge
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people would benefit and on average by how much from abolition of the 20 per cent. minimum rule for the payment of the community charge as it affects people in receipt of benefit in each Merseyside constituency and in the constituencies of Ellesmere Port and Neston; Chester; Warrington, South; Halton; and Lancashire, West.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest available information relates to August 1991, and at that time about 287,000 people were receiving community charge benefit on Merseyside as a whole, of which about 155,000 were in receipt of income support. Abolishing the 20 per cent. community charge contribution by awarding maximum 452
  rebates of 100 per cent. of liability would help all those currently receiving benefit. In addition, a number of people would become entitled to benefit for the first time. In the Merseyside area as a whole, the 20 per cent. contribution is currently estimated to be £1·13 a week and, assuming no reduction in the amounts currently included in income-related benefit levels to help towards the 20 per cent. contribution, all current benefit recipients would gain to this extent.

  Information concerning the individual constituencies requested is not available.

  Source: August 1991 Management Information System.

  Pensions
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate as to the effect on future funds of the Maastricht pensions protocol overriding the Barber judgment on equal treatment in pensions.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The protocol to article 119 of the treaty of Rome, which was agreed at Maastricht, is intended to clarify the retrospective effect of the Barber judgment—it does not overturn the judgment. The full implications of the protocol are still being considered.

  Private Nursing Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what qualifications and training adjudication officers have in order to establish whether claimants in receipt of income support towards private nursing care(a) actually require such care and (b) are in receipt of it;

  (2) what steps are taken by adjudication officers to confirm that in addition to residing in private nursing homes, claimants of income support towards private nursing care are (a) in receipt of such care and (b) actually in need of such care.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how social fund budgets are adapted to meet increased demands arising from increased unemployment; and what account is taken of regional trends in unemployment in setting the budgets.

  Mr. Scott
  The trend in unemployment is one of the factors taken into account during our routine reviews of the amounts allocated to the national and district social fund budgets. These reviews have resulted in total increases of £49·6 million to the discretionary budget in 1991–92.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the remaining social fund budget of the Wakefield district Benefits Agency office.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member, and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.
  453
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of successful claims for the last three years for which figures were available for(a) social fund loans and (b) social fund grants in (i) Wakefield, (ii) Yorkshire and Humberside and (iii) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Scott
  Such information as is available is in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action is taken to assist benefit agency offices when increased claims exceed social fund budgets during any financial year.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the benefits agency. He will write to the hon. Member, and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in 1991–92 are liable to pay national insurance contributions who have earnings between the lower earnings limit and £64·80 per week in Great Britain.

  Mr. Jack
  It is estimated that, on average, some 600,000 people with weekly earnings between the lower earnings limit and £64·80 will be liable to pay national insurance contributions in 1991–92.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the current lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions if revalued from its 1980 level in line with earnings; and how many people have weekly earnings between this figure and the current lower earnings limit.

  Mr. Jack
  If the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions had been revalued in line with the increase in earnings since 1980, its present level would be £64. It is estimated that nearly 600,000 people have weekly earnings between this figure and the current lower earnings limit of £52.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the calculated public expenditure on benefits and grants to local authorities for benefit subsidy for rate rebates in England and Wales, and community charge benefit in Scotland, for income support claimants in Great Britain in 1989–90.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Outturn figures are not available in the form requested. However, we estimate that rate rebate subsidy paid to local authorities in England and Wales in respect of income support claimants for 1989–90 was about £730 million. The comparable estimate of benefit subsidy for community charge rebates in Scotland is £120 million.

  Local Office, Stratford
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give details of the refurbishment programme for the Jubilee department of social security offices in Stratford, London E15.
  454
  Miss Widdecombe
  The planning for the refurbishment of local DSS offices is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available, and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the policy of the Child Support Agency on demanding maintenance payments from former husbands regardless of whether a former wife has asked for such payments or whether a court has imposed a maintenance order in cases where the former wife is claiming income support.

  Mr. Jack
  [pursuant to his reply, 27 January 1992, c. 469–470]Incorrect information was given in the reply. The correct information is as follows:

  From April 1993, the Child Support Agency will take over from the courts the main responsibility for obtaining maintenance for children. It will provide a service for use by all families for whom child maintenance is an issue whether they are on benefit or not. Where the parent with care of a child claims income support, family credit or disability working allowance provisions in the Child Support Act 1991 mean that she will be expected to authorise the Child Support Agency to take maintenance action for her child. The agency will not act without such authorisation. Experience shows that most parents wish to co-operate in arranging financial support for the benefit of their children. It is very much in the child's interest that both parents should do what they can to support their child.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  House of Commons Services
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what arrangements will be made for answering hon. Members' questions relating to the services of the House, following the appointment of the new committees recommended in Sir Robin Ibbs' report on House of Commons services.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I intend in the near future to make a minor change in the question rota consequent upon the replacement of the Services Committee by the Finance and Services Committee and the new Domestic Committees. After consultation with the House of Commons Commission, I have agreed that a small amount of time should be set aside for oral questions to the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee, who will respond in particular to questions concerning the estimates for House of Commons expenditure (which will be prepared under his Committee's supervision), the financial performance of Departments of the House, and the financial implications of any new or expanded services which may be proposed by the committees appointed under Standing Order No. 125 (Domestic Committees).

  In order to accommodate these questions without further consequential changes to the rest of the question rota, I intend to arrange for questions to the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee to be taken every

  455
  third Monday at 3.20 pm, with questions to the Lord President of the Council as Leader of the House following at 3.25 pm.

  Questions to the Member answering on behalf of the House of Commons Commission will continue to be taken every sixth Monday, at 3.15 pm.

  In addition, following the replacement of the Services Committee by individual Domestic Committees, Questions concerning the exercise of the responsibilities of those Committees should be tabled for written answer to the Chairman of the Committee concerned.

  I shall, of course, continue to answer questions on a wide range of matters as Leader of the House.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Data Information Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what data information systems his office has(a) agreed and (b) been consulted about with a view to taking

  Number of available beds for mental illness

  Greater Manchester health districts

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1Community reprovision

  Bolton

  227

  226

  244

  0

  Bury

  117

  133

  128

  7

  North Manchester

  321

  298

  271

  19

  Central Manchester

  84

  87

  88

  21

  South Manchester

  242

  220

  206

  1

  Oldham

  199

  203

  190

  20

  Rochdale

  132

  132

  136

  0

  Salford

  1,018

  903

  788

  128

  Stockport

  286

  269

  273

  0

  Tameside and Glossop

  185

  145

  169

  19

  Trafford

  150

  130

  119

  8

  Wigan

  290

  277

  238

  30

  Total

  3,231

  3,023

  2,850

  253

  1Source: District Purchasing Plans Quarterly Monitoring Community 1991–92.

  456
  part in; what are the criteria for inclusion in such systems; whether they will be linked to (i) the police national computer and (ii) other computer systems; what data protection provisions apply to them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Duchy of Lancaster office has a data information system for routine administrative purposes. It is not linked to any other computer system. The office is bound by the Data Protection Act 1984 to the extent specified in section 38 of the Act.

HEALTH

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total number of beds available in the NHS hospitals in the Greater Manchester area, for the treatment of mental illness in 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is as follows:

  Management Executive
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the present organisational structure of the NHS management executive with the numbers of staff involved in each directorate area and division within their grades.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The present structure of the NHS management executive and the numbers of staff involved are shown in the tables.

  NHS Management Executive Staff in Post on 1 January 1992

  Chief Executive and Directors

  Number

  Grade 1a

  1

  Grade 2

  6

  Principal Nursing Officer

  1

  Total

  18

  1non-executive Director

  Corporate Affairs Directorate

  Central Management of the Management Executive

  Number

  Grade 5

  2

  Senion Medical Officer

  1

  Grade 7

  6·5

  Senior Executive Officer

  6

  Higher Executive Officer

  15

  Executive Officer

  13

  Administrative Officer

  7

  Administrative Assistant

  5

  Personal Secretary

  4

  Typist

  1

  Total

  60·5

  Policy unit

  Number

  Grade 5

  1

  Senior Executive Officer

  1

  Personal Secretary

  1

  Total

  3

  Information management group

  Number

  Grade 3

  1

  Grade 5

  2

  Grade 6

  2

  Grade 7

  15

  Senior Executive Officer

  19

  Higher Executive Officer

  16

  Executive Officer

  12

  Administrative Officer

  11

  Administrative Assistant

  4

  Personal Secretary

  5

  Consultants

  39

  NHS Technical and Administrative Support

  34

  TOTAL

  160

  Economic and operational research

  Number

  Grade 5

  2

  Grade 7

  7

  Economic Assistant/Senior Economic Assistant

  3

  458

  Economic and operational research

  Number

  Senior/Higher/Scientific Officer

  3

  Executive Officer

  1

  Personal Secretary

  1

  TOTAL

  17

  Personnel and Resources in the Management Executive

  Number

  Grade 5

  1

  Grade 6

  2

  Grade 7

  4

  Senior Executive Officer

  2

  Higher Executive Officer

  13

  Executive Officer

  12

  Administrative Officer

  5

  Administrative Assistant

  1

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1

  Personal Secretary

  2

  Total

  43

  Performance Management Directorate

  Number

  Grade 3

  1

  Grade 4

  2

  Grade 5

  5

  Grade 6

  2

  Grade 7

  21

  Senior Executive Officer

  1

  Higher Executive Officer

  15

  Executive Officer

  16

  Administrative Officer

  7

  Administrative Assistant

  5

  Senior Personal Secretary

  4

  Personal Secretary

  7

  Total

  86

  Research and Development Directorate

  Number

  Grade 4

  1

  Grade 5

  1

  Grade 6

  2

  Grade 7

  2

  Senior Executive Officer

  2

  Higher Executive Officer

  6

  Executive Officer

  4

  Administrative Officer

  6

  Administrative Assistant

  2

  Personal Secretary

  1

  Total

  29

  Finance and Corporate Information Directorate

  Number

  Finance

  Grade 3

  1·0

  Grade 5

  4·0

  Grade 6

  2·0

  Grade 7

  14·5

  Senior Executive Officer

  5·0

  Higher Executive Officer

  22·0

  Executive Officer

  17·0

  Administrative Officer

  15·5

  Administrative Assistant

  3·0

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1·0

  Personal Secretary

  6·0

  Total

  90·0

  459

  Corporate Information

  Number

  Grade 5

  2·0

  Grade 6

  3·0

  Grade 7

  15·0

  Senior Executive Officer

  3·0

  Higher Executive Officer

  11·0

  Executive Officer

  14·0

  Administrative Officer

  5·0

  Administrative Assistant

  2·0

  Personal Secretary

  2·0

  Total

  47·0

  Health Care Directorate

  Number

  Medical manpower and education

  Grade 3

  1·0

  Grade 5

  4·0

  Grade 7

  4·0

  Senior Executive Officer

  2·0

  Higher Executive Officer

  5·0

  Executive officer

  9·0

  Administrative Officer

  2·0

  Administrative Assistant

  2·0

  Personal Secretary

  3·0

  Senior personal Secretary

  1·0

  Typist

  1·0

  Total

  34·0

  Number

  Services development

  Grade 3

  2·0

  Grade 5

  6·5

  Grade 6

  2·5

  Grade 7

  11·0

  Senior Executive Officer

  5·0

  Higher Executive Officer

  9·0

  Executive Officer

  13·0

  Administrative Officer

  10·0

  Administrative Assistant

  3·0

  Senior Personal Secretary

  3·0

  Personal Secretary

  7·0

  Typist

  1·0

  Total

  73·0

  Number

  Public health

  Grade 3

  1·0

  Grade 5

  4·5

  Higher Executive Officer

  2·0

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1·0

  Personal Secretary

  2·5

  Total

  11·0

  Nursing Directorate

  Number

  Grade 3

  1·0

  Grade 5

  1·0

  Grade 6

  13·0

  Higher Executive Officer

  1·0

  Executive Officer

  0·6

  Administrative Officer

  1·0

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1·0

  Personal Secretary

  8·0

  Total

  26·6

  460

  Personnel Directorate

  Personnel development division (including NHS Women's Unit)

  Number

  Grade 3

  1·0

  Grade 5

  2·0

  Grade 6

  1·0

  Grade 7

  ·5

  Senior Executive Officer

  3·5

  Higher Executive Officer

  5·0

  Executive Officer

  3·0

  Administrative Officer

  3·0

  Administrative Assistant

  1·0

  Personal Secretary

  1·0

  Total

  21

  Health Authority Personnel (including HAP Statistics)

  Number

  Grade 3

  1·0

  Grade 4

  1·0

  Grade 5

  4·0

  Grade 6

  2·0

  Grade 7

  12·5

  Senior Executive Officer

  9·5

  Higher Executive Officer

  26·0

  Executive Officer

  31·5

  Administrative Officer

  25·0

  Administrative Assistant

  9·0

  Senior Personal Secretary

  2·0

  Personal Secretary

  5·0

  Typist

  2·0

  Total

  130·5

  Health authority superannuation branch

  Number

  Grade 6

  1·0

  Grade 7

  4·0

  Senior Executive Officer

  12·0

  Higher Executive Officer

  32·0

  Executive Officer

  102·0

  Administrative Officer

  277·0

  Administrative Assistant

  106·5

  Personal Secretary

  1·0

  Support Manager Grade 3

  1·0

  Support Grade Band 1

  8·0

  Support Grade Band 2

  46·0

  Typist

  13·5

  TOTAL

  604·0

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the numbers of staff employed on the NHS management executive, and the cost of salary ranges of such staff(a) before the functions review took place and (b) at the present time.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Before the functions review took place there was a chief executive and nine directors, plus one part-time non-executive director, on the NHS management executive at an annual cost of £719,492. The salary range was £44,205 to £85,447. One director was on secondment for whose services a fee is paid. Following the functions review there is the chief executive and seven directors plus one part-time non-executive director. The annual cost is £591,614 and the salary range is £44,205 to £85,447, with a fee paid in respect of one director.

  Local Authority Secure Places
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many approved local authority secure places were available in the northern region on 1 January 1985 and on the same date in each succeeding year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information collected centrally relates to the position at 31 March, and is shown in the table.

  Number of approved places available in secure units in the Northern Region

  Year

  Number of approved places available at 31 March

  1985

  51

  1986

  53

  1987

  53

  1988

  53

  1989

  58

  1990

  55

  11991

  49

  1 Provisional.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what external audit requirements he has imposed on NHS trusts and companies and trade subsidiaries linked to trusts; and whether he has required external auditors to report on the financial performance and prospects of trusts and their related companies and financial subsidiaries to him, to the trust directors, to Parliament and to the public.

  Mr. Dorrell
  NHS trusts will be externally audited by the Audit Commission. External auditors will certify public annual financial statements to ensure that they represent a true and fair view of the state of affairs of a NHS trust and of its income and expenditure for the year in question.

  NHS trusts are firmly part of the NHS and will therefore be included in the Audit Commission's programme of NHS value for money studies.

  Financial statements will be adopted by the boards of NHS trusts, and presented to the general public at annual meetings. Summarised accounts will be laid before Parliament.

  NHS trusts have no powers to set up subsidiary or trading companies.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reporting requirements he has laid on NHS trusts for financial information; what information he has required them to produce in public annual financial reports; and if he will require them to produce information on salary ranges and other data analogous to that in company reports.

  Mr. Dorrell
  All NHS trusts are required to produce financial information for NHS management executive monitoring purposes on a quarterly basis. Published annual financial statements for each trust will generally follow commercial disclosure requirements. They will show the number of employees receiving remuneration of over £40,000 in bands of £5,000. They will also show the emoluments of the highest paid board member separately and the number of board members receiving emoluments in bands of £5,000 with no lower limit.
  462
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how often he proposes to report the statistical returns from NHS trusts to Parliament; in what form employment returns will be reported; and whether NHS trust employment continues to be included in the overall returns for district, regional and national NHS hospital and community health service data.

  Mr. Dorrell
  NHS trusts are required to return the same kind of data to the management executive as other provider units, that is, activity data, and manpower information. The latter is in the form of the numbers of medical and non-medical staff employed and the numbers joining and leaving. This information forms part of the national aggregated NHS data returns. It is not routinely reported to Parliament but is included in statistical publications such as statistical bulletins and the annual volume "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what internal audit requirements he has imposed on NHS trusts; whether he has required asset sales and acquisitions to be reported to him and the trust board; and whether he has required companies and trading subsidiaries linked to NHS trusts to report to him and the trust board, Parliament and the public.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The trust management is responsible for ensuring that an adequate internal audit function is established. The objectives and scope of internal audit within the trust should be based upon the principles described in the NHS internal audit manual. External auditors will report on the adequacy of financial controls, including internal audit, within NHS trusts.

  Trusts are required to submit details of major capital expenditure and asset sales on a quarterly basis to the NHS management executive. NHS trust boards will determine what management information they require to ensure that they meet their statutory financial duties.

  Trusts will prepare annual financial statements to be adopted by the board, submitted to the NHS management executive, and presented to the general public at annual meetings. Summarised accounts will be laid before Parliament.

  NHS trusts have no power to set up subsidiary or trading companies.

  Data Information Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will list the items of data that comprise the contract minimum data set; what representations his Department has received as to whether the current procedures surrounding the security of the data set are adequate; what plans he has to indemnify health authorities should an individual be awarded compensation for the damage caused by breach of security; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The data items that comprise the general in-patient contract minimum data set are set out in the list.

  Contract minimum data set general in-patients

  Contract Details

  Contract Identifier

  Patient Details

  Patient's name

  463

  Patient's Usual Address

  HA Code (Of Residence)

  Sex

  Marital Status

  Birth Date

  Code of GP (Registered)

  Provider Spell Details

  Code of GP (Referring)

  Code of GP Practice

  Category of Patient

  Decided to Admit Date

  Start Date (Hospital Provider Spell)

  Admission Method

  Duration of Elective Wait

  Intended Management

  Source of Admission

  End Date (Hospital Provider Spell)

  Discharge Method

  Discharge Destination

  Patient Classification

  Chronically Sick or Disabled

  Consultant Episode Details

  Local Patient Identifier

  Episode Number

  Start Date (Consultant Episode)

  End Date (Consultant Episode)

  Overseas Visitor Status

  Specialty

  Specialty (Shared Care Episode)

  Code of Consultant

  Code of Consultant (Shared Care Episode)

  Patient Diagnosis:

  Primary

  Subsidiary (if necessary)

  (1-5)

  Patient Operative Procedure:

  Primary Operation

  Procedure Code

  Date

  Member of Consultant Firm (Surgeon)

  Member of Consultant Firm (Anaesthetist)

  2nd Operation—4th Operation

  (As above)

  The Department has not received any representations specifically about the procedures for the secure handling of the contract minimum data set. Ensuring the security of personal health information is a prime concern of the Department of the medical profession and of NHS Managers. We are currently exploring whether steps need be taken further to strengthen security in the handling of those data sets.

  There are no plans to indemnify health authorities in the event of compensation being awarded as a result of a breach of security.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what data information systems his Department has(a) agreed and (b) been consulted about with a view to taking part in; what are the criteria for inclusion in such systems; whether they will be linked to (i) the Police National Computer and (ii) other computer systems; what data protection provisions apply to them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department has a large number of data information systems. It would not be possible to fully document these other than at disproportionate cost. Where appropriate departmental systems are registered 464
  under the Data Protection Act 1984. Where there is a requirement to link to other computer systems the provisions of the Act are taken fully into account.

  Anti-depressant Drugs
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expenditure per head of population on general practitioner prescribed anti-depressant drugs in each NHS region and family health service authority area for the second half of 1991; and what were the corresponding figures for equivalent periods in 1988, 1989 and 1990.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information for 1991 is not yet available. The figures for 1988, 1989 and 1990 are given in the table.

  Anti-depressants Cost per head of population

  FHSA Regional health authority

  1988 £

  1989 £

  1990 £

  Cleveland

  0·90

  1·04

  1·16

  Cumbria

  0·88

  1·15

  1·02

  Durham

  1·09

  0·97

  1·13

  Northumberland

  0·98

  0·93

  0·85

  Gateshead

  0·83

  1·11

  1·37

  Newcastle

  1·00

  1·13

  1·29

  North Tyneside

  1·00

  1·00

  1·37

  South Tyneside

  0·79

  0·89

  1·02

  Sunderland

  0·66

  0·71

  0·82

  Northern regional health authority

  0·92

  1·00

  1·10

  Humberside

  0·71

  0·83

  0·87

  North Yorkshire

  0·64

  0·88

  0·81

  Bradford

  0·80

  1·02

  0·95

  Calderdale

  0·87

  0·76

  1·17

  Kirklees

  0·70

  0·76

  1·17

  Leeds

  1·04

  1·41

  1·17

  Wakefield

  0·77

  0·81

  1·30

  Yorkshire regional health authority

  0·79

  0·97

  1·01

  Derbyshire

  0·63

  0·70

  0·82

  Leicester

  0·69

  0·65

  0·84

  Lincoln

  0·67

  0·70

  0·71

  Nottinghamshire

  0·56

  0·60

  0·72

  Barnsley

  0·55

  0·94

  1·14

  Doncaster

  0·65

  0·74

  0·84

  Rotherham

  0·74

  0·86

  0·88

  Sheffield

  0·83

  0·86

  0·90

  Trent regional health authority

  0·66

  0·71

  0·82

  Cambridgeshire

  0·42

  0·50

  0·81

  Norfolk

  0·60

  0·72

  0·93

  Suffolk

  0·67

  0·83

  0·79

  East Anglia RHA

  0·56

  0·69

  0·85

  Bedford

  0·49

  0·59

  0·84

  Hertfordshire

  0·60

  0·61

  0·82

  Barnet

  0·52

  0·56

  0·69

  Brent and Harrow

  0·56

  0·44

  0·56

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  0·45

  0·64

  0·87

  Hillingdon

  0·63

  0·72

  0·72

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  0·64

  0·84

  1·09

  North West Thames RHA

  0·55

  0·61

  0·80

  Essex

  0·57

  0·62

  0·76

  Barking and Havering

  0·54

  0·59

  0·60

  Camden and Islington

  1·04

  0·68

  0·92

  City and East London

  0·50

  0·63

  0·78

  Enfield and Harringey

  0·67

  0·52

  0·49

  465

  FHSA Regional health authority

  1988 £

  1989 £

  1990 £

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  0·42

  0·69

  0·78

  North East Thames RHA

  0·59

  0·62

  0·73

  East Sussex

  0·65

  0·77

  0·95

  Kent

  0·64

  0·75

  0·82

  Bexley and Greenwich

  0·41

  0·51

  0·47

  Bromley

  0·61

  0·60

  1·00

  Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark

  0·62

  0·62

  0·71

  South East Thames RHA

  0·61

  0·69

  0·80

  Surrey

  0·69

  0·81

  0·81

  West Sussex

  0·61

  0·56

  0·89

  Croydon

  0·76

  0·88

  0·69

  Kingston and Richmond

  0·71

  0·70

  0·88

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  0·61

  0·70

  0·78

  South West Thames RHA

  0·66

  0·72

  0·82

  Dorset

  0·80

  0·83

  0·91

  Hampshire

  0·73

  0·75

  0·90

  Wiltshire

  0·74

  0·95

  0·95

  Isle of Wight

  0·89

  0·91

  0·80

  Wessex RHA

  0·75

  0·81

  0·91

  Berkshire

  0·64

  0·58

  0·72

  Buckinghamshire

  0·59

  0·55

  0·54

  Northamptonshire

  0·53

  0·57

  0·63

  Oxfordshire

  0·41

  0·42

  0·57

  Oxford RHA

  0·55

  0·53

  0·62

  Avon

  0·58

  0·74

  0·80

  Cornwall

  0·47

  0·70

  0·79

  Devon

  0·69

  0·81

  0·92

  Gloucester

  0·74

  0·76

  0·96

  Somerset

  0·65

  0·83

  0·69

  South Western RHA

  0·63

  0·77

  0·84

  Hereford and Worcester

  0·67

  0·78

  0·95

  Salop

  0·65

  0·61

  0·89

  Staffordshire

  0·63

  0·56

  0·79

  Warwickshire

  0·61

  0·58

  0·70

  Birmingham

  0·72

  0·79

  0·88

  Coventry

  0·55

  0·74

  0·80

  Dudley

  0·58

  0·73

  0·68

  Sandwell

  0·77

  1·06

  1·13

  Solihull

  0·81

  0·66

  1·17

  Walsall

  0·82

  0·91

  1·10

  Wolverhampton

  0·70

  0·87

  1·01

  West Midlands RHA

  0·67

  0·72

  0·88

  Cheshire

  0·72

  0·74

  0·80

  Liverpool

  0·69

  0·86

  1·08

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  0·52

  0·65

  0·92

  Sefton

  0·60

  0·90

  1·13

  Wirral

  0·87

  1·00

  1·05

  Mersey RHA

  0·69

  0·81

  0·95

  Lancashire

  0·80

  0·79

  0·94

  Bolton

  0·70

  0·61

  0·81

  Bury

  0·89

  0·70

  1·32

  Manchester

  1·02

  0·91

  1·13

  Oldham

  0·45

  0·57

  0·83

  Rochdale

  1·22

  1·33

  1·16

  Salford

  0·96

  1·33

  1·35

  Stockport

  1·01

  0·97

  1·20

  Tameside

  0·54

  0·72

  1·21

  Trafford

  0·98

  1·17

  1·42

  Wigan

  0·91

  0·95

  1·17

  North Western RHA

  0·86

  0·88

  1·08

  466

  FHSA Regional health authority

  1988 £

  1989 £

  1990 £

  England

  0·68

  0·75

  0·88

  Note: The data are estimates based on a sample of prescriptions of 1 in 200 dispensed by chemists in England. The population figures used are based on the OPCS estimates of residential population for the appropriate mid-year.

  Prescribing
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many adjudications have been considered by the independent medical adviser in each family health services authority on the financial responsibility for prescribing as between general practitioners and hospitals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There is no such formal adjudication mechanism.

  Mid-Cheshire Hospital Trust
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines on nursing provision and nursing grades he has provided to the Mid-Cheshire hospital trust.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is for the trust to develop human resource strategies to enable it to provide a high quality health service.

  NHS (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of(a) auxiliary nursing staff, (b) qualified nurses and (c) unit managers and higher grades in the national health service are from an ethnic minority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Blood
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many transfers of(a) blood and (b) blood products were performed by the national health service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in each year from 1978 to the latest year available;

  (2) how many donations of blood were taken by the National Blood Transfusion Service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, in each year from 1978 to the latest year available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information on the number of trans-fusions is not held centrally.

  The number of donations of blood given in England and Wales since 1978 are given in the table.

  Year

  Number of donations of blood

  11978

  2,123,607

  11979

  2,144,484

  11980

  2,220,036

  1981

  2,065,428

  1982

  2,058,994

  1983

  2,135,840

  1984

  2,158,626

  1985

  2,119,060

  1986

  2,128,450

  467

  Year

  Number of donations of blood

  1987

  2,094,316

  1988

  2,140,810

  1989

  2,225,009

  1990

  2,180,856

  1 For the years 1977–80 figures relate to the number of donors reporting at blood transfusion centres.

  Information relating to Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department began to collect information on HIV/AIDS.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department first began to collect information on HIV/AIDS in 1981, when the acquired immune deficiency syndrome was recognised in the United States of America. The Public Health Laboratory Service communicable disease surveillance centre began surveillance of AIDS in 1982, shortly after the first case of AIDS was reported in the United Kingdom.

  NHS (Capital Spending)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list total capital spending on the national health service each year since 1979–80 in money terms, real terms, on 1979–80, and as a real terms percentage increase or decrease on the previous year;

  (2) if he will make a further statement on the projected level of capital spending on the national health service this year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Since 1978–79 we have increased capital spending by 73·1 per cent. in real terms.

  Gross National Health Service capital expenditure

  GDP

  Cash

  Year on year real terms increase

  Cumulative real terms increase 1978–79

  £ million

  per cent.

  per cent.

  1978–79

  373

  —

  —

  1979–80

  417

  -4·2

  -4·2

  1980–81

  568

  15·1

  10·3

  1981–82

  693

  11·3

  22·7

  1982–83

  719

  -3·1

  18·9

  1983–84

  752

  0·0

  18·8

  1984–85

  845

  7·0

  27·1

  1985–86

  928

  4·1

  32·3

  Average daily available beds in wards for general patients elderly

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  England

  54,588

  53,275

  51,042

  48,733

  45,902

  Northern RHA

  3,949

  4,075

  3,958

  3,834

  3,683

  Hartlepool

  157

  158

  168

  166

  157

  North Tees

  195

  183

  176

  164

  160

  South Tees

  312

  320

  290

  281

  244

  East Cumbria

  237

  276

  282

  280

  279

  South Cumbria

  286

  291

  284

  270

  269

  West Cumbria

  204

  207

  201

  201

  194

  468

  GDP

  Cash

  Year on year real terms increase

  Cumulative real terms increase 1978£79

  £ million

  per cent.

  per cent.

  1985–86

  1,013

  —

  —

  1986–87

  1,089

  4·1

  37·7

  1987–88

  1,129

  -1·7

  35·4

  1988–89

  1,221

  0·9

  36·6

  1989–90

  1,454

  11·8

  52·8

  1990–91

  1,603

  1·6

  55·3

  11991–92

  1,912

  11·5

  73·1

  1 Estimated.

  Notes:
  Figures include trusts capital programme financed from (i) external borrowing (EFLs); and (ii) payments by health authorities for services.
  Figures prior to 1985–86 have not been adjusted for the redefinition of capital.

  Private Nursing Homes
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients of 65 years and over have been discharged directly to private nursing homes in the Crewe and Nantwich district health authority from NHS hospitals in each of the past five years.

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

  Nasogastric Feeding Tubes
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to complete the consultations on the transfer to the family health services of the responsibility for the provision of nasogastric feeding tubes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is too early to say when our consultations, which will begin shortly, will be completed.

  Geriatric Beds
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of geriatric beds for each district health authority for each of the last five years up to 1990–91.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 24 January 1992]: The information requested is given in the table. Over the period, the number of geriatric cases treated increased nationally from 396,000 to 468,000, as a result of substantial improvements in acute care, rehabilitation and community health services.
  469

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Darlington

  188

  163

  142

  144

  144

  Durham

  224

  235

  211

  193

  173

  North West Durham

  185

  171

  158

  155

  121

  South West Durham

  212

  216

  217

  198

  179

  Northumberland

  300

  341

  359

  346

  339

  Gateshead

  234

  236

  218

  215

  216

  Newcastle

  457

  489

  499

  474

  457

  North Tyneside

  217

  209

  190

  183

  185

  South Tyneside

  155

  173

  170

  172

  171

  Sunderland

  386

  408

  393

  391

  395

  Yorkshire RHA

  4,827

  4,621

  4,291

  4,136

  3,909

  Hull

  268

  264

  259

  253

  239

  East Yorkshire

  276

  236

  196

  184

  178

  Grimsby

  232

  224

  211

  172

  152

  Scunthorpe

  251

  235

  237

  230

  223

  Northallerton

  103

  80

  81

  97

  95

  York

  341

  324

  296

  264

  236

  Scarborough

  199

  177

  173

  174

  177

  Harrogate

  191

  210

  185

  177

  176

  Bradford

  470

  436

  370

  368

  340

  Airedale

  247

  226

  241

  232

  218

  Calderdale

  301

  310

  294

  265

  240

  Huddersfield

  330

  339

  291

  273

  256

  Dewsbury

  238

  230

  208

  215

  175

  Leeds Western

  492

  507

  490

  478

  442

  Leeds Eastern

  467

  412

  376

  376

  386

  Wakefield

  175

  170

  168

  167

  168

  Pontefract

  248

  241

  216

  210

  209

  Trent RHA

  5,263

  5,116

  4,901

  4,655

  4,411

  North Derbyshire

  359

  390

  405

  346

  333

  South Derbyshire

  560

  548

  502

  452

  434

  Leicestershire

  862

  844

  854

  827

  758

  North Lincolnshire

  298

  293

  279

  262

  257

  South Lincolnshire

  416

  315

  281

  272

  276

  Bassetlaw

  131

  131

  119

  105

  105

  Central Nottinghamshire

  383

  315

  331

  293

  282

  Nottingham

  610

  609

  580

  578

  572

  Barnsley

  272

  269

  274

  276

  273

  Doncaster

  344

  310

  293

  292

  283

  Rotherham

  277

  265

  265

  258

  250

  Sheffield

  752

  827

  717

  694

  588

  East Anglian RHA

  2,497

  2,539

  2,500

  2,432

  2,373

  Cambridge

  300

  324

  322

  320

  344

  Peterborough

  230

  230

  240

  246

  238

  West Suffolk

  321

  310

  308

  308

  295

  East Suffolk

  541

  539

  514

  468

  426

  Norwich

  529

  560

  529

  505

  503

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  210

  214

  228

  222

  204

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  255

  253

  252

  254

  251

  Huntingdon

  112

  108

  108

  109

  112

  North West Thames RHA

  3,460

  3,386

  3,305

  3,329

  3,173

  North Bedfordshire

  244

  245

  218

  257

  238

  South Bedfordshire

  182

  196

  196

  189

  169

  North Hertfordshire

  202

  228

  216

  220

  203

  East Hertfordshire

  207

  194

  212

  212

  209

  North West Hertfordshire

  235

  256

  244

  241

  256

  South West Hertfordshire

  235

  229

  220

  198

  184

  Barnet

  509

  552

  529

  524

  473

  Harrow

  156

  158

  172

  176

  169

  Hillingdon

  263

  266

  248

  246

  238

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  286

  219

  219

  239

  230

  Ealing

  158

  162

  164

  178

  131

  Riverside

  325

  272

  253

  235

  255

  Parkside

  458

  409

  414

  414

  418

  North East Thames RHA

  4,614

  4,260

  3,972

  3,878

  3,483

  Basildon and Thurrock

  282

  270

  273

  280

  285

  Mid Essex

  367

  356

  305

  305

  253

  North East Essex

  381

  351

  322

  315

  241

  West Essex

  296

  283

  253

  256

  214

  Southend

  335

  302

  239

  222

  214

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  505

  516

  512

  457

  335

  Hampstead

  130

  129

  125

  131

  130

  Bloomsbury

  247

  102

  100

  70

  76

  470 471

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Islington

  179

  224

  196

  155

  102

  City and Hackney

  304

  72

  72

  121

  149

  Newham

  250

  280

  268

  273

  248

  Tower Hamlets

  237

  231

  231

  232

  225

  Enfield

  230

  271

  248

  239

  209

  Haringey

  212

  242

  226

  215

  221

  Redbridge

  276

  258

  253

  245

  236

  Waltham Forest

  383

  372

  349

  361

  346

  South East Thames RHA

  3,740

  3,533

  3,384

  3,324

  3,212

  Brighton

  330

  334

  320

  282

  229

  Eastbourne

  307

  271

  279

  249

  290

  Hastings

  265

  270

  260

  252

  254

  South East Kent

  348

  319

  302

  312

  316

  Canterbury and Thanet

  393

  301

  282

  307

  298

  Dartford and Gravesham

  189

  188

  182

  165

  166

  Maidstone

  169

  158

  138

  135

  129

  Medway

  239

  238

  236

  220

  228

  Tunbridge Wells

  244

  246

  213

  191

  163

  Bexley

  130

  177

  167

  152

  138

  Greenwich

  317

  243

  214

  212

  189

  Bromley

  270

  234

  237

  267

  249

  West Lambeth

  163

  135

  138

  149

  142

  Camberwell

  188

  189

  172

  167

  164

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  190

  230

  244

  263

  259

  South West Thames RHA

  2,878

  2,832

  2,834

  2,555

  2,566

  North West Surrey

  188

  167

  205

  153

  157

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire

  218

  235

  186

  185

  174

  South West Surrey

  172

  170

  274

  238

  224

  Mid Surrey

  189

  150

  173

  2

  133

  East Surrey

  223

  209

  208

  189

  180

  Chichester

  145

  92

  123

  129

  98

  Mid Downs

  184

  242

  185

  179

  218

  Worthing

  356

  420

  377

  357

  352

  Croydon

  292

  298

  252

  248

  200

  Kingston and Esher

  175

  154

  235

  230

  231

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  263

  224

  141

  165

  166

  Wandsworth

  192

  188

  191

  199

  189

  Merton and Sutton

  282

  284

  286

  282

  244

  Wessex RHA

  3,433

  3,203

  3,022

  2,923

  2,780

  East Dorset

  690

  658

  627

  580

  583

  West Dorset

  286

  249

  241

  243

  238

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  475

  440

  442

  444

  441

  South West Hampshire and Southampton

  337

  318

  301

  329

  322

  Winchester

  250

  233

  201

  192

  186

  Basingstoke

  189

  182

  187

  177

  165

  Salisbury

  186

  174

  170

  168

  164

  Swindon

  249

  229

  228

  204

  174

  Bath

  624

  578

  500

  459

  378

  Isle of Wight

  147

  143

  125

  127

  127

  Oxford RHA

  1,825

  2,054

  1,832

  1,819

  1,647

  East Berkshire

  209

  234

  203

  184

  165

  West Berkshire

  310

  290

  296

  322

  328

  Aylesbury Vale

  135

  132

  127

  136

  124

  Wycombe

  190

  237

  241

  229

  205

  Milton Keynes

  84

  88

  90

  87

  83

  Kettering

  286

  294

  293

  293

  295

  Northampton

  298

  301

  286

  287

  220

  Oxfordshire

  312

  477

  296

  282

  227

  South Western RHA

  3,720

  3,486

  3,464

  3,366

  3,240

  Bristol and Weston

  163

  193

  172

  194

  206

  Frenchay

  447

  406

  405

  404

  396

  Southmead

  99

  89

  88

  87

  84

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  472

  453

  421

  420

  395

  Exeter

  389

  398

  409

  369

  367

  North Devon

  197

  201

  167

  176

  183

  Plymouth

  497

  451

  461

  433

  414

  Torbay

  267

  270

  253

  214

  221

  Cheltenham

  329

  301

  267

  258

  262

  Gloucester

  380

  285

  355

  352

  296

  Somerset

  479

  440

  466

  459

  417

  West Midlands RHA

  6,054

  6,004

  5,665

  5,084

  4,846

  472 473

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  94

  108

  100

  94

  87

  Herefordshire

  186

  180

  196

  176

  157

  Kidderminster and district

  138

  138

  138

  138

  136

  Worcester and district

  279

  246

  239

  239

  214

  Shropshire

  606

  492

  441

  321

  263

  Mid Staffordshire

  247

  239

  237

  240

  210

  North Staffordshire

  634

  656

  644

  578

  643

  South East Staffordshire

  407

  391

  389

  380

  372

  Rugby

  64

  49

  97

  82

  75

  North Warwickshire

  88

  119

  131

  131

  131

  South Warwickshire

  284

  277

  260

  245

  226

  Central Birmingham

  233

  224

  216

  167

  162

  East Birmingham

  196

  193

  194

  201

  206

  North Birmingham

  136

  136

  144

  158

  160

  South Birmingham

  400

  388

  377

  367

  334

  West Birmingham

  482

  494

  428

  374

  341

  Coventry

  410

  343

  212

  39

  4

  Dudley

  327

  326

  261

  220

  196

  Sandwell

  252

  260

  253

  245

  234

  Solihull

  38

  97

  77

  85

  84

  Walsall

  217

  313

  269

  269

  286

  Wolverhampton

  335

  335

  359

  335

  326

  Mersey RHA

  3,042

  2,909

  2,786

  2,523

  2,047

  Chester

  243

  265

  249

  239

  206

  Crewe

  319

  310

  294

  292

  259

  Halton

  155

  132

  118

  99

  67

  Macclesfield

  200

  274

  196

  157

  108

  Warrington

  185

  186

  180

  135

  96

  Liverpool

  620

  525

  519

  464

  368

  St. Helen's and Knowsley

  270

  281

  277

  246

  192

  Southport and Formby

  226

  209

  203

  178

  153

  South Sefton

  360

  296

  298

  286

  212

  Wirral

  462

  432

  452

  427

  387

  North Western RHA

  5,161

  5,128

  5,001

  4,747

  4,406

  Lancaster

  209

  201

  202

  193

  189

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  445

  351

  468

  432

  409

  Preston

  122

  130

  132

  129

  138

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble

  277

  318

  270

  272

  258

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  284

  286

  287

  277

  264

  West Lancashire

  132

  133

  129

  112

  78

  Chorley and South Ribble

  170

  159

  139

  131

  118

  Bolton

  329

  353

  318

  312

  283

  Bury

  211

  203

  191

  192

  210

  North Manchester

  297

  285

  250

  232

  230

  Central Manchester

  173

  162

  149

  142

  142

  South Manchester

  419

  403

  358

  320

  298

  Oldham

  265

  248

  238

  208

  194

  Rochdale

  211

  193

  185

  183

  166

  Salford

  329

  325

  320

  313

  290

  Stockport

  447

  474

  459

  406

  382

  Tameside and Glossop

  255

  307

  308

  305

  230

  Trafford

  210

  219

  218

  223

  210

  Wigan

  378

  379

  379

  365

  317

  Special Health Authorities (SHA's)

  126

  128

  128

  128

  127

  The Hospital for Sick Children

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  National Hospital for Nervous Diseases

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Moorfields Eye Hospital

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bethlem Royal Hospital

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  National Heart and Lung Hospitals SHA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  The Royal Marsden Hospital

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hammersmith, Queen Charlotte

  126

  128

  128

  128

  127

  The Eastman Dental Hospital

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett),Official Report, 29 January, columns 601-2, if he will list the latest estimates by the Registrar General of Populations of those aged 17 years and over, plus 63 per cent. of those aged 16 years, for
  474
  each district council area and parliamentary constituency in England and Wales, together in each case with the equivalent year's electoral registration figures.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 5 February 1992]: Population estimates are not available for parliamentary constituencies. The table shows local government electors on the 1991 registers (qualifying date 10 October 1990) and

  475
  approximately corresponding mid-1990 estimates of resident population for each London borough and county district in England and Wales as requested.

  The electorate figures include unknown numbers of legitimate dual registrations (eg. by persons with second homes and students). The resident population estimates include a proportion of those aged 15 to 19 at mid-1990, who were already 18 or would reach this age during the period when the 1991 electoral register was in use. This proportion has been calculated nationally and applied in every district. The estimates include residents who were not Commonwealth citizens or citizens of the Republic of Ireland, and persons detained in mental institutions, who are not eligible to be electors. Resident population estimates are currently based upon the 1981 census; provisional estimates for 1991 based on the 1991 census will be available in the autumn.

  Local Government Electors on the 1991 Electoral Register

  Estimated Resident Population Mid 19901 (Aged 17 and over, and 63 per cent. of those aged 16) Thousands

  England

  36,272,066

  38,022·2

  Greater London

  4,928,581

  5,410·0

  City of London

  4,006

  3·6

  Barking and Dagenham

  111,773

  116·1

  Barnet

  212,462

  246·3

  Bexley

  168,238

  175·6

  Brent

  175,698

  201·4

  Bromley

  230,337

  243·5

  Camden

  123,393

  152·6

  Croydon

  236,517

  252·9

  Ealing

  190,036

  233·1

  Enfield

  197,572

  210·4

  Greenwich

  159,278

  168·3

  Hackney

  132,520

  146·9

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  99,156

  121·5

  Haringey

  144,362

  151·9

  Harrow

  146,912

  152·0

  Havering

  181,057

  186·4

  Hillingdon

  179,317

  187·3

  Hounslow

  155,535

  154·5

  Islington

  110,607

  139·1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  85,577

  108·1

  Kingston upon Thames

  93,495

  113·1

  Lambeth

  169,510

  184·0

  Lewisham

  175,012

  178·3

  Merton

  122,035

  131·6

  Newham

  156,711

  158·1

  Redbridge

  174,069

  189·0

  Richmond upon Thames

  114,602

  137·3

  Southwark

  178,052

  177·3

  Sutton

  126,038

  135·1

  Tower Hamlets

  105,922

  128·2

  Waltham Forest

  164,464

  168·2

  Wandsworth

  195,928

  208·7

  Westminster, City of

  108,390

  149·6

  Greater Manchester

  1,923,185

  2,037·0

  Bolton

  199,425

  208·1

  Bury

  136,157

  140·3

  Manchester

  313,258

  348·8

  Oldham

  158,683

  172·6

  Rochdale

  152,437

  160·6

  Salford

  170,503

  185·0

  Stockport

  222,145

  231·6

  Tameside

  166,650

  173·3

  Trafford

  166,847

  171·6

  Wigan

  237,080

  245·1

  476

  Local Government Electors on the 1991 Electoral Register

  Estimated Resident Population Mid 19901 (Aged 17 and over, and 63 per cent. of those aged 16) Thousands

  Merseyside

  1,088,434

  1,137·2

  Knowsley

  112,660

  120·0

  Liverpool

  353,502

  362·5

  St. Helens

  139,919

  150·1

  Sefton

  226,459

  239·4

  Wirral

  255,894

  265·2

  South Yorkshire

  1,006,984

  1,034·7

  Barnsley

  173,853

  176·1

  Doncaster

  221,303

  231·0

  Rotherham

  196,176

  200·0

  Sheffield

  415,652

  427·7

  Tyne and Wear

  875,820

  897·2

  Gateshead

  159,311

  165·2

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  212,058

  222·1

  North Tyneside

  154,004

  154·0

  South Tyneside

  123,338

  124·6

  Sunderland

  227,109

  231·3

  West Midlands

  1,981,324

  2,050·7

  Birmingham

  737,092

  768·5

  Coventry

  230,634

  237·4

  Dudley

  242,149

  246·4

  Sandwell

  227,217

  232·5

  Solihull

  156,225

  161·9

  Walsall

  200,403

  207·9

  Wolverhampton

  187,604

  196·1

  West Yorkshire

  1,575,622

  1,625·4

  Bradford

  344,471

  357·4

  Calderdale

  148,795

  156·2

  Kirklees

  292,328

  294·4

  Leeds

  547,627

  566·4

  Wakefield

  242,401

  250·9

  Avon

  725,848

  764·3

  Bath

  63,094

  68·1

  Bristol

  288,018

  299·7

  Kingswood

  70,211

  71·5

  Northavon

  100,569

  107·4

  Wansdyke

  64,488

  66·8

  Woodspring

  139,468

  150·7

  Bedfordshire

  388,689

  417·2

  North Bedfordshire

  99,727

  109·2

  Luton

  125,563

  130·5

  Mid Bedfordshire

  81,502

  90·6

  South Bedfordshire

  81,897

  86·8

  Berkshire

  547,299

  592·0

  Bracknell

  65,458

  83·3

  Newbury

  104,000

  110·1

  Reading

  98,147

  103·4

  Slough

  74,921

  77·4

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  98,975

  100·7

  Wokingham

  105,798

  117·2

  Buckinghamshire

  472,986

  500·1

  Aylesbury Vale

  108,242

  115·5

  South Bucks.

  48,055

  49·6

  Chiltern

  70,751

  70·8

  Milton Keynes

  126,731

  139·0

  Wycombe

  119,207

  125·2

  Cambridgeshire

  490,438

  520·6

  Cambridge

  80,525

  81·9

  East Cambridgeshire

  46,614

  48·7

  Fenland

  57,918

  59·6

  Huntingdonshire

  101,517

  117·4

  477

  Local Government Electors on the 1991 Electoral Register

  Estimated Resident Population Mid 19901 (Aged 17 and over, and 63 per cent. of those aged 16) Thousands

  Peterborough

  112,392

  118·0

  South Cambridgeshire

  91,472

  95·0

  Cheshire

  738,936

  759·3

  Chester

  89,781

  91·3

  Congleton

  66,035

  69·8

  Crewe and Nantwich

  79,527

  81·6

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  62,469

  62·1

  Halton

  92,391

  93·6

  Macclesfield

  119,006

  122·3

  Vale Royal

  88,356

  89·8

  Warrington

  141,371

  148·6

  Cleveland

  418,369

  429·4

  Hartlepool

  68,737

  70·2

  Langbaurgh-on-Tees

  111,974

  112·9

  Middlesbrough

  105,594

  108·2

  Stockton-on-Tees

  132,064

  138·1

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  369,546

  377·4

  Caradon

  59,697

  59·9

  Carrick

  65·821

  65,0

  Kerrier

  68,913

  70·2

  North Cornwall

  57,906

  59·4

  Penwith

  48,277

  51·4

  Restormel

  67,216

  69·8

  Isles of Scilly

  1,716

  1·6

  Cumbria

  384,204

  397·3

  Allerdale

  75,978

  78·3

  Barrow-in-Furness

  55,976

  55·8

  Carlisle

  79,577

  83·3

  Copeland

  55,515

  57·0

  Eden

  36,559

  38·8

  South Lakeland

  80,599

  84·1

  Derbyshire

  726,446

  745·0

  Amber Valley

  89,819

  92·2

  Bolsover

  55,859

  57·1

  Chesterfield

  79,420

  82·2

  Derby

  167,849

  170·5

  Erewash

  81,420

  85·6

  High Peak

  65,568

  66·9

  North East Derbyshire

  76,694

  78·1

  South Derbyshire

  55,690

  58·3

  Derbyshire Dales

  54,127

  54·1

  Devon

  784,634

  834·6

  East Devon

  94,876

  98·9

  Exeter

  76,510

  83·3

  North Devon

  66,370

  68·6

  Plymouth

  182,161

  201·2

  South Hams

  60,439

  63·2

  Teignbridge

  84,503

  92·0

  Mid Devon

  49,489

  50·9

  Torbay

  93,245

  98·2

  Torridge

  41,173

  42·4

  West Devon

  35,868

  35·9

  Dorset

  523,403

  541·4

  Bournemouth

  126,513

  128·2

  Christchurch

  35,007

  34·3

  North Dorset

  41,567

  44·9

  Poole

  105,023

  107·4

  Purbeck

  33,756

  38·8

  West Dorset

  69,607

  71·4

  Weymouth and Portland

  48,061

  52·2

  East Dorset

  63,869

  64·3

  Durham

  471,130

  478·6

  478

  Local Government Electors on the 1991 Electoral Register

  Estimated Resident Population Mid 19901 (Aged 17 and over, and 63 per cent. of those aged 16) Thousands

  Chester-le-Street

  41,282

  42·5

  Darlington

  76,838

  80·0

  Derwentside

  68,906

  69·1

  Durham

  68,444

  70·2

  Easington

  76,553

  74·7

  Sedgefield

  69,666

  70·5

  Teesdale

  19,608

  20·2

  Wear Valley

  49,833

  51·4

  East Sussex

  548,317

  586·6

  Brighton

  115,897

  116·7

  Eastbourne

  63,948

  69·7

  Hastings

  62,700

  65·7

  Hove

  69,218

  77·3

  Lewes

  69,672

  73·9

  Rother

  67,087

  71·5

  Wealden

  99,795

  111·8

  Essex

  1,181,144

  1,222·9

  Basildon

  122,672

  121·7

  Braintree

  89,757

  91·7

  Brentwood

  55,194

  56·1

  Castle Point

  67,319

  67·1

  Chelmsford

  116,696

  119·4

  Colchester

  112,556

  122·7

  Epping Forest

  91,035

  89·9

  Harlow

  57,244

  54·8

  Maldon

  40,670

  42·3

  Rochford

  58,771

  58·8

  Southend-on-Sea

  121,058

  135·3

  Tendring

  101,997

  111·3

  Thurrock

  96,278

  99·2

  Uttlesford

  49,897

  52·5

  Gloucestershire

  410,744

  425·4

  Cheltenham

  68,090

  68·5

  Cotswold

  57,333

  61·3

  Forest of Dean

  59,624

  63·1

  Gloucester

  70,586

  71·9

  Stroud

  85,687

  88·4

  Tewkesbury

  69,424

  72·2

  Hampshire

  1,189,344

  1,227·1

  Basingstoke and Deane

  109,314

  110·8

  East Hampshire

  77,062

  81·1

  Eastleigh

  81,042

  81·6

  Fareham

  77,218

  81·3

  Gosport

  58,550

  58·4

  Hart

  59,777

  62·9

  Havant

  90,382

  88·9

  New Forest

  128,305

  132·2

  Portsmouth

  142,744

  148·7

  Rushmoor

  55,722

  65·2

  Southampton

  156,955

  156·0

  Test Valley

  77,247

  83·1

  Winchester

  75,026

  76·9

  Hereford and Worcester

  525,167

  537·2

  Bromsgrove

  70,916

  70·9

  Hereford

  38,558

  39·0

  Leominster

  31,949

  32·2

  Malvern Hills

  68,819

  70·7

  Redditch

  57,749

  59·2

  South Herefordshire

  40,377

  42·2

  Worcester

  63,582

  65·4

  Wychavon

  79,501

  81·6

  Wyre Forest

  73,716

  76·0

  Hertfordshire

  744,189

  784·7

  Broxbourne

  61,817

  65·5

  479

  Local Government Electors on the 1991 Electoral Register

  Estimated Resident Population Mid 19901 (Aged 17 and over, and 63 per cent. of those aged 16) Thousands

  Dacorum

  101,655

  103·7

  East Hertfordshire

  91,671

  96·0

  Hertsmere

  64,991

  70·1

  North Hertfordshire

  86,393

  89·7

  St. Albans

  96,500

  103·7

  Stevenage

  57,514

  58·0

  Three Rivers

  53,600

  64·5

  Watford

  57,484

  59·8

  Welwyn Hatfield

  72,564

  73·7

  Humberside

  671,198

  677·8

  Beverley

  91,553

  94·1

  Boothferry

  50,492

  52·6

  Cleethorpes

  53,843

  54·3

  Glanford

  55,914

  58·2

  Great Grimsby

  68,369

  68·5

  Holderness

  39,031

  41·3

  Kingston upon Hull

  198,204

  190·0

  East Yorkshire

  67,150

  72·6

  Scunthorpe

  46,642

  46·0

  Isle of Wight

  101,682

  106·2

  Medina

  56,947

  59·1

  South Wight

  44,735

  47·1

  Kent

  1,152,764

  1,214· 7

  Ashford

  72,144

  76·4

  Canterbury

  98,452

  106·0

  Dartford

  61,023

  62·2

  Dover

  80,132

  85·8

  Gillingham

  70,749

  73·3

  Gravesham

  70,451

  70·0

  Maidstone

  103,520

  109·8

  Rochester-upon-Medway

  106,196

  116·2

  Sevenoaks

  84,364

  83·3

  Shepway

  63,362

  71·9

  Swale

  88,202

  92·6

  Thanet

  98,544

  106·7

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  78,883

  81·2

  Tunbridge Wells

  76,742

  79·2

  Lancashire

  1,069,037

  1,104·2

  Blackburn

  100,588

  102·6

  Blackpool

  111,929

  114·3

  Burnley

  69,160

  72·9

  Chorley

  73,495

  76·6

  Fylde

  56,959

  60·9

  Hyndburn

  59,316

  61·7

  Lancaster

  100,801

  106·9

  Pendle

  64,546

  66·3

  Preston

  96,586

  99·7

  Ribble Valley

  40,411

  42·5

  Rossendale

  50,513

  50·8

  South Ribble

  78·574

  80·8

  West Lancashire

  83,329

  82·5

  Wyre

  82,830

  85·8

  Leicestershire

  671,043

  705·5

  Blaby

  64,416

  67·8

  Charnwood

  113,295

  120·2

  Harborough

  52,984

  55·9

  Hinckley and Bosworth1

  74,748

  78·6

  Leicester

  202,102

  211·6

  Melton

  35·300

  36·3

  North West Leicestershire

  62,932

  64·6

  Oadby and Wigston

  41,712

  41·8

  Rutland

  23,554

  28·8

  Lincolnshire

  457,179

  476·6

  Boston

  42,010

  42·5

  480

  Local Government Electors on the 1991 Electoral Register

  Estimated Resident Population Mid 19901 (Aged 17 and over, and 63 per cent. of those aged 16) Thousands

  East Lindsey

  92,449

  97·7

  Lincoln

  62·373

  64·4

  North Kesteven

  62,202

  70·5

  South Holland

  54,116

  55·5

  South Kesteven

  84,207

  85·2

  West Lindsey

  59,822

  60·8

  Norfolk

  587,093

  608·3

  Breckland

  81,738

  84·2

  Broadland

  83,872

  86·8

  Great Yarmouth

  68,295

  71·4

  North Norfolk

  73,684

  80·0

  Norwich

  94,202

  94·3

  South Norfolk

  81,806

  82·6

  King's Lynn and West Norfolk

  103,496

  109·0

  Northamptonshire

  437,561

  454·4

  Corby

  39,800

  39·3

  Daventry

  48,022

  50·6

  East Northamptonshire

  51,889

  54·1

  Kettering

  58,688

  60·4

  Northampton

  135,407

  143·6

  South Northamptonshire

  52,079

  53·4

  Wellingborough

  51,676

  52·9

  Northumberland

  237,940

  244·0

  Alnwick

  23,752

  25·2

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  21,645

  21·3

  Blyth Valley

  61,324

  62·3

  Castle Morpeth

  38,417

  41·0

  Tynedale

  44,906

  46·4

  Wansbeck

  47,896

  47·8

  North Yorkshire

  555,263

  588·2

  Craven

  40,027

  41·7

  Hambleton

  60,925

  64·3

  Harrogate

  112,937

  120·3

  Richmondshire

  32,096

  43·1

  Ryedale

  72,782

  75·2

  Scarborough

  85,286

  86·9

  Selby

  72,165

  75·3

  York

  79,045

  81·4

  Nottinghamshire

  783,869

  809·7

  Ashfield

  85,172

  87·6

  Bassetlaw

  81,715

  84·4

  Broxtowe

  84,857

  89·6

  Gedling

  86,498

  88·9

  Mansfield

  77,685

  79·3

  Newark and Sherwood

  80,917

  82·3

  Nottingham

  211,014

  215·3

  Rushcliffe

  76,011

  82·3

  Oxfordshire

  419,418

  461·9

  Cherwell

  83,754

  97·5

  Oxford

  83,049

  95·2

  South Oxfordshire

  101,660

  103·4

  Vale of White Horse

  84,029

  89·3

  West Oxfordshire

  66,926

  76·6

  Shropshire

  313,773

  320·9

  Bridgnorth

  39,292

  41·1

  North Shropshire

  41,423

  45·0

  Oswestry

  26,847

  27·3

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  72,019

  72·4

  South Shopshire

  29,378

  29·3

  The Wrekin

  104,814

  105·8

  Somerset

  364,363

  372·7

  481

  Local Government Electors on the 1991 Electoral Register

  Estimated Resident Population Mid 19901 (Aged 17 and over, and 63 per cent. of those aged 16) Thousands

  Mendip

  74,479

  75·5

  Sedgemoor

  76,714

  78·6

  Taunton Deane

  74,465

  77·1

  West Somerset

  26,660

  26·8

  South Somerset

  112,045

  114·6

  Staffordshire

  805,258

  827·4

  Cannock Chase

  68,597

  70·3

  East Staffordshire

  75,905

  77·6

  Lichfield

  71,740

  75·0

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  93,028

  95·1

  South Staffordshire

  82,926

  86·6

  Stafford

  92,130

  96·2

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  75,897

  77·7

  Stoke-on-Trent

  193,580

  195·8

  Suffolk

  481,020

  507·0

  Babergh

  62,435

  62·0

  Forest Heath

  33,744

  45·4

  Ipswich

  89,834

  89·4

  Mid Suffolk

  61,078

  62·3

  St. Edmundsbury

  69,984

  72·9

  Suffolk Coastal

  79,265

  88·0

  Waveney

  84,680

  86·8

  Surrey

  778,463

  804·7

  Elmbridge

  85,289

  87·0

  Epsom and Ewell

  49,488

  55·2

  Guildford

  96,164

  98·0

  Mole Valley

  63,316

  61·8

  Reigate and Banstead

  91,642

  92·9

  Runnymede

  57,780

  58·7

  Spelthorne

  64,205

  69·3

  Surrey Heath

  58,529

  66·1

  Tandridge

  58,581

  60·3

  Waverley

  88,778

  87·7

  Woking

  64,691

  67·7

  Warwickshire

  377,894

  386·9

  North Warwickshire

  47,312

  48·3

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  89,859

  91·9

  Rugby

  65,749

  68·3

  Stratford-on-Avon

  82,926

  85·8

  Warwick

  92,048

  92·6

  West Sussex

  557,267

  574·6

  Adur

  46,267

  47·0

  Arun

  105,410

  108·2

  Chichester

  82,015

  88·3

  Crawley

  66,575

  66·7

  Horsham

  84,681

  86·9

  Mid Sussex

  94,401

  95·1

  Worthing

  78,215

  82·4

  Wiltshire

  429,198

  443·4

  Kennet

  50,588

  53·5

  North Wiltshire

  85,271

  90·9

  Salisbury

  80,326

  81·2

  Thamesdown

  129,123

  133·1

  West Wiltshire

  83,890

  84·7

  Wales

  2,206,436

  2,283·2

  Clwyd

  321,383

  327·3

  Alyn and Deeside

  57,171

  57·4

  Colwyn

  44,139

  45·6

  Delyn

  52,801

  52·8

  Glyndwr

  33,147

  33·9

  Rhuddlan

  44,216

  45·8

  482

  Local Government Electors on the 1991 Electoral Register

  Estimated Resident Population Mid 19901 (Aged 17 and over, and 63 per cent. of those aged 16) Thousands

  Wrexham Maelor

  89,909

  91·8

  Dyfed

  273,900

  283·8

  Carmarthen

  43,770

  46·1

  Ceredigion

  52,863

  55·4

  Dinefwr

  30,793

  31·4

  Llanelli

  60,067

  60·9

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  53,663

  55·5

  South Pembrokeshire

  32,744

  34·4

  Gwent

  332,902

  353·2

  Blaenau Gwent

  58,774

  61·4

  Islwyn

  51,818

  54·3

  Monmouth

  58,765

  64·9

  Newport

  94,055

  99·0

  Torfaen

  69,490

  73·5

  Gwynedd

  186,841

  192·8

  Aberconwy

  42,777

  44·5

  Arfon

  42,533

  44·3

  Dwyfor

  21,832

  22·1

  Meirionnydd

  25,840

  26·3

  Ynys Mon (Isle of Anglesey)

  53,859

  55·6

  Mid Glamorgan

  409,510

  423·2

  Cynon Valley

  49,999

  51·1

  Merthyr Tydfil

  45,558

  46·7

  Ogwr

  102,528

  108·6

  Rhondda

  60,379

  60·4

  Rhymney Valley

  78,200

  80·3

  Taff-Ely

  72,846

  76·2

  Powys

  93,064

  94·5

  Brecknock

  32,672

  33·4

  Montgomeryshire

  41·327

  42·1

  Radnorshire

  19,065

  19·0

  South Glamorgan

  302,706

  319·1

  Cardiff

  218,591

  224·9

  Vale of Glamorgan

  84,115

  94·2

  West Glamorgan

  286,130

  289·3

  Port Talbot

  40,357

  38·7

  Lliw Valley

  49,034

  50·5

  Neath

  51,620

  51·5

  Swansea

  145,119

  148·6

  1 Figures may not add due to rounding.

  Population Estimates Unit, OPCS.

EMPLOYMENT

  Unemployment (East Midlands)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the east midlands have been unemployed for(a) more than one year and (b) more than five years.

  Mr. Jackson
  There were 38,336 claimants unemployed for over a year and 6,480 unemployed for over five years in the east midlands in October 1991. These figures are on the unadjusted basis.

  Skills Audit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to carry out an audit of skills among the labour force.

  Mr. Howard
  My Department commissions surveys to monitor skills and training issues at a national and regional level.

  It is mainly a matter for training and enterprise councils to decide whether to undertake local skills audit. Several TECs are undertaking studies of that kind.

  Job Creation (Hemsworth)
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what jobs were created in the Hemsworth constituency in each of the years from 1987 to 1991.

  Mr. Jackson
  No records are kept of jobs created, only estimates of the net change in the numbers of employees in employment are made.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current annual cost of providing training for 16 and 17-year-olds.

  Mr. Howard
  Provision for youth training in Great Britain in 1991–92 was £842 million. Yesterday I announced plans for a further £17 million to be allocated to YT in the current financial year, as part of my Department's spring supplementary estimate.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many 1991 school leavers sought a place on a youth training scheme; and how many were successful.

  Mr. Howard
  Information about entrants to youth training is not available by reference to the date of their leaving school. The Government remain committed to their guarantee of an offer of a place on YT for all 16 and 17-year-olds not in a job or full-time education.

  Training of Prisoners
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what provision he has made for the training and employment of prisoners and ex-offenders.

  Mr. Howard
  Responsibility for training in prisons lies with the prison service. Time spent in prison counts as a period of unemployment for the purposes of qualifying within the priority groups eligible to enter employment training, which is delivered by training and enterprise councils. On employment matters, the employment service helps and advises ex-offenders through its extensive jobcentre network.

  London East TEC
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps are being taken by London East training and enterprise council to improve awareness of its products and aims.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand that London East training and enterprise council is improving awareness of its 484
  products and aims through a variety of marketing initiatives such as issuing regular newssheets and holding events for specific audiences including employers, educationalists and young people.

  All TECs are required to publish summaries of their corporate plan and business plan and an annual report. They are also required to hold a public meeting once a year to inform their local community about their work.

  Social Charter
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he intends to implement any section of the EC social charter.

  Mr. Howard
  The social charter, signed by the eleven other member states, was a political declaration and as such does not require implementation. Where legislation is required to implement directives agreed under the social action programme, we intend to legislate within the timetable for implementation set out in each proposal.

  Foreign Tourists
  Sir Robert McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of the number of foreign tourists who will visit the United Kingdom in 1992.

  Mr. Forth
  The British Tourist Authority's latest estimates show that it expects 18·2 million overseas visitors to the United Kingdom in 1992.

  Trade Unions (Court Jurisdiction)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any proposals to transfer jurisdiction over trade unions to a new court.

  Mr. Forth
  No.

  Where trade unions act unlawfully, it should be open to bring proceedings against them before the normal courts.

  Unlawful Strikes
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to give members of the public the right to halt unlawful strikes affecting the public services.

  Mr. Forth
  Yes.

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State for Employment, to the House on 28 January, Official Report, columns 813-15.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has for the abolition of the wages councils.

  Mr. Forth
  The wages councils have no permanent place in the labour market and their operation remains under review.

  RECHAR
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning the effect on employment in former coal mining areas of the hold up in payment of European RECHAR funds.
  485
  Mr. Forth
  Employment issues in so far as they might affect Pontefract and Castleford were raised during the Adjournment debate on unemployment (Pontefract and Castleford),Official Report, 28 January 1992, column 922-28.

  Unemployment (Plans)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to introduce new measures to alleviate unemployment.

  Mr. Jackson
  On top of the job placement advice and assistance to which all unemployed people are entitled, we are offering some 840,000 places on our programmes this financial year and almost one million next year to help the unemployed back to work. This package of nationally available measures represents the most comprehensive range of practical help ever and fully meets the differing needs of all unemployed people.

  Career Development Loans
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state the numbers, average loan size, and costs to Government of career development loans in each standard region in 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information on numbers of career development loans and average loan size by region for the two years in question is given in the following tables. Statistics on the cost of the loans to Government are not available by region. The cost to Government for all career development loans in 1989–90 was £1·2 million and the cost in 1990–91 was £3·7 million.

  Career development loans

  Table 1

  Number of loans and value of average loan by region 1989–90

  Region

  Number of loans

  Average loan

  £

  South East

  1,467

  2,878

  Greater London

  1,244

  3,051

  Scotland

  839

  1,848

  North West

  780

  2,025

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  762

  2,348

  West Midlands

  712

  1,790

  South West

  658

  2,529

  East Midlands

  462

  1,983

  Northern

  435

  2,186

  East Anglia

  277

  2,255

  Wales

  268

  2,184

  Table 1

  Health and Safety Commission/Executive

  Inspectorate and Divisional Budgets for Salaries and GAE

  £(000s) cash prices

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Inspectorate/Division

  Salaries

  GAE

  Salaries

  GAE

  Salaries

  GAE

  Salaries

  GAE

  Salaries

  GAE

  Salaries

  GAE

  HSC/E Sec1

  501

  76

  808

  118

  896

  135

  1,321

  225

  1,481

  244

  1,972

  336

  Solicitor

  316

  4

  354

  4

  363

  5

  396

  7

  519

  12

  627

  12

  Railway2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  422

  43

  1,465

  195

  Special hazards

  1,880

  103

  1,966

  126

  2,125

  129

  2,004

  183

  1,857

  183

  2,115

  230

  Safety and general policy

  1,397

  106

  1,431

  106

  1,817

  135

  1,690

  120

  1,951

  157

  2,892

  237

  Resources and planning

  7,154

  11,639

  7,224

  9,655

  7,747

  9,424

  8,115

  9,113

  9,236

  10,546

  11,577

  16,133

  Offshore safety3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,726

  1,009

  Technology

  5,767

  1,032

  6,236

  1,132

  6,875

  1,262

  7,004

  1,356

  5,500

  1,034

  8,631

  1,652

  Hazardous installations policy

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  619

  51

  626

  80

  Industrial air pollution4

  1,235

  271

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Field operations

  21,158

  9,475

  22,019

  10,159

  24,414

  10,929

  25,673

  11,490

  37,308

  12,837

  41,368

  15,746

  Her Majesty's Mines

  3,783

  590

  3,836

  563

  3,722

  561

  3,373

  666

  3,085

  539

  3,218

  543

  Her Majesty's Nuclear

  3,745

  474

  4,821

  676

  5,815

  755

  7,377

  1,246

  9,394

  1,379

  10,446

  1,500

  Health policy

  4,900

  539

  5,100

  602

  5,504

  642

  6,357

  749

  4,094

  590

  2,400

  667

  Research and laboratory services

  6,767

  3,129

  7,004

  2,913

  7,557

  2,900

  7,350

  3,020

  7,349

  3,039

  8,396

  3,495

  486

  Table 2

  Number of loans and value of average loan by region 1990–91

  Region

  Number of loans

  Average loan

  £

  South East

  2,907

  2,774

  Greater London

  2,625

  3,074

  Scotland

  1,644

  2,452

  North West

  1,634

  2,102

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,550

  2,029

  West Midlands

  1,471

  1,823

  South West

  1,287

  2,690

  East Midlands

  953

  1,951

  Northern

  849

  2,285

  East Anglia

  598

  2,205

  Wales

  508

  2,218

  Medical Advisory Service
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to strengthen the employment medical advisory service.

  Mr. Forth
  Since HSE reorganised its field-based staff in April 1990 the Employment medical advisory service has been an integral part of HSE's field operations division. Further plans to increase and broaden the impact of HSE's field force will be set out in the Health and Safety Commission's plans of work for 1992–93 and beyond, which the Commission expects to submit shortly to the Secretary of State for his approval.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for each year since 1978 to the latest available date the budget allocation of staff, general administrative expenditure costs, both for each Health and Safety Executive doctorate and division, together with the number in post and the complemented figure for each inspectorate and the number of doctors and nurses in the employment medical advisory service and scientists within research and laboratory services division and medical division.

  Mr. Forth
  Available information is set out in the following tables. Changes in HSE's internal divisional structure and transfers of responsibilities within them mean that figures for budgets and staff are not directly comparable from year to year for divisions. Information is given from the earliest dates available.
  487

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Inspectorate/Division

  Salaries

  GAE

  Salaries

  GAE

  Salaries

  GAE

  Salaries

  GAE

  Salaries

  GAE

  Salaries

  GAE

  Electrical equipment certification5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  854

  63

  1,031

  70

  1,219

  93

  Nuclear safety research3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  253

  34

  226

  54

  1 Includes HSE Secretariat, Commission expenses and Chairman's salary.

  2 Transferred from the Department of Transport.

  3 Transferred from the Department of Energy.

  4 Transferred to Department of Environment.

  5 Separated from the Research and Laboratory Services division.

  Table 2: Staff in post in each Inspectorate since 1978 are shown below (1 April):

  Year

  FAC/AGR

  TD

  M and Q

  NII

  RI

  OSD

  1978

  2087·0

  —

  199·0

  166·5

  —

  —

  1979

  2142·5

  —

  195·0

  126·0

  —

  —

  1980

  2168·0

  —

  162·0

  125·0

  —

  —

  1981

  2097·5

  —

  167·0

  133·0

  —

  —

  1982

  1908·5

  —

  163·5

  142·0

  —

  —

  1983

  1809·5

  —

  159·0

  152·0

  —

  —

  1984

  1796·5

  —

  151·5

  159·0

  —

  —

  1985

  1802·0

  —

  142·5

  156·5

  —

  —

  1986

  1472·5

  2349·0

  133·5

  163·0

  —

  —

  1987

  1466·0

  305·0

  134·5

  168·5

  —

  —

  1988

  1420·0

  291·0

  116·5

  186·5

  —

  —

  1989

  1428·5

  289·5

  112·0

  211·5

  —

  —

  MI

  1990

  1490·5

  304·5

  481·0

  249·5

  —

  —

  1FOD

  1991

  1797·0

  1215·5

  77·0

  241·0

  534

  688

  3THSD

  1992 (Feb)

  1859·5

  314·0

  67·0

  264·5

  53

  192

  1 HSE field-based staff were reorganised with effect from 2 April 1990 to form the field operations division (FOD). From that date separate figures are not longer available for factory, agricultural and quarries inspectorates. Staff based at field consultant groups including specialist inspectors and scientists were also transferred to FOD.

  2 In April 1986 specialist inspectors including explosives inspectors who formerly worked within factory inspectorate, transferred to the newly-created technology division.

  3 In November 1991 a new division: technology and health sciences was formed incorporating the technology division.

  4 The quarries inspectorate transferred to the factory and agricultural division in October 1989.

  5 The railway inspectorate transferred to HSE from the Department of Transport in December 1990.

  6 Responsibility for offshore safety transferred to HSE from the department of Energy in April 1991.

  HSE inspectorates do not have formal complements. Budgets are issued to meet staffing targets, but the actual number and grades of staff, and balance between payroll and GAE, will vary according to changes in work demands and other circumstances.

  Table 3: The information requested about doctors, nurses and scientists is given below:

  Year (Apr)

  Doctors

  Nurses

  Scientists

  Within Medical Division including EMAS

  Within RLSD

  1978

  86·5

  85·5

  2·0

  306·0

  1979

  86·5

  91·0

  8·0

  307·5

  1980

  83·0

  80·0

  7·0

  309·0

  1981

  86·0

  72·0

  12·0

  282·0

  1982

  74·0

  59·5

  19·0

  275·0

  1983

  73·0

  60·5

  19·0

  298·0

  1984

  70·0

  63·0

  19·0

  293·0

  1985

  71·5

  50·5

  13·0

  290·0

  1986

  68·5

  53·0

  17·0

  283·0

  1987

  64·5

  49·0

  21·0

  280·0

  1988

  56·5

  53·0

  22·0

  268·5

  1989

  55·0

  50·5

  21·5

  273·5

  1990

  56·0

  53·0

  42·5

  285·5

  1991

  56·5

  53·5

  50·5

  245·5

  (FEb) 1992

  54·5

  53·5

  111·5

  253·0

  1 Following its formation the majority of scientists previously working in the health policy division (previously medical division) transferred to the technology and health sciences division.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the ways in which the employment medical advisory service intends to encourage development of occupational health services in industry.
  488
  Mr. Forth
  The medical and other professional staff in the Health and Safety Executive, will continue to provide advice on the use of occupational health services in industry, organise national and local campaigns, and liaise with relevant professional bodies to encourage the development and maintenance of appropriate standards of training and qualification for occupational health service practitioners. This work is supported by a wide range of HSE publications relevant to the development of occupational health services in industry.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria are used to assess the suitability of appointed doctors; and how many doctors have had their status as appointed doctors withdrawn by employment medical advisory service; what proportion of doctors appointed by EMAS have qualifications in occupational health; how many appointed doctors are currently registered with EMAS; and how many days training, on average, each received from EMAS staff.

  Mr. Forth
  Doctors applying for appointment by the Health and Safety Executive's employment medical advisory service need to demonstrate interest in occupational medicine and show that they are sufficiently qualified, experienced and competent to carry out their duties. Appointments are now for five years only and automatically terminate unless reviewed. Suitability is
  489
  assessed by the local senior employment medical adviser concerned, both on appointment and regularly thereafter. In 1991, 174 doctors had their appointment revoked for reasons generally of retirement, or cessation of the particular process or substance requiring appointment.

  There are currently 1,340 appointed doctors registered with EMAS. Over 30 per cent. hold specialist qualifications in occupational medicine. Others have attended courses in occupational medicine which do not lead to formal qualifications, such as the Faculty of Occupational Medicine's introductory course. Each doctor is provided with induction training prior to appointment and the opportunity to attend an EMAS seminar held annually, as well as written guidance material relevant to his or her duties. Records of average training days are not maintained.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to increase the staff of the employment medical advisory service, within the health and safety executive.

  Mr. Forth
  Since HSE, reorganised its field-based staff in April 1990 the employment medical advisory service has become an integral part of HSE's field operations division. HSE plans to increase the number of doctors and nurses working in the division by around 10 during 1992–93, from 98 in post at 1 February 1992.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the rate of doctors and nurses employed by the employment medical advisory service in relation to introduction of Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations; and what additional staff resources will be made available to effect this.

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the enforcement of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations lies with the inspectorates in the Health and. Safety Executive (HSE) supported by their professional colleagues who include staff of HSE's employment medical advisory service (EMAS). EMAS has been active in helping to increase awareness of the regulations and advising on the use of occupational health expertise and services. No additional EMAS resources were required specifically for the introduction of these regulations but 56 doctors have been appointed under them to conduct statutory medical examinations.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give details of the current amount of fees outstanding to the employment medical advisory service of the Health and Safety Executive for medical examinations.

  Mr. Forth
  On 31 January 1992, £10,339 was outstanding for medical examinations carried out by the employment medical advisory service.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will update the 1976 employment medical advisory service survey on the number of physicians and nurses employed in industry who have specialist qualifications in occupational health; and what action has been taken by the Health and Safety Executive on proposals presented in the 1976 EMAS document "Occupational Health Services—The Way Ahead."

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Executive has recently commissioned a survey of occupational health 490
  provision in industry which will provide information on the number of physicians, nurses and other professional staff in industry with specialist qualifications in occupational health. The results of the survey should be available by the autumn.

  The 1976 EMAS document, "Occupational Health Services—The Way Ahead", made recommendations relating to epidemiological work, statutory medical examinations, and the provision and operation of occupational health services in relation to occupational medical and nursing input. Progress has been made in all these areas as a result of action taken by the Health and Safety Executive and by the professional bodies concerned.

  The Health and Safety Commission followed up this work by issuing in 1986 a statement of its policy on the development of occupational health services and launching a programme of action to promote the use of occupational health services by employers commensurate with the health hazards and risks in their undertakings. Further impetus was provided by new statutory requirements on health surveillance, particularly the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988. In indicating the current extent of occupational health provision in industry, the survey now commissioned will help the Health and Safety Commission and Executive evaluate the impact of these developments and further develop their policy and programmes on occupational health.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff were employed by the Health and Safety Executive employment medical advisory service in each year since 1979 to the latest date for which figures are available, broken down by occupation and location; and how many posts are currently vacant.

  Mr. Forth
  An analysis by occupation and location of staff working in the employment medical advisory service (EMAS) is given in the following tables for each year from 1988. EMAS was reorganised with effect from April 1988, from a regional, to an area structure. Comparable figures for earlier years are not available.

  On 1 February 1992 there were 11·5 vacant posts in EMAS.

  Fire Safety Certificates
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many premises subject to the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazard Regulations 1984 had yet to be issued with a fire safety certificate on 1 February in each Health and Safety Executive area.

  Mr. Forth
  Information about the number of premises subject to the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984 which have not yet been issued with a fire certificate under the Fire Certification (Special Premises) Regulations 1976 is not readily available centrally. This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  HSE does not hold information about premises for which the responsibility for issuing a fire certificate rests with local fire authorities.

  Occupational Diseases
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people died from occupational diseases in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Forth
  Figures for deaths due to asbestosis, mesothelioma and other industrial diseases, taken from the latest published statistics ("Health and Safety Statistics 1989–90"), are given in the table.

  Asbestosis

  Mesothelioma

  Other

  1980

  102

  458

  697

  1981

  137

  472

  633

  1982

  128

  504

  624

  1983

  121

  573

  655

  1984

  129

  624

  531

  1985

  140

  615

  587

  1986

  166

  702

  524

  1987

  144

  808

  484

  1988

  152

  860

  —

  1989

  145

  853

  —

  For asbestosis and mesothelioma the numbers are taken from death certificates mentioning either of these conditions. An estimated 100 mesotheliomas annually are not asbestos-related. For other diseases the numbers are for individual awards of death benefit under the industrial injuries scheme (excluding those for asbestosis and mesothelioma) up to the discontinuation of this benefit in April 1988. These figures exclude asbestos-related lung cancers, which are estimated to be about twice as numerous as mesotheliomas.

  EMAS Staff at 1 April 1988 by Occupational Group and Location

  Areas

  Doctors

  Nurses

  Others1

  Total

  South West

  5·0

  3·0

  3·5

  11·5

  South

  1·0

  2·0

  1·5

  4·5

  South East

  1·0

  1·0

  1·5

  3·5

  London North

  2·0

  2·0

  3·0

  7·0

  London South

  1·5

  2·0

  2·5

  6·0

  East Anglia

  2·0

  1·0

  1·0

  4·0

  Northern Home Counties

  2·0

  1·0

  2·5

  5·5

  East Midlands

  1·5

  2·0

  1·5

  5·0

  West Midlands

  5·0

  3·0

  3·0

  11·0

  Wales

  3·5

  3·0

  3·0

  9·5

  Marches

  2·0

  2·0

  2·0

  6·0

  North Midlands

  1·5

  2·0

  0·5

  4·0

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  1·0

  3·0

  1·5

  5·5

  West and North Yorkshire

  1·5

  2·0

  2·0

  5·5

  Greater Manchester

  3·5

  2·0

  2·0

  7·5

  Merseyside

  1·5

  2·0

  1·5

  5·0

  North West

  2·0

  3·0

  1·0

  6·0

  North East

  3·5

  5·0

  3·5

  12·0

  Scotland East

  4·5

  3·0

  4·0

  11·5

  Scotland West

  1·0

  3·0

  2·0

  6·0

  1 Administrative and support staff.

  EMAS Staff at 1 April 1989 by Occupational Group and Location

  Areas

  Doctors

  Nurses

  Others1

  Total

  South West

  4·0

  3·0

  2·5

  9·5

  South

  2·0

  1·0

  1·5

  4·5

  South East

  1·0

  2·0

  1·5

  4·5

  London North

  2·5

  2·0

  3·5

  8·0

  London South

  1·0

  2·0

  2·0

  5·0

  East Anglia

  2·0

  2·0

  2·0

  6·0

  Northern Home Counties

  2·0

  1·0

  2·0

  5·0

  East Midlands

  1·5

  2·0

  1·5

  5·0

  West Midlands

  3·0

  2·0

  2·0

  7·0

  Wales

  3·0

  3·0

  3·0

  9·0

  Marches

  2·0

  2·0

  2·0

  6·0

  North Midlands

  1·5

  2·0

  1·0

  4·5

  492

  Areas

  Doctors

  Nurses

  Others1

  Total

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  1·0

  3·0

  1·5

  5·5

  West and North Yorkshire

  2·5

  2·0

  2·0

  6·5

  Greater Manchester

  3·5

  2·0

  2·0

  7·5

  Merseyside

  1·5

  2·0

  1·5

  5·0

  North West

  2·0

  3·0

  1·5

  6·5

  North East

  3·0

  5·0

  3·0

  11·0

  Scotland East

  3·5

  2·5

  3·0

  9·0

  Scotland West

  2·5

  2·0

  1·0

  5·5

  1 Administrative and support staff.

  EMAS Staff at 1 April 1990 by Occupational Group and Location

  Areas

  Doctors

  Nurses

  Others1

  Total

  South West

  4·0

  4·0

  3·0

  11·0

  South

  2·0

  2·0

  1·5

  5·5

  South East

  1·0

  2·0

  1·0

  4·0

  London North

  1·0

  2·0

  2·5

  5·5

  London South

  2·0

  1·0

  1·5

  4·5

  East Anglia

  2·5

  0·5

  2·0

  5·0

  Northern Home Counties

  2·0

  —

  2·0

  4·0

  East Midlands

  2·5

  2·0

  1·5

  6·0

  West Midlands

  3·0

  3·0

  3·0

  9·0

  Wales

  3·0

  4·0

  3·0

  10·0

  Marches

  2·0

  2·0

  2·0

  6·0

  North Midlands

  1·5

  2·0

  1·0

  4·5

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  1·0

  3·0

  1·5

  5·5

  West and North Yorkshire

  3·5

  1·0

  1·5

  5·5

  Greater Manchester

  1·5

  2·0

  2·5

  6·0

  Merseyside

  1·5

  2·0

  1·5

  5·0

  North West

  2·0

  2·0

  2·5

  6·5

  North East

  4·0

  5·0

  3·0

  12·0

  Scotland East

  3·5

  4·0

  3·0

  10·5

  Scotland West

  2·5

  4·0

  1·5

  8·0

  1 Administrative and support staff.

  EMAS staff at 1 April 1991 by occupational group and location

  Areas

  Doctors

  Nurses

  Total

  South West

  4·0

  3·0

  7·0

  South

  3·0

  2·0

  5·0

  South East

  2·0

  2·0

  4·0

  London North

  1·5

  3·0

  4·5

  London South

  1·0

  1·0

  2·0

  East Anglia

  3·0

  0·5

  3·5

  Northern Home Counties

  2·0

  1·0

  3·0

  East Midlands

  2·5

  2·0

  4·5

  West Midlands

  2·0

  3·0

  5·0

  Wales

  2·0

  4·0

  6·0

  Marches

  2·0

  —

  2·0

  North Midlands

  1·5

  2·0

  3·5

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  2·0

  2·0

  4·0

  West and North Yorkshire

  2·5

  2·0

  4·5

  Greater Manchester

  3·5

  2·0

  5·5

  Merseyside

  1·5

  2·0

  3·5

  North West

  2·0

  3·0

  5·0

  North East

  3·0

  5·0

  8·0

  Scotland East

  3·5

  4·0

  7·5

  Scotland West

  2·5

  3·0

  5·5

  Note EMAS became an integral part of HSEs field operations division (FOD) from 2 April 1990. From that date administrative and other field-based support staff were no longer specifically allocated to EMAS, but to FOD itself.

  EMAS staff at 1 February 1992 by occupational group and location

  Areas

  Doctors

  Nurses

  Total

  South West

  3·0

  3·0

  6·0

  South

  3·0

  2·0

  5·0

  South East

  3·0

  2·0

  5·0

  493

  Areas

  Doctors

  Nurses

  Total

  London North

  2·5

  3·0

  5·5

  London South

  2·0

  2·0

  4·0

  East Anglia

  2·0

  1·5

  3·5

  Northern Home Counties

  2·0

  1·0

  3·0

  East Midlands

  2·5

  2·0

  4·5

  West Midlands

  2·0

  3·0

  5·0

  Wales

  2·0

  4·0

  6·0

  Marches

  2·0

  2·0

  4·0

  North Midlands

  2·5

  2·0

  4·5

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  2·0

  1·0

  3·0

  West and North Yorkshire

  2·5

  2·0

  4·5

  Greater Manchester

  2·5

  2·0

  4·5

  Merseyside

  2·5

  2·0

  4·5

  North West

  2·0

  3·0

  5·0

  North East

  3·0

  5·0

  8·0

  Scotland East

  4·0

  3·0

  7·0

  Scotland West

  2·5

  3·0

  5·5

  Note. EMAS became an integral part of HSEs field operations division (FOD) from 2 April 1990. From that date administrative and other field-based staff were no longer specifically allocated to EMAS. but to FOD itself.

  Skilled Building Operatives
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has plans to discuss with the Construction Industry Training Board the numbers of skilled building operatives likely to be available in the medium and long term.

  Mr. Jackson
  Both my right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State, and I meet the chairman of the Construction Industry Training Board from time to time to discuss matters relating to the industry, including manpower issues. The last such meeting took place in November. No date has yet been set for our next meeting.

  Retirement Employment
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people above retirement age are estimated to be in(a) full-time and (b) part-time work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The available estimates from the labour force survey show that in Great Britain in the spring of 1990, 208,000 people above state pension age were in full-time employment and 556,000 in part-time employment. Older people both above and below state pension age can bring valuable qualities of skill, experience and reliability to a job. The Government encourage people to continue working beyond pension age if they wish, and from October 1989 pensioners' earnings have had no effect on their state pension entitlement.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people, and on average by how much earn less than £3.40 per hour in each constituency of Merseyside and in the constituencies of Ellesmere Port and Neston; Chester; Warrington, South; Halton; and Lancashire, West.
  494
  Mr. Forth
  The information available from the 1991 new earnings survey closest to that requested is given in the table. Information is not available for individual constituencies.

  Employees on adult rates whose pay was unaffected by absence

  Percentage whose gross hourly earnings (excluding overtime) were below the following specified amounts April 1991

  £2·00

  £2·50

  £3·00

  £3·40

  Merseyside

  Full-time

  Men

  0·2

  0·5

  3·0

  5·7

  Women

  0·7

  2·3

  7·4

  14·8

  Part-time

  Men

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Women

  1·9

  5·7

  17·6

  43·2

  Cheshire

  Full-time

  Men

  0·2

  0·7

  2·4

  4·7

  Women

  2—

  1·3

  7·2

  14·7

  Part-time

  Men

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Women

  2·5

  5·6

  21·6

  44·9

  Lancashire

  Full-time

  Men

  2—

  0·6

  2·6

  6·7

  Women

  0·3

  2·1

  10·0

  19·5

  Part-time

  Men

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Women

  1·8

  4·7

  19·7

  43·5

  Source:

  New Earnings Survey.
  1— Denotes information not available.
  2— Denotes sampling error too large or sample size too small for reliable estimate.

  Note:
  It is estimated that around one fifth of part-time women employees were not covered by the survey because their gross weekly earnings were below the PAYE threshold.

  Woollen Textile Industry
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of redundancies notified to his Department from the woollen textile industry for 1991 in(a) Yorkshire and Humberside and (b) Bradford travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Forth
  In 1991, the Department received advance notification for 1,891 redundancies in the textile industry (SIC 43) in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. Information is not available for the woollen textile industry, nor for Bradford travel-to-work area.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employment action places are currently filled in Scotland.

  Mr. Jackson
  The latest available data is for 9 January 1992 and showed 381 people in Scotland receiving employment action allowances on that date.

  Training Credits
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the total number of young people in training under the training credits system by training and enterprise council or local enterprise company and by standard occupational classification at the most recent convenient date.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 6 February 192]: At 8 December 1991, the latest date for when information is available, it is estimated that there were over 14,000 young people in training in England and Wales using training credits. The following table shows the figures by pilot area. Figures by standard occupational classification are not yet available.

  Training credits—England and Wales

  In training: provisional estimates1—8 December 1991

  TEC area

  Number

  Birmingham

  2,300

  Bradford

  1,600

  Devon and Cornwall

  4,100

  Hertfordshire

  1,000

  Kent

  300

  North East Wales

  400

  Northumberland

  1,300

  South and East Cheshire

  1,000

  SLOTEC

  800

  Suffolk

  1,300

  England and Wales

  14,100

  1 Figures subject to adjustment.

  Source: OSMOSIS.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Turkeys
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the extent of pododermatitis in turkeys; and what advice his Department gives for the eradication of this ailment.

  Mr. Maclean
  As pododermatitis is not a notifiable disease, there is no comprehensive information on its prevalence in turkeys. Pododermatitis is the result of a complex interaction of factors such as water spillage, ventilation, insulation, diet, litter quality and depth and stocking density. Advice on these factors is available in the Government's welfare code on turkeys. Ministry sponsored research has made a substantial contribution to the understanding of the condition and technical advice to overcome the problem is available from the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service.

  Poultry De-beaking
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has about the numbers or proportions of turkey poults which are subject to de-beaking; what guidelines he has issued to the turkey rearing industry; and what action his Department takes to ensure proper supervision of this practice.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that the proportion of turkeys which are beak trimmed in this country has fallen to under 20 per cent. Advice on beak trimming is contained in the Government's welfare code on turkeys, which states that beak trimming should be carried out only by a skilled operator or under his supervision.
  496
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take to respond to the Farm Animal Welfare Council recommendation that legislation be introduced banning the routine non-therapeutic de-beaking of poultry.

  Mr. Maclean
  We shall be consulting interested organisations on the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report on the welfare of laying hens in colony systems. The Government will respond to the council's recommendations once all the comments received have been considered.

  Data Information Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what data information systems his Department has(a) agreed and (b) been consulted about with a view to taking part in; what are the criteria for inclusion in such systems; whether they will be linked to (i) the police national computer and (ii) other computer systems; what data protection provisions apply to them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department has a large number of information systems in use. A central record of the functions of these systems is being set up, but is still in its early stages and it is not possible to provide the required information on the data systems or on any links with other systems until this work is complete. All systems containing details of individuals are registered under the Data Protection Act. There are 37 such registrations covering approximately 850 sub-systems, all of which comply fully with the requirements of the Act. None is linked to the police national computer.

  Dumped Mackerel
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding large quantities of dumped mackerel being trawled in the south west mackerel box; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I have received five letters.

  A pelagic fishery for species other than mackerel is permitted in the mackerel box and only 15 per cent. of the total quantity of the catch retained may be mackerel taken as a by-catch. Our sea fisheries inspectorate vigorously monitors the activities inside the box. The situation is kept under close scrutiny.

  Kingswear, South Devon (Moorings)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will meet the hon. Member for South Hams and the Dart harbour and navigation authority before making a final decision on the scheme to provide piled pontoon moorings at Kingswear, south Devon, submitted by the authority in February 1989.

  Mr. Curry
  I do not believe that a meeting will be necessary. The application was not complete when formally submitted for approval on 2 December 1991, but the Department is now in the process of examining further information submitted by the Dart harbour and navigation authority and by its consultants, as well as the authority's request dated 4 February 1992 for increased costs to be taken into consideration. Our officials should shortly be in a position to let the authority have a decision on the application for approval.

  Departmental Achievements
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the expenditure and achievements of his Department in north Yorkshire during 1991; and what was the comparable position between June 1979 and May 1980.

  Mr. Curry
  In 1991, payments to farmers in north Yorkshire under the various agricultural and horticultural schemes amounted to over £19 million, of which over £14 million was paid under the hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme, the suckler cow and the sheep annual premium schemes. A United Kingdom national harbour improvement grant of £65,127 was made to Scarborough borough council for the construction of a new fish market at Scarborough.

  Since 1979, to enable farmers to diversify and to increase the level of care for the environment, the Department has introduced the farm and conservation grant scheme, the farm woodland scheme, the environmentally sensitive areas scheme, the five-year and one-year set-aside schemes and two pilot extensification schemes. In 1991 in north Yorkshire, over 54 hectares of new woodland planting was approved under the farm woodland scheme. The Pennine dales ESA has been successful in maintaining and enhancing the landscape and wildlife quality of the area. During 1991, the total area set aside under either the five-year or one-year set-aside schemes increased to 3,705 hectares.

  In 1991, the Department spent £562,000 on building maintenance and on new facilities and specialised accommodation in north Yorkshire. It also decided to relocate the central science laboratory to Sand Hutton and to relocate 600 headquarters posts to York. It is expected that some 350 to 400 posts will be recruited locally as a result, and the moves can be expected to provide a boost to the local economy.

  Data for the period June 1979 to May 1980 cannot be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Abattoirs
  Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what(a) United Kingdom and (b) EEC grant aid is available in non-assisted areas of the United Kingdom to help bring abattoirs up to the standard required by the EEC regulation; and what is the comparable position with regard to availability of such grants on (a) France, (b) Holland, (c) Belgium and (d) Germany.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department does not give grants for this purpose. Grants are available to meet priorities which we have agreed with the European Commission under EC regulation 866/90. This scheme also operates in France, Netherlands, Belgium and Germany and grants are available according to the investment priorities agreed between the European Commission and the national authorities in those member states. In France, Belgium and some parts of Germany grants are available under this scheme for slaughterhouse modernisation.

  BSE
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the locations of refrigerated containers dedicated for the use of bovine 498
  spongiform encephalopathy carcases and controlled and monitored by his Ministry outside the south-west of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  In addition to those listed in my reply to the hon. Member on 23 January,Official Report, col. 289, refrigerated containers are used at the incineration plants in Dyfed, Clywd and Hertfordshire.

  Industrial Trawlers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the annual catch of industrial trawlers in the North sea last year; the main species concerned and the estimated by-catch.

  Mr. Curry
  The provisional catch figure for industrial landings by all countries from the North sea during 1990 is 1,003,000 tonnes of which the main species were sandeel and Norway pout with some herring, blue whiting and sprat. The by-catch of haddock, whiting and saithe was 57,000 tonnes.Source: Report of the Advisory Committee on Fishery Management of the International Council for the Exploration of The Sea, May 1991.

  Preliminary figures for 1991 indicate a catch of just over 300,000 tonnes by EC countries. Figures for non-member states are not yet available.

  Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will give details of how he intends to allot the extra £16·5 million in compensatory allowances payable on hill sheep and cattle in the 1992–93 scheme year.

  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to the reply, 14 November 1991, c. 621]: I am pleased to be able to announce that United Kingdom Agriculture Ministers have completed the autumn review of economic conditions in the hills and uplands and our consideration of responses to the consultation document "Environmental Aspects of Support for Hill Farming" which was issued for comment on 13 November 1991.

  The review has shown that the average net farm income of livestock producers in the United Kingdom's hill and upland areas is forecast to rise in 1991–92 following significant falls in the previous two years. There will be a further increase following the exceptional additional payment of nearly £12 million in suckler cow premium, which I announced today, since over two thirds of this will go to hill farmers. After careful consideration we have concluded that, subject to parliamentary approval, the rates of HLCA per animal should be maintained at the 1991 level but the financial ceilings per hectare should be raised. This will particularly assist those producers—mainly of cattle—who did not fully benefit from last year's substantial (14 per cent.) increase in headage rates. The headage rates and financial ceilings for the 1992 scheme will thus be:

  Severely disadvantaged area (SDA)

  Disadvantaged area (DA)

  £

  £

  Cows

  63·30

  31·65

  Hardy breed ewes

  8·75

  n/a

  Other ewes

  4·90

  245·

  Financial ceiling (per hectare)

  181·13

  26·85

  499
  1Previously 62·48 per hectare.

  2Previously 46·86 per hectare.

  The additional payment limits of 1·4 livestock units per hectare and of six ewes per hectare (SDA) or nine ewes per hectare (DA) remain unchanged.

  The raising of the financial ceilings will add £2·5 million to the cost of the scheme bringing the estimated value of payments to hill farmers in a full scheme year to £148·5 million.

  My right hon. Friends and I have considered carefully the many responses to our consultation documentation "Environmental Aspects of Support for Hill Farming". The responses demonstrated widespread support for our intention to tackle the problems that have been associated with increased livestock numbers in some parts of the less favoured areas (LFA). We have concluded that the measures proposed in the consultation document are well balanced and are recognised as making an important contribution to the upland environment.

  We propose therefore to introduce these measures as follows:
  the new environmentally sensitive areas announced on 20 November situated in hill areas in England and Wales will be introduced during 1992 and 1993. New ESAs within the LFA will also be designated in Scotland and Northern Ireland. They will help farmers to conserve and enhance the landscape and wildlife characteristics of these areas;
  a voluntary code of good upland management will be published and sent to each HLCA claimant this spring;
  the HLCA regulations will be reinforced this year by a specific definition of overgrazing, designed to enable problems to be tackled more effectively on any vegetation type in any part of the LFA. This measure will be further strengthened by unused common land grazing rights in England and Wales no longer being re-allocated for HLCA purposes where overgrazing is found to be occurring;
  it remains our intention to scale SDA sheep headage rates if these are adjusted in the future. Many respondents to the consultation stressed the close links between this proposal and the negotiations on GATT and CAP reform, particularly as regards the ewe premium. Unfortunately, the outcome of these negotiations remains unclear and the impact of scaling HLCA rates is correspondingly uncertain. It would therefore be premature to introduce scaling in the 1992 scheme. Scaling will in future be considered in the context of the autumn review, the precise arrangements being dependent on the resources available at the time. We will of course continue in the negotiations on CAP reform to press for the closer integration of environmental considerations into the common agricultural policy where practical and cost effective.

  We intend to lay regulations before Parliament very shortly which will implement in Great Britain the rates and scheme conditions I have outlined. We are also taking the opportunity to consolidate and refine the current regulations. The new regulations will in particular make the provisions governing the eligibility of cattle and sheep consistent with one another and will include an amendment to the power of entry for inspectors to align it with the powers provided in both the suckler cow and the sheep annual premium regulations. Parallel regulations will be introduced in Northern Ireland.

  My colleagues and I recognise the importance of these payments to producers particularly in easing their winter cash flow problems. Top priority will be given in the next couple of months to processing the HLCA payments, although this may mean that it will take a little longer to pay other grants, at least in England. Payable orders for
  500
  HLCAs should start to be dispatched within the next fortnight to those producers whose claims have been lodged and accepted by local offices.

  Beef Producers
  Sir John Farr
  Asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new measures he is taking to improve returns to specialist beef producers.

  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to the reply, 6 February 1992, column 272]: I am very glad to announce an exceptional payment of nearly £12 million to support specialist beef producers. As a consequence the amount of suckler cow premium paid under the 1991 scheme will rise from £74 million to over £85 million. This will be achieved by raising the premium from £51·69 per cow to £59·64 in the less favoured areas, and from £47·43 per cow to £55·38 elsewhere.

  This is a significant increase in support for the suckler cow heard. These increases follow the decision of the Council of Agriculture Ministers to increase the minimum and maximum rates of premium which member states may pay under the 1991 scheme. The rates announced in October were already well above the new minimum rate agreed by the Council. We have nevertheless decided that the rates of premium in the United Kingdom should be increased. This is further evidence of the Government's continuing commitment to promoting quality beef production from the suckler cow herd.

SCOTLAND

  Employment Grant Scheme
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the operation of the employment grant scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  None. The hon. Member may care to note that there is no central Government scheme of this title.

  Radiation, Holy Loch
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 12 December,Official Report, column 503, if he will identify the source of the radiation burst recorded at Holy Loch on 14 August 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 31 January 1992]: It is not possible to identify the source of the two higher than normal radiation readings recorded at Holy Loch on 14 August 1991. I should emphasise the point made in my reply of 12 December 1991 that a local transient increase of this magnitude is not of radiological significance.

  District Nurses
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, by health authority, the number of full-time equivalent district nursing posts and the number of potential elderly domiciliary clients, as defined by the Department of the Environment under section 80 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, for 1976, 1981, 1986 and 1991.
  501
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 February 1992]: The number (whole-time equivalent) of district nurses in post is given in table 1. This table also shows nurses whose duties were a combination of two or three of the following:

  Table 1

  District nursing staff: whole time equivalent: by health board: as at September

  1976

  1981

  1986

  19912

  District

  Combined

  Total

  District

  Combined

  Total

  District

  Combined

  Total

  District

  Combined

  Total

  Nurse1

  Duty

  Nurse

  Duty

  Nurse

  Duty

  Nurse

  Duty

  Scotland

  1,209·0

  877·0

  2,086·0

  1,732·4

  699·7

  2,432·1

  1,940·7

  647·6

  2,588·3

  1,712·6

  564·8

  2,277·4

  Argyll and Clyde

  86·0

  71·0

  157·0

  153·1

  56·8

  219·9

  175·8

  44·4

  220·2

  167·0

  59·9

  215·9

  Ayrshire and Arran

  36·0

  72·0

  108·0

  73·1

  63·1

  136·2

  109·8

  21·5

  131·3

  131·0

  1·0

  132·0

  Borders

  9·0

  24·0

  33·0

  17·1

  26·5

  43·6

  13·8

  52·9

  66·7

  6·0

  46·9

  52·9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  24·0

  49·0

  73·0

  28·5

  44·4

  72·9

  43·0

  38·8

  81·8

  37·3

  42·7

  80·0

  Fife

  81·0

  16·0

  97·0

  140·7

  11·0

  151·7

  162·5

  —

  162·5

  123·0

  —

  121·0

  Forth Valley

  45·0

  63·0

  108·0

  48·4

  77·7

  126·1

  87·9

  75·8

  163·7

  126·4

  18·6

  145·0

  Grampian

  125·0

  96·0

  221·0

  182·7

  83·3

  266·0

  203·3

  77·5

  280·8

  141·1

  77·8

  221·9

  Greater Glasgow

  358·0

  22·0

  380·0

  178·0

  4·0

  482·0

  469·9

  —

  469·9

  384·2

  19·6

  403·8

  Highland

  22·0

  194·0

  216·0

  52·9

  131·6

  184·5

  52·1

  118·6

  180·7

  47·6

  126·9

  176·5

  Lanarkshire

  133·0

  71·0

  204·0

  163·1

  78·0

  241·1

  233·0

  60·0

  293·0

  195·0

  39·1

  234·1

  Lothian

  210·0

  38·0

  248·0

  243·0

  12·4

  255·4

  238·3

  18·4

  256·7

  227·6

  1·5

  229·1

  Orkney

  11·0

  15·0

  26·0

  24·5

  3·0

  27·5

  12·5

  17·6

  30·1

  12·1

  18·8

  30·9

  Shetland

  6·0

  17·0

  23·0

  4·5

  19·0

  23·5

  5·0

  23·5

  28·5

  7·5

  19·1

  26·6

  Tayside

  63·0

  77·0

  140·0

  111·8

  48·1

  159·9

  121·2

  57·8

  179·0

  111·8

  59·0

  170·8

  Western Isles

  —

  52·0

  52·0

  1·0

  40·8

  41·8

  2·6

  40·8

  43·4

  —

  33·9

  33·9

  Table 2

  Estimated home population: age 65 and over; by health board; as at 30 June

  1976

  1981

  1986

  11990

  Scotland

  698,149

  726,604

  742,568

  761,399

  Argyll and Clyde

  56,873

  59,972

  61,873

  63,278

  Ayrshire and Arran

  48,452

  52,520

  54,377

  56,818

  Borders

  17,718

  18,755

  18,855

  19,421

  Dumfries and Galloway

  20,987

  22,877

  24,154

  25,624

  Fife

  44,685

  48,949

  50,413

  52,805

  Forth Valley

  32,992

  35,436

  37,296

  39,317

  Grampian

  66,016

  68,886

  69,309

  71,723

  Greater Glasgow

  152,586

  146,411

  146,652

  143,938

  Highland

  25,175

  27,935

  28,146

  29,676

  Lanarkshire

  55,873

  61,186

  65,364

  69,049

  Lothian

  104,046

  106,999

  109,641

  111,433

  Orkney

  2,933

  3,213

  3,224

  3,229

  Shetland

  3,040

  3,247

  3,132

  3,117

  Tayside

  60,818

  64,352

  64,488

  66,360

  Western Isles

  5,955

  5,866

  5,644

  5,611

  1 Latest available estimates.

  Scottish Universities (Irish Students)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students from the Republic of Ireland are presently receiving their higher education at each university in Scotland; and what is the estimated contribution of his Department towards their tuition fees.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 February 1992]: In academic year 1991–92 there were in total 307 students from the Republic of Ireland attending higher education courses at universities in Scotland. Information on the numbers attending individual universities is not available centrally. In 1991–92, the cost to the Scottish Office education department of paying tuition fees on behalf of the Irish full-time undergraduates is approximately £454,000, assuming that they are all eligible for such payments.
  502
  health visiting, district nursing and midwifery. Numbers of potential elderly domiciliary clients are not available, however table 2 shows the populations of those 65 and over.

  Fines
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he will take to introduce day or unit fines in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 February 1992]: My right hon. Friend will consider the case for unit fines in Scotland further in the light of experience of the statutory scheme to be introduced in England and Wales under the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the initiatives taken by his Department to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and indicate the estimated reduction for each initiative by(a) 2000 and (b)

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 February 1992]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on Thursday 6 February 1992 by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment at column 231.

  Recycling
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all measures undertaken by his Department to achieve the target set for the proportion of household waste to be recycled by 2000; and what is the estimated impact of each measure.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 February 1992]: I refer the hon. Member to the document, "This Common Inheritance—the First Year Report", published in September 1991. Since then the Government have published a report on deposit and refund systems for beverage containers and batteries and have commissioned a major study of economic instruments necessary to encourage the recovery of resources from waste. We are also considering whether any special study of the Scottish situation is required. These reports, together with the

  503
  recycling plans which are now being prepared by every waste collection authority in Scotland, will enable us to assess the extent of any further action that we will need to take.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 630, what is the estimated outturn expenditure for 1991–92 by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board on compensation to victims of crimes of violence in Scotland; and how many victims received compensation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 February 1992]: It is estimated that outturn expenditure by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board on compensation to victims of crimes of violence in Scotland will be of the order of £14 million in 1991–92, but an estimate of the number of victims who will receive compensation is not yet available. In 1990–91 12·5 million was paid to 4,845 victims in Scotland.

  Ferry Services (Orkney and Shetland)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations his Department has made to the European Commission regarding the inclusion of ferry services to Orkney and Shetland within the ambit of community assistance under the European regional development fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 February 1992]: As I have made clear previously, the Government are willing to consider alternative arrangements for financial support for ferry services to Orkney and Shetland, including the possibility of attracting additional European Community funding. As yet, however, we have received no specific proposals for alternative financial arrangements. My Department discussed in December of last year with Orkney and Shetland islands councils the possibility of commissioning a study into alternative arrangements for financial support for ferry services.

  Mink
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) on how many occasions in 1990 and 1991 his inspectors supervised, examined or monitored the slaughter of factory farm mink by injection or gassing;

  (2) if he will outline the methods of gassing used to kill mink observed by his inspectors during visits to fur factory farms in 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 February 1992]: A member of the state veterinary service observed the one gassing session used on a mink farm in Scotland in 1990. This was carried out by means of an internal combustion engine bubbling a mixture of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide through a purification chamber into a wooden box into which mink were inserted. The one other mink farm uses the injection method, but was not observed in operation.

  Ewes
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has of the number of flocks of 1,000 ewes or more in each regional and islands area of Scotland in 1990.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 February 1992]: The information requested is given in the following table:

  Flocks of 1,000 ewes or more

  Borders

  143

  Central

  44

  Dumfries and Galloway

  108

  Fife

  4

  Grampian

  14

  Highland

  82

  Lothian

  22

  Strathclyde

  147

  Tayside

  79

  Orkney

  4

  Shetland

  9

  Western Isles

  6

  Scotland

  659

  Source: Agricultural Census: June 1990.

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

Hong Kong: Governor
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have yet come to a decision on the appointment of the next Governor of Hong Kong.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, no decision has yet been taken on that matter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his Answer will do nothing to diminish the anxiety caused by the delay in announcing the appointment, following the indication of the resignation of the present governor? In view of the desirability in those circumstances of creating certainty as soon as possible, will the Government expedite their decision?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the governor has done, is doing and will continue to do an excellent job for Hong Kong. He has the full support of the British Government, and a decision will be taken in due course.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a warm tribute should be paid to Sir David Wilson for the wise and balanced way in which he has conducted his duties as governor? Will the Minister tell the House what is the cause of the delay? Given that 1997 is not far away, stability and confidence are needed in Hong Kong at this time. Is the Minister aware that the retirement of Sir David, coupled with the delay in appointing a new governor, is not helping the situation there?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will join with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in thanking the governor for the work that he has done so successfully in Hong Kong. It was never intended that he should stay until 1997; he has been there for five years. As I have said, a decision will be made in the near future.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is it not of the utmost importance that the right decision is made rather than that the decision is expedited?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is right.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, will the Minister be so good as to answer the supplementary question asked by his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter? Is he aware of the anxieties felt by people in Hong Kong, which the delay is increasing rather than diminishing?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and I have met members of EXCO and LEGCO. Indeed, we have met many people from Hong Kong, and we have heard their views.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, are the Government proposing to have consultations with the Opposition on this matter, which ought to be bipartisan? If not, will the Minister explain why?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the appointment is made by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, would it not be better if the Government now said that they are in no position to make an appointment until well after the election? Will they also add that this is not a good time for a change of governor in Hong Kong? With Hong Kong back on the rails after the Tiananmen incident; with a newly-elected legislative council; and with business confidence very high, why should the Government at this time throw the new element of uncertainty and misunderstanding into the pot? We might think of the uncertainty and the misrepresentation that might have been caused in Peking, let alone in Hong Kong. Will the Government say now that no change will be made before a certain date well into the second half of this year? That might help the situation.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is most unlikely that a decision will be made before the election. However, as the noble Lord will know from his personal experience, and as he told the House recently when speaking in the debate on the Unstarred Question, his announcement of his intention to leave Hong Kong was made four months before the date of departure, and the appointment of his successor was announced only one month before.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind the sympathy that I have with all the questions that have been asked? Will he explain why the announcement about the resignation of Sir David Wilson was made at that particular time? It created not only great anger, misunderstanding and uncertainty in the colony, but great embarrassment for an outstandingly able public servant.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not believe that there was any anger. Certainly people were sad that the announcement was made. We believed that it was entirely appropriate that someone who had done so well should be given a Peerage, and that at the same time a decision should be made about the future.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, when the Government are considering this appointment, perhaps they will bear in mind the splendid, statesmanlike noble Baroness, Lady Dunn. I have seen her in action, as have many of your Lordships. She would make an excellent governor.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hear what the noble Baroness says.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the Minister confirm whether the appointment is subject to consultation with the Government of the People's Republic of China?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the appointment is made by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Environmental Policy: Meetings
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many meetings of the standing committee of "green" Ministers took place during the period 30th September 1990 to 31st December 1991.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, there are two standing committees of Ministers on the environment: one is chaired by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister; the other is chaired by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The groups have met as and when necessary to monitor progress on Britain's environmental strategy as set out in the White Paper This Common Inheritance, and to develop policies.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is it not the case that the first meeting of either committee did not take place until July 1991, which is 10 months after the publication of the White Paper? Does she agree that departments continue to conflict with each other? For example, the planning policies of the DoE are constantly overridden and are certainly contested by the Department of Transport. Will she say what evidence there is that the system is working? A number of us believe that there has been little difference since the committees were created.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Baroness. Both committees have met a number of times. The "green" Ministers from each department, apart from the formal committee meetings, have a remit both within and across their departments to assess the environmental impact of policies. There is now a network, and mechanisms are in place to make sure that the environmental impact of policies, both as they apply to a single department and as they interact with other departments, are assessed. Much progress has been made.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, is it not an example of the real lack of co-ordination between departments that according to a Select Committee on Energy in another place, the White Paper has had little impact on the Department of Energy's expenditure priorities?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not agree with what the noble Baroness said. First, there is a great deal of co-operation. We are the first government to issue a major statement on environmental policy, and we are the first government to have had a "green" Minister in every department. It is also worth saying that most of those "green" Ministers are senior
582
Ministers, and six of them are the Secretaries of State of those departments. The proof of the pudding is very much in the actions which have been taken as the result of the White Paper. A large number—over 400 —of measures have been taken. The noble Baroness need only refer to the first annual report and she will see that a great deal has been achieved in the course of one year.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it was a Conservative Prime Minister in 1970 who thought up the idea of having a Department of the Environment, the first such department that we ever had?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Moreover, the whole issue of environmental policy now permeates out from that department across all departments. The United Kingdom is taking a world lead in integrating environmental policies across government. As I said, there is a "green" Minister in every department. There are regular and full progress reports which are in the public domain. There are new discussion forums with business, local government and the voluntary sector. There is new guidance for government on assessing the environmental impact of policies, and over 400 individual measures have been taken to improve the environment. The noble Baroness will be able to see in the next annual report the progress which has been made in the second year of this policy.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Baroness include in her examination some of the frightening reports about what is happening to the ozone layer? That may not be an environmental question, but environmental features are causing danger to our world.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. This Government initiated global conferences to discuss such issues as the ozone layer and global warming. The previous Prime Minister was very much involved, and my right honourable friend the present Prime Minister is very much involved in those discussions and conferences.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not realise that matters are getting worse?
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, perhaps I may have the temerity to correct the Minister. The Department of the Environment was set up in Harold Wilson's day when he was Prime Minister, and Tony Crosland was about to become the Secretary of State for the department when there was a change of government. I mention that because as a civil servant I was given the responsibility of trying to put together what became the Department of the Environment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I may be wrong, and if I am I shall write to the noble Lord. However, I believe that a Conservative Government set up the Department of the Environment. I repeat that if I am wrong, I shall write to the noble Lord.
What is most important is that in practice there is now a mechanism not just across Whitehall but across

583
all countries of the world so that the impact of all important environmental matters, such as global warming, is taken into account. To coin a phrase, from the stratosphere to the street corner there are now policies in place to ensure the furtherance of environmental issues so that policies are developed not only in this country but throughout the world. Therefore, it is possible to achieve a co-ordinated objective.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, regarding the question of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, did not the Conservative Party sack that Prime Minister as their leader? Are they not likely to do the same with the present Prime Minister when he loses the next election?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I see no reason to associate the point made by the noble Lord with the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not the case that the creation of hot air is a great danger to global warming? Perhaps we should move on to the next Question.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is an important debate. It is an important Question, and I take it seriously. However, what I can say and what I wish to say as an addendum to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is that it is increasingly the case that the scientific data being collated towards an understanding of what is happening to the planet, and the developing of policies to ensure that the worst effects of what we are doing are addressed, are much sounder than they ever were.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the Minister accept that we support the idea of a "green" Minister in each department? It was our anxiety that that policy might not be working that urged me to table the Question in the first place. We support the idea and believe it to be a good one. We are anxious that it should succeed. However, when a Select Committee of the other place finds reason for anxiety in regard to the Department of Energy, my noble friend's Question should receive a more careful Answer than that given by the noble Baroness. The Question was not tabled lightly.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, one of the fundamental tasks of all Members of this House and another place is to keep a downward pressure on any government to ensure that policies are working. Of course everything is not perfect. From time to time things will be found wanting. In defence of that, a mechanism is in place to ensure that there is robust discussion both within and across departments, across government as a whole —presided over by the Prime Minister, no less—and to take the issue beyond the shores of this country to the European and the global sphere.

Employment Action Scheme
2.52 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to increase the number of unemployed people participating in the Employment Action Scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, Employment Action is being delivered in the main by TECs in England and Wales and by local enterprise companies in Scotland. They are well on their way to providing 30,000 places by March and are working closely with the employment service to fill places as they come on stream.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. Last June the Secretary of State announced that the scheme would provide 60,000 unemployed people with work experience on local projects in a full year. Is not the Answer that 30,000 places are expected by the end of March therefore disappointing in that connection? Will the noble Viscount also say whether or not it is true that a number of training and enterprise councils have refused to help in the running of the scheme on the grounds that there is within it an insufficient training component? If that is so, what are the Government doing about it?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, EA is meant as a six-month programme. With 30,000 places available we therefore expect to help 60,000 people in the course of a year. That is a matter of simple arithmetic. However, the noble Lord is correct that seven TECs decided not to co-operate in producing EA in their areas. That was not because training was not involved but because the scheme did not fit in with their business plans. The department's regional office has contracted directly with one or two providers for EA projects in those areas. Therefore the whole country is covered with providers.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is it not over-optimistic of the Government to expect a scheme to be a success which does not include a mandatory training element and in which the people concerned are expected to participate for only £10 expenses per week over and above the benefit level?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, a training scheme is already up and running. Those who do not need the training or the vocational qualifications to which that training leads, who possess basic and current skills but who need to keep their skills up to date and brushed up, need Employment Action. It is important that they continue with their job search while training in order to return to the labour force as soon as possible.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind the tens of thousands of families now suffering through the long-term unemployment of the breadwinner, would it not be useful for the Government, having

585
introduced the scheme—which is helpful—to hold detailed consultations with both the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not see the locus for that. The training and enterprise councils are delivering EA in their localities. It is mainly employers who sit on the boards of the TECs. They possess the knowledge of the areas and the skills required, and therefore of what can be done in terms of other jobs —for example, in community projects and the like—to assist where otherwise people would be unemployed. The benefit of EA is that it helps people keep their current skills up to date.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is not the principal cause for the Government's trouble that, although they have plans for the increased training of those who are at present out of work, the ruthless ideological pursuit of their own economic policies automatically increases the number of those unemployed?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have said before from the Dispatch Box that it is difficult to consider that this country runs in isolation. Indeed, the turndown in the economy is being seen in practically every other western nation, together with Japan. It is therefore important that the training for the unemployed and Employment Action—which is another string to the bow and another opportunity for the unemployed —is kept as an option.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Viscount justify his statement that there is a general turndown in the world economy? Apart from the United States and Canada, Japan, France, Germany and Holland all grew last year. We went down, and that is the truth.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord is selective in what he says. Unfortunately, as the noble Lord is aware, we trade considerably with the United States. It therefore affects our economy when the economy of that country turns down. As I said, Japan's economy is also turning down. The noble Lord is therefore wrong to suggest that they are all going up.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the cruelty of placing people on a training scheme when there is no job at the end of it?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is the wrong conclusion to draw. Many people, through a structural change in the economy, unfortunately face redundancy from whole industries which sometimes have to close down. It is important that those people receive training to help them get back into the labour market as soon as possible.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. However, will he address himself to the point I put to him regarding the small amount payable in expenses over and above the benefit level? Are people really expected to regard that as an incentive to join the schemes?
Viscount Ullswater; My Lords, Employment Action is giving people an opportunity to exercise their skills and is not a substitute for real jobs. On that basis, with the limited amount of money that is always available at public expense, it helps more people than if they were to be paid a full wage.

UK Aid and Debt Receipts
3 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the latest figures for United Kingdom overseas aid and for United Kingdom receipts from interest on developing countries' debts.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this financial year the Government are providing £1,787 million in overseas aid to developing countries. The total of debt interest payments from developing countries to the United Kingdom Government during 1990–91 was £232 million.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Earl take this opportunity either to confirm or deny figures published by Christian Aid showing that debt repayments in 1990, taking into account new loans, government and voluntary aid, export credits and investment, exceeded the official and private flows by £2,493 million?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord omits one important figure that contributed to that sum, which is bank lending. If he knew the rules on bank lending he would recognise that, although there is a figure of £6,100 million concerning that provision, the sum includes—although it looks like a repayment —a write-off. It may help the noble Lord to know that the OECD in its figures for 1991 assesses that developing countries received £26.1 billion more than they paid out.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is it not also relevant to bear in mind that British banks and, I believe, the United Kingdom Government have in a number of cases waived the interest payments which they were otherwise expecting to receive?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is right. When my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer he put forward the Trinidad terms specifically in order to relieve debt in developing countries. As Prime Minister he is pushing forward that scheme and gaining support from other countries.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, do the Government accept the United Nations target figure of 0.7 per cent. of GNP? If so, will the Minister say what is the present percentage contributed by the British Government and when they expect to achieve the United Nations target?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is an important question, but not relevant to the one on the Order Paper.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the Minister referred to the Trinidad terms. Many people welcome the Prime Minister's initiative. However, does the Minister agree that it is scarred by the evidence that since then the Paris Club, in dealings with Nicaragua and Benin, for example, has scaled down those terms; that America has secured an opt-out option; and that there is considerable dismay that the terms are not being pursued as vigorously as we had hoped? Will the Minister take back to the Prime Minister the view that he should pursue vigorously what he set out in those terms as one of the most effective ways of assisting third world countries?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is pursuing that matter. It was as a direct result of the Prime Minister's proposal that in December 1991 the Paris Club of government creditors agreed to implement enhanced debt relief measures for the poorest countries implementing economic reforms.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, recognising that the amount of overseas aid that the Government give is very high, especially when compared with yesteryear, can the Minister give some assurance that the aid goes to the right people at the right time, which is much more important?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. The quality of aid is just as important as the quantity. On more than one occasion we have been commended on the way we use our aid.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the present low level of government aid to developing countries is not in line with the level of public contributions to agencies working in the third world? For example, is he aware that while the value of official development assistance in 1990 was only two-thirds of its 1979 value, money donated to voluntary organisations by the public increased from £150 million to £184 million in that period, which was an increase of 13 per cent.?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that shows that the prosperity which we have brought to the country has resulted in very generous donations.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister said that the question asked by my noble friend Lord Ennals was not relevant. Is the Minister aware of the huge difference in money terms between what is spent by the Government and the United Nations target? Does he agree that if we attained the United Nations target the amount that we would be contributing to overseas aid would not be £1,787 million, but £3,560-odd million?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that again is an important question but not relevant to what appears on the Order Paper.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, following on from my noble friends Lord Ennals and Lord Stoddart, is it not the case that, according to the OECD report which I have read, the Government's contribution today is 0.27 per cent. of GNP, which is
588
the lowest on record? Does the Minister agree that that is disgraceful? Is he aware that 144,000 children die of disease or starvation every three days? Does he agree that the Government should do better, given that they have performed a miracle over the past 13 years?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, again, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition raises an important point, but it is not related to the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will look at the first part of the Question on the Order Paper, which asks,
"what are the latest figures for United Kingdom overseas aid"?
In those circumstances how can he say that the questions put by three noble Lords on this side of the House are not relevant?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, because the Question refers also to,
"receipts from interest on developing countries' debts".
It was the net flow which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, was asking about.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that he is taking advantage of the traditional courtesy of this House and that he would not be allowed to get away with that kind of answer in another place?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, far from omitting bank loans, in the figures I gave I specifically mentioned new loans. Will the noble Earl answer my original supplementary question as to whether he accepts the figures given by Christian Aid, whose report I am sure he has read, or whether he rejects them? All the figures are taken from government figures. If he rejects them can the Minister point out where they are at fault?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I did not dispute the figures because they are as the noble Lord says and appear in British Overseas Aid: Annual Review 1990–91. I was explaining that the figure for bank lending looks like a huge repayment. However, because of banking conventions, it takes account of bank write-offs.
The Lord Bishop of Saint Albans: My Lords, perhaps I may ask an easy question of the Minister. If he agrees that the figures given by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, represent generosity on the part of the public, does he also accept that they also represent the public will, which may be the right pointer to Her Majesty's Government for steadily increasing overseas aid knowing that they have the support of the people?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I would very much like to take part in a debate on the subject. If the right reverend Prelate will table a similar Question, then perhaps we can debate that specific issue.

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill consolidates the enactments relating to trade unions, employers' associations, industrial relations and industrial action. It is the first consolidation in this field and includes legislation going back for more than a century. While the views of the Members of this House on the merits of the many changes of more recent origin may differ, on one matter I believe we can all unite and that is the undoubted need for a consolidation. Enactments relating to individual employment rights were consolidated in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, and some of the provisions in that Act have been re-enacted in this Bill.
The Bill has been drafted by parliamentary counsel at the Law Commission. The work involved in producing the Bill has been considerable and will be much appreciated, I believe, by those who have to consider and advise on the law in this area. The work on the part of the Joint Committee in examining a Bill such as this is also, I am sure, much appreciated by all noble Lords.
If your Lordships are content to give the Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the Motion put forward by the noble and learned Lord for this very important consolidation Bill. It is a Bill in which the interests of citizens and lawyers are happily congruent in making the law more accessible. As the noble and learned Lord has said, the Bill consolidates legislation which goes back over a century. It will be the future reference point for debate—a debate which will go on—about the law on industrial relations. It will therefore take the place of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974—TULRA, as it is known in the trade. Since I had a small part in preparing that Bill, perhaps I can say that it is a sentimental occasion. It also brings back, as the noble and learned Lord said, the thought of how we can thank those who have prepared this very difficult consolidation Bill, which includes not only a table of derivations but also a table of destinations, and how, in thanking them, we can in anticipation thank the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, which we know from past experience will subject it to a close and careful scrutiny as regards content and style.
In no partisan sense do I note that this consolidation Bill is also a first in another respect. In 1975 provisions were put on to the statute book to implement a directive of the European Community on redundancy procedures. It is now public knowledge that the European Commission opines that this is not
590
an adequate implementation. In this Bill we are quite properly re-enacting those provisions. I believe that this is the first time that such a delicate matter has arisen on a consolidation measure. Such issues, however, do not in any way diminish our thanks to those who have drafted the Bill and our support for the Bill. We gladly support the Motion moved by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I know he does not wish to be partisan in these matters but perhaps I may ask him whether it is his opinion that this consolidation Bill will make it easier for a Labour government to repeal the oppressive and repressive measures on industrial relations which have been enacted over the past 11 years.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I think I had already sat down.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and those who have helped to compile this much needed Bill. It will be useful, especially to people like personnel managers, trade union officers and even lawyers, who must have been finding it increasingly difficult to find their way through the maze of industrial relations legislation introduced by both Conservative and Labour governments—like the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, and the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, I shall not now say for better or for worse—over the past 20 years.
I am sure it will also be very helpful to those of your Lordships who take a special interest in these matters. We welcome the Bill most warmly.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, for what he said and also to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, was getting into the subject matter of the Bill; so far as that is concerned, the only question is whether or not this is a proper consolidation.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Bill [H.L.]
3.14 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education (Schools) Bill
3.14 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to be able to open our debate on the Education (Schools) Bill, which takes forward the central reforms promised in the citizen's and parent's charters. The charters have been widely welcomed for their commitment to more open and accountable public services. I think your Lordships will see, as I explain the main sections of the Bill, that it is a measure very much in line with those principles—a measure which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has described as helping to demystify education for all parents.
That there is a need for such demystification is not in doubt. When the Department of Education carried out a survey in 1989, some two-thirds of parents said they would welcome more information about what went on in schools. As we shall see, this Bill will guarantee them that information as well as meet the needs of schools themselves to know how well they are doing and how they might do better.
The proposals set out here build naturally on a decade of reforming education legislation. The 1980 Act gave parents the right to say which school they wanted their child to attend and guaranteed them some basic information to inform that choice. The 1986 Act, which was introduced in your Lordships' House and which owed much to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, gave parents the right to vote for the largest group on their governing body and gave governing bodies a more formal role in their schools' affairs.
The 1988 Act introduced more open enrolment to widen choice for parents, and local management of schools giving governors responsibility for their school's budget and staffing as well as oversight of curriculum policies. It allows parents to vote if they wish for grant-maintained status for their school.
It follows from those changes that parents and governors need the best possible information if they are to make the most of the new rights they have been given and if they are to exercise their new responsibilities wisely. It is that need for regular, reliable and comparable information which this Bill is designed to meet. The first area it tackles is the need for more and better school inspection evidence.
It may surprise noble Lords that, given the role of Her Majesty's Inspectorate and local education authorities, such information is not currently available. But the amount and nature of inspection now carried out by HMI does not meet the need for published information at school level. Only 150 HMI reports on schools were published last year. At that rate it would take some 200 years to cover all primary schools and 60 years to cover all secondary schools.
In addition, of course, HMI has met the increasing demand for evidence and advice to inform national policies by carrying out inspections focused on issues rather that on individual schools—surveys such as that of primary reading which have fed through into
592
national reports and advice. But they have not been able to meet the needs of more than a small number or schools for a thorough inspection of the school as a whole.
Local authorities have not been able or willing to fill the gap. That is a position on which all sides are, I believe, agreed. The problems of local inspection services in many areas are well known—irregular and unsystematic inspections, unpublished reports, reports which describe but do not evaluate, and, where judgments are made, variations in the standards applied.
The 1989 Audit Commission report on the school inspection service in local education authorities was fairly damning. It depicted a system in disarray, without clear policies and guidelines. Inspectors spent in some cases as little as 3 per cent. of their time in classrooms looking at teaching. Inspection and advice were not clearly distinguished, so that in some areas inspectors told schools what to do and then checked up to see they were doing it rather than evaluating whether or not it worked.
The publication of the Audit Commission report and the reforms we have set in place have combined to push authorities towards reform. Some are now doing very well. But progress has been slow and patchy. A few authorities still believe that inspection and advice cannot be distinguished, will not appoint staff called inspectors and will only validate schools' self-review rather than make their own judgments about standards. And those who accept the need for inspection are generally some way from setting in place reliable systems.
HMI's latest annual report states that,
"as yet a little over a third [of LEAs] have systems in place which are likely to yield valid and reliable outcomes"—
even as judged by the LEAs' own objectives. And of course validity is not the only issue. If we want to know how schools in one area compare with another we also want national consistency, something which the current system cannot provide. So long as each LEA can appoint and train its own inspectors, devise its own inspection system, and set its own criteria, parents will never be able to compare like with like when considering reports on schools in different parts of the country.
So the urgent need for reform in this area is not in doubt. The debate is only about how it is to he managed. Our proposals are clearly set out in the Bill. Two new posts of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools will be established —one for England and one for Wales—and the office holders will head their own Departments of State, with their own powers and duties. Each HMCI will have a statutory duty to keep the Secretary of State informed about key aspects of school education. They will he able to report as and when they want, and as publicly as they wish, on any matter related to their functions—as they do now. The important new element of HMI's role, however, is their responsibility for the registration, training and monitoring of "registered inspectors" who will conduct regular school inspections within guidelines laid down by HMI. Schools will be obliged to arrange such inspections every four years.

593
HMCIs will have access to every inspection report to assist their monitoring. These reports—more than 6,000 every year—will also build up into a computerised database of evidence which will help HMI to assess and report on the performance of the school system as a whole. We have never before had such a volume of hard evidence about our schools; nor have parents, governors and LEAs. Even the very best LEAs do not at present match the system we propose for regular, and publicly reported, whole school inspection.
Noble Lords will know that these proposals have been the subject of controversy in another place. The main objection is—to put it bluntly—that we cannot trust governors to choose their own inspectors. It has been alleged that governors will look for a soft option, and will aim to find an inspector willing to ignore their school's failings. I think that simple analysis fails to recognise the rigorous checks built into the new system. The inspection will be commissioned by the governors, not by the staff whose work is under examination; and the largest group on the governing body are lay men and women, representing parents and the community served by the school. Parents have the largest voice. It is not in the interests of these groups to sweep problems under the carpet. In the interests of their children they will want an honest picture, not a whitewash.
Secondly, the inspectors to be chosen will be registered by and working within guidelines set down by the new chief inspector. I cannot of course tell the House what those guidelines will be. They are a professional matter for the new HMCI once appointed. But they will certainly build on the best practice established by HMI in this area. There will be no room for reports which do not address the important issues and make clear the standards being achieved. There will be a central core of hard statistical information around which the report must be written. A registered inspector who does not meet the guidelines will have his livelihood on the line. There are provisions for striking off for the production of a misleading report.
The third factor reinforces the others. We are setting in place a system of much greater openness than ever before. The inspection team will have to meet parents and listen to their concerns, and their report will have to be sent in summary to all parents. I am sure parents will make their views known and press for an explanation if they are not addressed in the report. The action plan and progress reports will always be published. And under Clause 16 of the Bill we shall be requiring the publication each year of information about how the school is doing on a range of indicators, compared with other local schools as well as with national and local averages. In such an environment, the chances of a "soft" report going unchallenged are extremely remote.
So those three things—parental concern, HMI's regulation and greater openness—offer the checks which are needed. They give the responsibility for commissioning inspection to those who must follow up the inspection report—the governors who now
594
make key planning decisions for their school. Our proposals are built on the principles of sound management. Those who are responsible for the report and its follow-up are those responsible—and publicly accountable—for the management of the school. That is as it should be. We believe that governors are more likely to act with vigour on a published report from inspectors they have commissioned than on an unpublished report from those wished on them by their LEA.
This is in direct contrast with the Opposition's view that LEAs should continue to be responsible for school inspection but should have their local arrangements "validated" by HMI. That detracts from the governors' central role; and it does not offer the guarantee of national standards which our proposals will establish. Under our model HMI sets the standards, from the centre. That is very different from negotiating with 100 or so LEAs about whether their inspection proposals are acceptable.
Our opponents have suggested as an analogy for our system letting the restaurant pick its own inspectors. I think that our description is better in letting the diners pick the inspector, rather than, as in the Opposition's proposals, letting head office choose one of its employees as the inspector for its entire restaurant chain.
There have been some other arguments against the inspection plans with which I should like to deal more briefly. We have been accused of trying to emasculate the national inspectorate by cutting HMI numbers to around 175 from 470 at present. It is important to compare like with like, and the current numbers quoted contain some 140 HMI working in further and higher education which will not be the responsibility of the new office of HMCI. Noble Lords will recall from the Further and Higher Education Bill recently before the House that responsibility for quality control in this sector is to pass to the new funding councils.
I do not deny that there will be a reduction in HMI numbers dealing with schools. The figure of 175 is our best estimate of the number of HMI needed to do the new job in steady state—when the first rush of training and registration of inspectors has been completed. It takes full account of the enormous amount of inspection evidence which the new system will then provide. The current senior chief inspector is confident of the figures now being used for planning purposes, but of course the precise complement of the chief inspector's office will be a matter for negotiation each year, like that of any other government department. Numbers will not be fixed for all time.
I am sure noble Lords will not fall into the trap of equating the size of the inspectorate with its influence. The Bill entails a significant increase in the status, role and responsibilities of HMI. It does not limit or reduce their power and influence. It is because we want to preserve and strengthen HMI's important role that we have proceeded in this way.
Secondly, we have been accused of "privatising" the inspectorate. That is rather an odd use of the term. Far from privatising Her Majesty's Inspectorate, we have set it up as a new government department.

595
Moreover, while we have opened up the previous monopoly of local authority inspection to competition from outside, we are not removing the power of the local education authority to offer such services.
Thirdly, we have been accused of handing inspection over to the non-professionals because the Bill requires one member of each inspection team to be someone without professional experience in education. Of course, we expect that the majority of team members will be professionals. But we certainly make no apology for adding the voice of the intelligent lay observer. Two of the main audiences for the report are not educationists; they are parents and governors. A lay member on the team will ensure not only that their concerns are addressed but also that the report is written in a style which the ordinary reader can understand, rather than coded in educational jargon. I suspect that many noble Lords will support that aim.
I should like now to turn to the other main strand of the Bill: the publication of information. I have mentioned that one of the checks on inspection reports will be how they relate to the annual information published about each school. Clause 16 of the Bill adds to current regulation-making powers the ability to secure that comparative tables of performance are published each year, and that they cover all schools in an area—local authority, grant-maintained and independent.
While there has been some opposition to that concept, I note that the Opposition did not vote against Clause 16 in Committee. I believe that they accept in principle the right of parents to have access to information about school performance. Debates on the clause will benefit from the Government's proposals for the publication of information issued this year. On 10th January a consultation document was published on our information proposals for 1992, which go as far as current legal powers allow and also encourage local authorities to anticipate requirements that we shall put in place formally from 1993. Copies of that document are available in the Library of the House.
As well as requiring an annual written report on each pupil, our proposals involve the publication of comparative tables covering public examination results and the destinations of secondary school pupils at 16 and 18—whether they stay on at school, move into further or higher education, or obtain employment. Truancy rates will be added next year, and national curriculum assessment results will be included in due course. Other indicators can be added when sound measures are available.
The tables will not be crude league tables. Schools will be listed in alphabetical order and, on examination results for example, noble Lords will see that we plan not only to show how many pupils achieve the grades necessary for entry to further and higher education, but also how far each school manages to secure that its least able pupils have some examination success.
Of course, we accept that the figures in those comparative tables will not tell parents or anyone else all that they need to know in order to tell whether the school is doing well or badly by its pupils. We all know
596
that schools face very different challenges, which need to be taken into account in looking at the tables. But parents know that as well as we do and will judge schools accordingly. Before choosing a school, they will look at the prospectus which gives full information about the school and its policies and will help set performance tables in context.
The fact that the figures do not tell the whole story is no reason for withholding information from parents. Schools and LEAs have been collecting such information for many years. We are simply giving it the light of day. Examination data have been available to parents school by school since 1981. Putting more comparable information into the public domain will encourage debate about how schools are performing. The inspection reports every four years will take that debate further by examining the reasons for that performance.
There has been some suggestion that tables cannot be fair unless they are adjusted to take account of socio-economic factors. But there is no agreement about how such adjustments might be made. They would have the effect of reinforcing low expectations, which Her Majesty's Inspectorate has consistently shown to be the major factor holding back the progress of pupils in deprived areas.
A more reasonable suggestion is that information should be published about the educational progress made by pupils while at school—so called, "value-added." The powers in the Bill would allow us to require such publication in due course. The national curriculum and the availability of assessment results at key ages will certainly allow value added to be calculated. But there is, as yet, no agreed method for value-added analysis. The Audit Commission has carried out some experimental work, but major problems remain to be resolved. Reliable national curriculum data on the progress of one cohort of pupils will not be available to feed into value-added analysis until the end of the century. That is why we have resisted attempts to require it to be mentioned on the face of the Bill, although the Bill certainly allows for such data to be published once reliable measures are available.
There is one particular aspect of education which I know is of particular interest to noble Lords; namely, the treatment of pupils with special educational needs. Concern has been expressed in the House recently about the very variable way in which the 1981 Act has been implemented by local education authorities.
I believe that the Bill will help to expose unequal treatment and unsatisfactory provision in a way which noble Lords must welcome. First, we are determined that the benefits of the inspection provisions of the Bill will be felt by all pupils in special schools, many of which have never had a full inspection. We shall be ensuring that all maintained special schools are inspected every four years on the same cycle as other schools. We have also extended the duty to arrange inspections to two categories of independent school; that is, non-maintained special schools and those independent schools which are approved by the Secretary of State to admit pupils with statements of special educational need.

597
As a result, the schools at which the vast majority of pupils with statements are placed will be inspected regularly and the results of those inspections published for the benefit of parents and of the LEAs who place pupils at the schools. That will help to show the range of special provision made for pupils with similar problems in different areas, and will, I am sure, be used to press where necessary for changes.
In addition, of course, the provision made in mainstream schools for children with special educational need—whether or not they have statements—will be inspected on a regular cycle and the results published. Parents will thus have a much better basis on which to consider, and if necessary challenge, what is being done by schools and LEAs to meet the needs of this very vulnerable group of pupils.
We added to the Bill during its passage in another place a power for Her Majesty's Inspectorate to arrange inspections where the governors were unable to find a team to do so. We had particularly in mind the case of a school catering for a very specialised group of special needs pupils, where the only inspection expertise remains with HMI. For that reason, among others, there are no plans at present to make any significant reduction in the number of special needs HMIs. The Secretary of State will continue to need advice on cases and appeals and on general aspects of policy. Planning assumptions are that 15 full-time HMIs will be needed for that role, as opposed to 17 at present.
I know that some noble Lords are also worried about the publication of performance information about special schools and pupils with special needs in ordinary schools. There are no easy answers to those concerns, although I have already indicated that we do not—as some press reports have suggested—intend to sanction the publication of crude league tables of results. Pupils with statements may be very able. We do not want to omit their achievements from the record. Pupils without statements may have learning difficulties; but if we allowed teachers to decide which of such pupils were to be omitted from the tables we should be reinforcing low expectations and misleading parents. Schools were once able to inflate apparent examination success by refusing to let less able pupils take public examinations. We have removed that loophole under our new regulations, and hope as a result that all pupils will be given a fair chance. We do not want to revive such problems.
I am sure that we shall debate that issue at length in due course. But I think we shall conclude that allowing schools and LEAs to give supplementary information about the numbers of pupils with statements, for example, offers a better way ahead than trying to adjust the figures in ways which may have unfortunate and unforeseen consequences for the very pupils we are trying to help.
The proposals in the Bill are designed to encourage a more open and accountable culture in our schools. They provide for more and better school inspection than has been possible in the past, and will make more
598
and better information available to parents and the wider community, and so, crucially, they will be the path to higher standards. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Denton of Wakefield).
3.42 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, this is the worst piece of education legislation I have seen in nearly 30 years of studying education policy in this country. I wish that I could find something to say in favour of the Bill. I have looked in vain. I can find nothing. It is ignorant, misguided and doctrinaire. As we have have just heard, it purports to improve education standards through more frequent inspections of primary and secondary schools, and to give parents valuable information which will help them choose their children's schools and guide them about the quality of what the school is offering while their children attend it. Would that it had a chance of achieving either of those aims, but it has none.
If the Bill is implemented, it would not merely fail to do either of the things it sets out to do; it would cause serious damage to the quality of education in this country. It has been rightly rubbished by every organisation in the education world that has commented upon it. They include bodies which represent governors and parents as well as those representing head teachers, inspectors, local authorities and classroom teachers. Even the Tory press has been highly critical.
The Bill derives from the Parent's Charter, apparently much cherished by Mr. Major, but, regrettably, both the charter and the Bill are an insult to parents. What worries me most is the damage that it will do to the education of millions of children. We cannot run our education system guided by the dogma of the far Right.
The decision to privatise the schools' inspectorate, which is what the Bill is about despite what has just been said by the noble Baroness, is the work of extremists who are obsessed with the destruction of the public sector and with instilling the profit motive into every nook and cranny of our public services, however inappropriate that may be. By destroying the system of inspecting our schools, which has been slowly and carefully built up for more than 150 years, it will eliminate any semblance of expert and rigorous monitoring of education standards. The inspection of schools is not a job for private firms of consultants, bidding to do the job, and undercutting one another to get the work; it is for people who are paid a salary by the state to root out malpractice, to expose failure, and, above all, to be dedicated to raising standards by intervening with advice, support and constructive criticism when poor quality teaching is discovered in our schools.
The first 15 clauses of the Bill put onto the statute book a new system of inspection. The sixteenth and final clause requires schools to publish information about standards of performance. I shall come to that point later, although let me make it clear that we on

599
this side of the House are in favour of the publication of more information about schools, but only so long as it is meaningful and does not mislead.
Let me begin with the Government's proposals for Her Majesty's Inspectorate. A secret report was commissioned last summer on the future of Her Majesty's Inspectorate and was undertaken by DES civil servants. Although we have not been allowed the privilege of seeing that report, which says a good deal about the Government's lack of commitment to open government, we know that at least some of the advice in it has been ignored by the Secretary of State.
The Government claim that the Bill and their related plans for HMI will strengthen the inspectorate, as the noble Baroness has just said. It will do the reverse, both because the size of HMI is to be decimated and because its independence will be undermined by the Bill.
Let me begin with size. From a national inspectorate of over 400—we have just heard the figures—it is to fall to 175 inspectors only. Ministers were advised in the secret review that the inspectorate would need at least 380 to 390 inspectors. In those circumstances, how can they say that the inspectorate is being strengthened? That is laughable. As a result of the cuts in their numbers, Her Majesty's inspectors will be able to undertake few inspections themselves. As a result, they will become more cut off from the system upon which they are supposed to advise Ministers and senior civil servants. We know that the present Secretary of State rarely bothers to visit schools, but there is no substitute for spending time at the chalk-face, observing at close hand what is happening.
During 1989–90, HMI visited or inspected over 6,000 schools. Slashing their numbers, and giving them the unprofitable but time-consuming task of vetting the new privatised inspectorate will mean that they lose the essential contact with schools through inspections, which allows them a detailed working knowledge of what is happening. The sad truth is that the Government are determined to destroy Her Majesty's Inspectorate, as we have known it, because its balanced and expert view of teaching methods and the curriculum does not tie in with the Government's more ideological approach which seems to favour didactic teaching methods and stuffing children with facts, rather than teaching them how to learn on their own, how to be critical and how to acquire skills.
The latest row about the art and music curriculum is just one manifestation of that approach. In short, the Secretary of State thinks that the inspectorate is full of the progressives he so despises. My experience of Her Majesty's inspectors suggests that he is wrong, and that the inspectorate has eschewed embracing the ideologies of traditionalism or progressivism, instead, focusing, as it should, on a pragmatic approach based upon what works and what produces the best outcome in terms of pupils' performance.
The changes proposed mean that Ministers will end up by receiving less well-based advice, and schools will no longer benefit from the criticisms of a highly experienced group of independent experts. It is
600
questionable how well Her Majesty's Inspectorate will be able to train and supervise other inspectors if it is no longer itself inspecting schools.
Her Majesty's inspectors are recruited because they were first-class schoolroom teachers or experienced and highly competent heads or administrators. Yet the Secretary of State is on record as making snide remarks about inspectors being people who cannot teach. What arrant nonsense! What he and his government are doing is destroying a dedicated group of independent experts that has been admired and respected since it was established in 1839.
The great value of Her Majesty's Inspectorate is its independence. The Bill jeopardises that independence. Until now, the senior chief inspector and his or her staff have had greater independence than other civil servants. As a result, their advice has been more independent and has been seen to be more independent. Sometimes this has been inconvenient for Ministers, whatever party was in power. But a national system of inspection and monitoring is not set up for the convenience of Ministers. The Bill now requires the chief inspectors for England and Wales to,
"have regard to such aspects of government policy as the Secretary of State may direct".
Advice from those noble and learned Lords who are lawyers, and therefore know more about this than I do, would be helpful, but I do not believe that any previous legislation has made reference in this way to government policy because it is not a legal concept. If the Government really want the inspectorate to retain its independence, why are they introducing a clause which allows the Secretary of State to direct the chief inspector in what could be a partial and biased way?
But much worse is still to come when we examine the Bill's proposals for the inspection of schools. Large sums of public money are to be transferred from the local authorities to the governing bodies of schools, requiring them to tender for private inspectors who will replace HMI and local authority inspectors and advisers.
When news of the Government's plans first broke, it was received with disbelief. People went around asking wherever this nutty idea had come from. Some said that it emanated from that centre of silly ideas, the Conservative Think-Tank, the Centre for Policy Studies. Others said that it came not from the centre of silly ideas, but from the centre of government—No. 10 Downing Street no less. I know that the Prime Minister does not know much about education; he does not even send his children to state schools. But it appears that his advisers do not know much about it either.
It does not give me pleasure to pour scorn and derision on an important Bill before Parliament; it saddens me. But there are many reasons why a privatised inspectorate along the lines proposed in the Bill will damage education in this country. Contrary to what the Minister has just said, it makes it impossible to compare like with like all over the country; and, worse still, it throws out of the window the principle that the provider and the regulator should be separate.

601
Until now the Government have recognised the importance of this principle. If we wish to protect the consumer of public services and ensure that those services are properly delivered, it is surely right to maintain the arm's length principle with respect to inspection. But the governors of a school are in no sense at arm's length. They run the school on a week to week basis and the head teacher is usually the most influential member of the governing body, which I note the noble Baroness speaking for the Government omitted to say just now in her unconvincing argument about the role of governors. The proposal that the chairman of governors and the head teacher, along with other governors, should select their own inspectors means, in my view and that of the Opposition, that the protection parents and pupils deserve will be unattainable.
What is so bizarre about the proposal is that it is completely at odds with other decisions the Government have taken about regulation. For example, in 1982 the Conservative Government introduced a Bill to prevent local authorities from choosing their own auditors and instead gave this task to the Audit Commission. More recently, when the Secretary of State was responsible for health rather than education and was setting up trust hospitals, he did not allow them to choose their own auditors but again required the choice to be made for them by the Audit Commission. Why has he taken one position with respect to the health service and quite a different one with respect to education? It is extraordinarily inconsistent.
It is patently ludicrous to allow any organisation to choose its own inspectors. Would we be happy to eat in restaurants which could choose their own privatised environmental health inspectors? Of course we would not. Would we be happy to place an elderly relative in an old people's home which could choose its own privatised inspectors? Of course not. Would we be happy if our children worked in a plant which chose its own privatised factory inspectors? Of course not. The Secretary of State is reported as saying that what he proposes is all right, in the same way as it is all right to allow people to choose their own solicitors and accountants. That is bunk. People choose their own lawyers and accountants to work for them. School inspectors should not he working for governors and head teachers, they are to protect the interests of pupils and parents, all pupils and all parents, and of the nation with respect to educational standards. The Bill is based on a profound misconception of who it is that inspectors should serve, as well as undermining the concept of inspectorial independence.
However, it is not only the principle behind the Bill that is entirely wrong. It is also difficult to see how it would work in practice other than to the detriment of parents whose rights the Government say they wish to protect. By allowing schools to choose their own inspectors, the legislation will make it easier for poor standards to go unnoticed. The Parent's Charter will not be worth the glossy paper on which it is written. Under the Bill, schools must obtain at least two tenders from different firms of private inspectors. How
602
will they choose? They will do it partly on the basis of price and partly on who looks likely to be the most sympathetic. Neither is a good basis for rigorous and independent inspections. The cheap firms are likely to be the ones who cut corners; the sympathetic firms are likely to be the ones who pull their punches.
Inspectors whose income depends on contracts to inspect are likely to think hard before openly criticising those who have hired them and paid their fees. Those who are critical are unlikely to be hired again. Head teachers will be less, not more accountable. The system of checking about which we have just heard from the noble Baroness will be extremely hard to operate in practice.
The second practical question concerns who these new private inspectors will be. Where will they come from? I understand that the Government believe that, among others, major firms of management consultants will take this on. I have made a few inquiries. None of the many consultants to whom I have spoken will touch it with a barge pole. They do not believe they have the right kind of expertise, they wish to go on obtaining contracts from local authorities in areas where they have the right expertise and they do not believe that the funding that is available will allow them to do the job competently and make any money out of it.
The Government have said that local authorities can set up units of inspectors who can compete for tenders with the private sector. Given the spending constraints on local authorities and the high risk attached to such an activity, with the possibility of these units remaining without work, I cannot see many authorities wanting to do this.
The danger is that we shall see all kinds of unqualified or semi-qualified cowboys setting up, which in itself will reduce accountability because schools will find it easier to bamboozle people without the experience and knowledge needed to make well-founded judgments about what is going on in schools. Inspecting schools is a highly complex matter where many qualitative judgments have to be made on the basis of expert knowledge. The Minister, when replying, will no doubt say that the rump of Her Majesty's Inspectorate is to register inspectors and train them, though how it is to do that is something of a mystery. But this requirement to register does not extend to members of inspection teams, nor does the Bill make clear what parts of an inspection can be carried out by team members who are not registered, and what by inspectors who are. Perhaps the Minister could clarify this.
The proposal that all teams of inspectors should have a lay member does not make much sense. It is hard to imagine what such a person could add to the credibility of the whole procedure. Above all, they will have no basis in terms of relative standards to make sensible judgments.
I shall leave the question of the financing of the new system to my noble friend Lord Peston. Let me note, however, that there is a great deal of warranted scepticism about whether there are sufficient funds being provided to allow the new system to work. Under the Bill, schools are to be inspected every four

603
years. Whether there will be enough funding to allow this and enough people of the right quality to do it is open to question. But even if there were, we are still not getting the kind of monitoring of schools that parents and pupils deserve.
Will the Minister say why she thinks a full inspection every four years without any guarantee of follow-up to put right problems that have been identified, is better than more frequent visits and inspections of individual aspects of the school? There is concern that less frequent visits to schools by inspectors could damage the quality of education. However, just as important as the loss of these visits is the danger that the professional support which accompanies the inspection process at present will be lost once tendering begins.
Inspection is not just about writing reports on a school's performance. It is about intervening after the strengths and weaknesses have been identified and building on those strengths and working to eliminate those weaknesses. I fear for pupils in the struggling and underperforming school which, under this Bill, will receive fewer visits and less professional support than at present.
I now wish to discuss briefly the invidious position in which LEAs will be left if this Bill becomes law. As the Bill repeals Section 77 of the 1944 Act, LEAs will no longer have a statutory right to inspect the quality of education in their schools. Yet at the same time they are still to be left with a whole range of statutory duties to set budgets, to operate local management, to ensure the quality of the service and other such duties. How they are to fulfil those statutory duties without any statutory power to inspect is unclear. However, I shall leave it to my noble friend Lady David to elaborate further on that serious problem.
I now turn to the proposals to publish league tables on examination and assessment results and truancy rates. Again I regret to say the proposals are fundamentally flawed. They are flawed because they will provide little or no meaningful information about the quality of education being provided. That is the view not just of the Opposition and teachers' unions but also of the organisations that represent parents, of every respectable research group that has ever tried to measure school differences, of the Audit Commission, of the National Association of Governors and Managers and of those organisations that represent children with special needs.
Not only will raw data which take no account of the school's intake mislead parents about the value of education being provided by a school because the data give no indication of progress being achieved, but it will also lead to complacency. Those schools with plenty of high achievers entering can cover up for poor performance just because they appear to have good examination results. But a proper measure of value added might show that given the intake of such a school it ought to have had much better examination results than was the case. Equally, schools with a poor intake that came out at the bottom of the league tables may also try to cover up for poor performance by pointing to the fact that they are located in a deprived area. Despite what the noble Baroness said, it is the
604
Government's proposals which will encourage low expectations. Relying on raw data will also stigmatise schools which may be doing good work in exceptionally difficult circumstances which make it hard to rise from near the bottom of the league.
An emphasis on crude league tables—that is what they will be despite what the Minister has said—may well push schools into focusing on improving the assessment and examination results of average and above average children at the expense of those with special needs. Indeed, some schools anxious to improve their position may well try to avoid admitting children with special needs. This would be a most unfortunate and damaging consequence of this Bill which I am sure everyone in your Lordships' House would deplore.
Why the Government have turned their face against the publication of "value added" league tables is truly perplexing. The methodology is now available and can be applied without a great deal of difficulty. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain what the Government have against such publication. A good school tries to ensure that pupils acquire aesthetic awareness, social skills and understanding, sporting and artistic ability and the values of a civilised and caring society. The problem of league tables of the kind being proposed is that they undervalue those aspects of a school's work. Nor is there anything in the Bill, regrettably, to protect parents from the publication of misleading information in any documents schools may publish. When schools are under financial pressure to compete for pupils there is a risk that their publicity material will drift towards the advertising standards of the market place.
Let me conclude by saying that the effects of this Bill will be damaging to educational standards in Britain. The Bill also represents a terrible missed opportunity. No one on these Benches is claiming that all is perfect in our system of school inspection. We accept the criticisms of the Audit Commission as regards local authority inspection. Reforms are needed. However, would it not have been better to build on the existing system and to have improved it rather than taking a bulldozer to knock down the whole edifice? What the Government are putting in its place is a completely untried system likely to be vastly inferior, for the reasons I have stated, to what we already have.
When Labour is elected in a few weeks' time we shall repeal this Bill before it becomes law. We shall set up an educational standards commission independent of Ministers and the DES charged with monitoring and inspecting standards in our schools. Most of HMI will be transferred to the commission and will work with LEAs to ensure that more frequent inspections are carried out and their findings followed up. We will not apply market solutions and profit motives to the inspection of one of our most important national assets, our schools. We shall not let heads and governors choose their inspectors. We shall retain a national system which can ensure consistency of standards and criteria in judging the performance of schools rather than handing this important task to

605
hundreds of private firms where there can be no such consistency. We shall require information to be published about schools' performance but it will be meaningful and therefore useful information.
Above all, unlike this Government, we shall take the trouble to consult those who are most affected by our proposals. It is scandalous that this Bill was produced without consulting any of the parents' organisations. It is scandalous that it was produced without consulting the National Association of Governors and Managers when it will have a profound effect on the work of governors. This lack of consultation is the sign of a Government who have become arrogant and overbearing and who believe that only they have the right answers. They have been in power for too long. It is time the Government went so that for a few years we shall have no more Bills like the one before us.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, the noble Baroness has torn the Bill to shreds fairly effectively. I shall certainly not attempt to put it back together again. On behalf of these Benches, I wish to speak briefly of our profound misgivings about the Bill and our dislike of it. I am sure that under any less inequitable electoral system than ours, this Bill would not have a chance of finding its way on to the statute book. I hope it has no such chance in any case; but we shall see whether that will be the case.
I wish to talk briefly about Her Majesty's Inspectorate. I have the greatest respect for that body having suffered under its strictures in a school. If that body had any reputation for obscurantism, obstruction, extravagance, failure to co-operate or bias, I would understand the Government's attack on it. However, HMI has shown none of those traits. Its reputation stands very high, and justly so. It has a high reputation both in terms of preserving standards and also in furthering and encouraging innovation, including the Government's own innovations.
In the headlong flood of change that has occurred over the past few years in the educational world the inspectorate has constituted a bastion of independence and stability. We need that bastion of independence and stability. The inspectorate has continued to fulfil its time honoured remit of reporting objectively and advising the Government of trends in education. The reports of the inspectorate have been published and are available free of any charge, including postal charges, to anyone who cares to ask for them. Whatever controversial, ill-considered or hasty measures Her Majesty's Government have attempted in the past few years—there have been some such measures—HMI has stood its ground.
My own experience of HMI inspectors was that they were always thorough, perceptive, formidable, supportive and courteous. In the small school which I ran, which sought recognition of its efficiency, we found the inspectors most helpful. The threat to the inspectorate's continued existence in its present form is a threat to the standards of our education system.
606
The Government's object appears to be to increase the number of full inspections. The Minister told us that that was the case. It is said that the new inspectors will conduct 6,000 inspections a year. I might point out that during the past year Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools has visited 7,000 schools. Those were not all full inspections but schools were visited for their progress to be monitored. Full inspections are often not necessary. For example, if a large comprehensive school has been thoroughly and fully inspected, perhaps taking 15 inspectors five days —a major and very expensive task—another full inspection will not be necessary for a long time. If the inspectors have found cause to criticise some of the work in, say, the science department or the art department, within a matter of months one or two inspectors will return to that school to see what progress has been made in that particular area. If progress is unsatisfactory the inspectors will go back again. That is a much more efficient way for inspectors to keep their fingers on what is happening in the educational world than repeated full inspections.
During their visits inspectors will offer advice and ongoing support as well as carrying out inspections. Through that approach inspectors get to know their schools and individual teachers. I remember that the inspectors greeted one by name and remembered one's strengths and weaknesses. They know which schools are on the right lines and therefore demand less of their attention, just as they know which schools, in their own euphemism, "give cause for concern". How will a small commercial firm get to know more than a handful of schools in that way or provide expert advice to professionals? How will it provide such continuity?
HMI is also able to provide a countrywide, structured coverage of schools, classifying information by geographical location, by subject (from time to time it produces a report on the teaching of mathematics throughout the country), by educational phases (primary, secondary and tertiary) and by the development of new ideas (for example, a special examination of the progress of the TVEI initiative). It is able to do so largely by a sampling process. Full inspections are not needed each time.
There are more formidable objections to this harebrained scheme in addition to the lack of continuity and expert advice. There is the serious criticism, which is often pointed out, that schools will be unlikely to employ an inspection team which is known to be rigorous and exacting—I took on board what the Minister said on that subject—and that it will be the governing body which chooses the inspection team. However, I still regard it as doubtful that governors will choose a team which is likely to be condemnatory, especially as, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, pointed out, the headmaster is probably the most influential member of the governing body and will influence the choice of the inspection team.
Few schools will engage a team which has an educational bias. I believe that the small inspection teams will have educational biases; they will be either science oriented or arts oriented. A school is not likely

607
to choose an inspection team which is known to have a bias which is antipathetic to the school's own. Moreover, the inspection teams themselves, whose integrity will surely be vitiated by commercial considerations, will be unlikely to give a thoroughly critical report for fear of losing custom. I do not see how one can get round that situation. The proposal seems to us to defeat utterly the principle of independent judgment.
What credentials will the inspectors have in the eyes of professional teachers? HMI inspectors arrive from afar, remote and somewhat awe-inspiring figures in dark suits. They are known to have had 16 years' experience in the classroom and, on average, 10 years in the inspectorate. To them deference is due. By contrast, what deference will be inspired by amateurs from down the road, as they will be regarded? Even if the new inspectors have some experience of inspection, how will they be able to offer advice, which is an essential part of the work of HMI? I can imagine the reaction of experienced and professional teachers:
"Who is this chap who presumes to tell me how I should or should not teach French? What are his credentials? How many times has he been in the classroom since he left school himself'?" How can those so-called inspectors, of whom it is stipulated that they should know nothing about education, comment? They certainly should not be allowed into the classroom. When reports are published I can well imagine teachers of a litigious turn of mind wishing to take legal action in response to comments made by one of the new so-called inspectors.
There are many problems. What qualifications will be required of the rank-and-file members of the teams? None? What about the time and money which HMI will have to spend training the registered inspectors? I believe that the inspectorate's time for first-hand inspection will be greatly reduced. What of the unsatisfactory aspect of the part-time employment offered to the teams? They will have no security of tenure and no certainty of continuing full-time employment. Will this really be a cost-cutting exercise? It would be interesting to see that demonstrated.
How can the Government seriously propose dismantling a highly respected institution and replacing it with what has been described as an assortment of do-it-yourself private outfits in competition with each other? How can they contemplate such trivialisation of the solemn duty of ensuring quality in the arduous endeavour of educating the nation's children for the 21st century? They lay themselves open to accusations of wanting to be rid of a "turbulent priest"—an organisation which refuses to bend to their will. The contents of Clause 2(5) have sinister reverberations.
So far I have spoken only of the reorganisation of HMI and have made no reference to the disastrous proposals concerning LEA inspections. LEA inspection of schools has in the past been unsystematic and erratic. However, it has greatly improved. Since the 1988 Act the requirement to oversee the development of the national curriculum has resulted in much more
608
frequent and thorough inspections. I understand that 80 per cent. of LEAs now carry out regular inspections.
In proposing to repeal Section 77(3) of the 1944 Act Her Majesty's Government would remove from LEAs the right to inspect the very schools for which they are responsible—and in particular in respect of the development of the national curriculum—unless they are invited by the governing bodies of the schools to inspect them on a commercial basis.
Her Majesty's Government appear to fail to recognise that inspection and advice are inseparable. Inspections are an aspect of development and not a hostile visitation from above and beyond. Where did Her Majesty's Government get these ideas from? Was it the Centre for Policy Studies? One wonders.
There remains the matter of the publication at the command of the Secretary of State of league tables of exam results and truancy. It is right that information about schools should be publicly available. Again, I take on board what the Minister said about the matter. Such information is already available. Schools have to publish their examination results on an individual basis. However, there is danger in publishing raw data on schools' comparative exam results and truancy rates. They tell only part of the story. There is much more to the quality of a school than its exam results. There are immeasurable aspects such as its artistic and sporting achievements, its care, its freedom from bullying, its ethos and atmosphere. How can those qualities be computed?
Further, as has been said, schools depend for results on the quality of their intake and the social level of their environment. Unfortunately, it is a fact that it is much easier to be a good school in Sevenoaks than in New Cross, though many schools rise heroically above their environment. Intake and environment which are closely connected make raw achievement statistics meaningless. We are talking as much about socio-economic factors as educational ones. I am not sure what is going to be achieved by such an exercise. I would have thought most parents know the things they want to know about the schools in their locality; they have only to use their eyes and ears. League tables will favour the successful and depress the less successful schools like marks in the classroom. It will tend to attract customers (I use that horrid word deliberately) both staff and children, to the top few schools and deprive others whose quality will sink in a descending spiral.
We on these Benches are particularly concerned about the issue of children with special educational needs. I hope that will be adequately covered when we come to discuss the Bill in detail. Mencap and many other organisations are concerned that schools may prefer not to encourage the presence of children with special educational needs because they will tend to depress average exam achievements. The problem is an old one. Many years ago I remember asking the headmaster of a prep school whether he had any dyslexic boys whom we might be able to help. His reply was, "Good God, no! Long before they reach common entrance stage we shoo them out"; in other words, if they did not look as if they would pass the

609
common entrance exam they were sent away. We hope that an answer to that problem will be found in the principle of "value added". It is most important that that be worked out and put into force.
The 'eighties saw a remarkable world-wide move away from planned economies in the direction of market economies. It is probably the swing of the pendulum and I dare say that early in the next century it will begin to swing back in the opposite direction. As applied to our educational system it seems to us to be totally inappropriate. The market has little or no place in the world of education which is a cultural and not a commercial matter. I am a great believer in the ancient Chinese concept that when a situation develops to its extreme it is bound to turn around and become its opposite. If schools can pick and choose their own inspection teams and virtually inspect themselves, as the noble Baroness said, will we not next have hotel and catering establishments doing the same, theatre impresarios picking and paying their own critics and criminals choosing their own judges?
I submit that in the latest Government intervention in education we have reached a situation of absurdity which may perhaps mark the end of a cycle that hopefully will begin to move back towards sanity. Meanwhile, we shall do what we can from these Benches to limit the damage that this measure threatens.
4.26 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, Her Majesty's Inspectorate have rightly earned a notable reputation for thoroughness, independence and fearless criticism. Any system of inspection of schools which replaces the present HMI should retain those achievements. I am yet to be convinced that the present proposals will do that. I believe we ought to be more honest than some previous speakers have been and say that there are criticisms of the present system. Schools can go for many years without any inspection at all. In my area two headmasters tell me that in their 33 years' of headship they have never had a formal HMI inspection. Furthermore, some voluntary schools judge that HMI are not always appreciative of the particular aspirations and aims of a school. I am also told that when HMI are doing a specialist inspection they can give the impression that they are working in order to produce a report rather than help the school.
The proposals in the Bill may to a degree meet some of the criticisms, but surely they put at risk some of the universally respected objectivity of HMI. I have to say that unless there is adequate funding in the end we may find that the new inspections are more frequent but less thorough and reliable. I have to say that at best the new system will be on critical trial.
Like much recent legislation the Bill shows signs of the present Government's mistrust of local education authorities. I do not share that mistrust. All my children have been educated in county schools, not voluntary schools. As I have moved round the country I have been successively under Labour and Conservative-controlled authorities. In every area I
610
have developed a great respect and trust for the local education authority. I wonder whether too much education legislation in recent times has been coloured by a mistrust of LEAs which in my view is unjustified. This Bill shunts the LEAs still further to the edge. At their best, local education authorities have been advisers and supporters of schools and teachers, and their inspections have been expressions of their attitude of support and concern. LEAs have seen themselves as leaders of a responsible public service, but recent changes have pushed LEAs away from that role to the role of co-ordinators of competitive institutions. Centralised expectations such as the national curriculum and the local management of schools are things which, while good in themselves, have diminished the role of LEAs. The Bill takes that process further by providing that LEAs should no longer be able to inspect by right the schools for which they have a responsibility.
The 1988 Act opens with the words:
"It shall be the duty … of every local education authority as respects every school maintained by them … to exercise their functions … with a view to securing that the curriculum for the school satisfies the requirements … "
If LEAs are to be given that responsibility they must have the right to inspect the schools for which they are responsible.
There is a weakness in the same body providing both the advice and the inspection. When teachers and the school are given advice they know that the LEA inspection will be carried out from the same angle from which the advice has been given. If teachers judge that the advice they have been given is inappropriate or unwise they will be in some difficulty in relation to an LEA inspection. There is a risk that an authority can develop an unjustified monopoly over educational style, teaching methods and so on. I think it has to be said that there is a cogent argument for separating advice and inspection.
If the Government are to insist that LEAs no longer have the right to inspect their own schools, I should like to raise the question whether it is possible that the new inspectorate teams should be required to have on them representatives of the local education authority or people nominated by them. In this way the local education authority could not dominate the inspection but it would remain directly linked with the inspection of a school for which it had undoubted responsibility.
I refer also to Clause 14 which makes reference to "denominational education". That is a phrase I profoundly regret seeing for it brings back memories of divisiveness which rarely surface today. That unfortunate expression is used to describe religious education in an aided school where the agreed syllabus is not being used. Speaking for myself, I would rather that religious education, or "denominational education" if we must have to have that phrase, was inspected alongside other basic curriculum subjects. Religious education (RE) is not "religious extra", tacked on to the rest of the curriculum. It is rather the particular focus of an approach to education which pervades the whole. Furthermore, I want religious

611
education to be an academic discipline in its own right. Therefore I regret the phrase, I regret the separation and I regret the implications.
I am grateful to the Government for their amendments in another place to Schedule 2 Part II, which will make the inspection of denominational education somewhat more thorough and nearer to the inspection of other subjects. I should also like to say a brief word about the information on schools which is to be published in order to help parents choose a school that is suitable for their own children. As has been said, in principle that is welcome. However, there is widespread anxiety about the material that is to be selected for publication. Examination results and truancy rates give some information but undoubtedly need interpretation. For instance, truancy rates can say far more about the attitudes of parents than about the success and provision of the school.
We need to know what provision schools make for children with special needs. We need to know their facilities for the physical, spiritual and artistic elements in education. If information about a school is to be published, it must not be selective so as to tilt the choice of parents in a particular direction.
In some of my more mischievous moments, I wonder whether the present Gove—rnmentor, for that matter, any other government—would wish their performance to be judged on the raw statistics of unemployment figures and crime rates. The figures need interpretation. Any government would argue that there are other factors which are of equal importance to those statistics. We must use comparable arguments when dealing with schools. I trust that much more thought will be given to what information is to be published about schools if we are to realistically enable parents to exercise a proper choice.
In my view this is a risky Bill. It reforms the inspectorate in a way that meets some criticisms but undoubtedly arouses others. I anticipate that the new system itself will need inspection before long.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I begin by welcoming and commending the very informative manner in which the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, introduced the Bill. I understand that this is the first time that she has opened for the Front Bench. I look forward to many comparable occasions in the future. Among many instructive speeches, the right reverend Prelate made some interesting points about which I want to think further.
This Bill comes in the wake of the great and significant restructuring of our education system at primary and secondary levels brought about by the 1988 Act. That Act introduced the national curriculum and in its wake the necessary provision of testing in schools, which proved problematic in the early stages but is an objective to which many of us subscribe. The Act went on to develop grant maintained schools and city technical colleges. There was an emphasis on diversity and choice. Two key concepts which emerged from the 1988 Act were standards and choice.
612
Wise exercise of choice by parents must be based upon adequate and accurate information. That is the starting point for the present Bill. Some points of criticism made today certainly raise issues of substance and interest. However, it should be recognised that the Bill succeeds in greatly opening up the schools for information and the dissemination of adequate information. As I understand it, in this country there are not many more than 150 full inspections of schools per year. Under the present proposals, there will be something in the order of 6,000 per year. That is a very important step forward. The results of those 6,000 inspections will be published and made available to parents and others.
Clause 16 of the Bill proposes that data should be published—essentially raw data—relating to a number of important issues: examination results of the pupils; the national curriculum test results; the truancy figures, which are certainly relevant to something, although I take the point made by the right reverend Prelate that it may be a complicated issue; and finally the destinations of pupils leaving the school. It seems such a good idea that it appears strange that steps were not taken earlier to provide that information.
I have one note of regret to strike and one area of concern from which arises a suggestion. The note of regret is that the publication of the Bill has been accompanied by an atmosphere in some quarters which was perhaps not sufficiently respectful of the work of Her Majesty's Inspectorate. I am sure that noble Lords will want to emphasise how highly we esteem the work of Her Majesty's Inspectorate and the excellent job it has done in the past and will no doubt continue to do in the future. But if there are to be 6,000 inspections a year, there will need to be around 600 registered inspectors, together with others associated with them in the inspecting process. Therefore there is a clear choice to be made: is the existing inspectorate to be enlarged by some 400 or 500 people or should there be a different route and strategy? The latter is the course put forward by the Government in a very coherent way. I conclude my note of regret by remarking that the rhetoric in the press, including some segments of the Conservative press, which was sometimes sharply critical of the work of Her Majesty's Inspectorate, has in my view been unhelpful.
Moving on to the area of concern, I should like to make a proposal. Schedule 2 to the Bill sets out the scheme for increasing the number of inspections. I believe that we all feel that that in itself is a good thing. The scheme goes on to set out the provisions for appointing registered inspectors and for including lay members in their teams. That seems an interesting idea and probably a very positive one. For instance, the lay members will be able to communicate effectively with parents and, when they have a hand in writing reports, will ensure that those reports are accessible to parents as well as to other specialists who will use them.
There are safeguards in that the registered inspectors—the freelance inspectors—are to be trained and registered by HMI and may be dismissed if they,

613
"knowingly or recklessly produced a report … which is, when taken as a whole, seriously misleading".
Clearly, there are merits in the proposals; above all the number of reports, the independence and the lay input.
When I read the Bill and before I became aware of the reservations which other noble Lords have today expressed, I became uneasy about the degree of impartiality which the registered inspectors could be relied upon to produce. As we heard, the governors or the proprietor of the school will first invite two tenders —that is their invitation—and will proceed to choose the registered inspector from those two (or more) who have tendered. That procedure will no doubt work very well in a number of cases. But there is the fear, as a number of noble Lords have said, that a certain degree of cosiness may emerge from such a system of tendering.
I am not suggesting that corruption would emerge. There are clear provisions in the Bill to avoid corruption and there is the power of Her Majesty's chief inspector to dismiss a registered inspector who is not doing an adequate job. On the other hand, it is clear that the firms employing the registered inspectors —or the registered inspectors themselves if selfemployed—will be in competition for their jobs. They will certainly want happy clients. The easy way to ensure a happy client is to offer a product with which the client is entirely content. That is where the problem lies.
More seriously, one should think about the philosophical trends which pertain in the educational sphere. For instance, perhaps we may imagine a remote traditional school with a traditional headmaster. As in many schools the headmaster will be influential with the governors and will have a significant hand in the choice of the registered inspector. It will not be surprising, therefore, if that traditional headmaster encourages the choice of a traditional registered inspector. The outcome may well be a report which praises the school highly for methods which significantly fall behind modern educational standards. Therefore, I believe that there is a cause for concern.
I wish to put forward a proposal which I hope my noble friend will consider. I look forward to hearing her reaction to it. I suggest that there should be an obligation on the governors to have an assessor among their number when making the appointment. That assessor would exercise more impartial judgment and would offer advice. I have asked myself who would appoint the assessor. Ideally it would be an entirely independent body but I can think of no independent body of sufficient national standing other than Her Majesty's Inspectorate. The proposal that an independent assessor should be appointed by Her Majesty's Inspectorate—which means that in many cases the assessor could be a member of the inspectorate, although not necessarily so—would go a long way towards allaying the fears that we have heard expressed from the other side of the House. It has been said that there is too much cosiness, that the governors
614
will tend to appoint inspectors who suit them and that the registered inspectors will tend to produce reports which give satisfaction to the governors.
I envisage therefore that the assessor will be part of the tendering process in the sense that he will monitor it. He will not necessarily meet the governors in order to do so but he will offer comments on the way in which the tendering is undertaken. He will however meet the governors during the selection of the registered inspector. Of course, the assessor's advice will not always be followed, but if he is dissatisfied he will have the opportunity of indicating that to the chief inspector who will then in due course scrutinise with particular care the report produced by the registered inspector's team. I believe that in that way the risk of a cycle of back-scratching, as it were, between school headmasters and governors on the one hand and certain registered inspectors on the other will be broken. Therefore, one will have a considerable degree of impartiality.
I wish to put forward that suggestion. Clearly, a cost would be involved. Each assessor might be able to monitor perhaps 100 appointments a year. The process would not be laborious; it would involve perhaps only a single meeting. In those circumstances one would need the equivalent of 60 or more full-time assessors. I do not suggest that in practice they would be full-time but the costing would be the equivalent of 60 assessors. They might be 60 members of Her Majesty's Inspectorate.
I have spoken for quite long enough. I wish to emphasise that I believe the Bill is admirable in many ways. It opens up our schools to scrutiny in a manner which we have not previously seen. It ensures a much greater flow of accurate information which will reach parents and the public. Therefore, it secures a sound basis for choice to be exercised by parents in selecting a school for their children. There is great wisdom in the publication of hard data. The school governors in their annual report will have the opportunity of setting that hard data in the context of the local conditions of the school and in the social context. That point was emphasised by noble Lords opposite.
I regard the Bill as a great step forward. I hope that my noble friend will consider that there is something in the proposal that I have put forward. I commend the Bill to the House.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I too wish to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, on her debut at the Dispatch Box introducing a Bill. However, I commiserate with her in having to speak to such a controversial Bill. It is by no means universally popular. I also wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, on speaking in the debate. Too often in this House Peers with a university background speak on the higher education Bills but avoid speaking on the schools Bills. Therefore, I was delighted to see his name on today's list of speakers.
Enough has been said from this side of the House to make it clear that we believe that the Bill is a tragedy for the education service. It will do nothing to improve the quality of education or to raise its

615
standards. We fear that it will change irrevocably the position, standing and work of Her Majesty's Inspectorate. The inspectorate has been held in the highest esteem throughout its 150 years' existence. Perhaps some changes are necessary, but the basis of the inspectorate should remain.
The inspectorate's strength has been its association with the Department of Education and Science, working within the same building but independent of it and also of Ministers. Civil servants have to serve the Minister of the day and carry out the policy of the Government of the day. HMI can take a cool and independent look at policy. It can make clear the policy's advantages and disadvantages to the education service. That will not be the case with the new HMCI.
Clause 2(2) states:
"When asked to do so by the Secretary of State, the Chief Inspector for England shall—
(a) give advice to the Secretary of State on such matters as may be specified in the Secretary of State's request".
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".
That is a very different matter.
HMI has been able to take a national overview as a result of its inspections carried out over the whole country. As a result it has been able to produce annual reports which are studied with care in order to understand how the service is being delivered and its strength and weaknesses throughout the country. It is impossible to see how the reduced number of inspectors—only 175 will remain of the present 400—will be able to carry out those functions. Some of those 175 inspectors will be responsible for inspecting teacher education.
It is true that quality control, as described in the Further and Higher Education Bill, will pass to the funding councils. That will account for a reduction of some 140 inspectors. However, the functions carried out by the remaining inspectors will be largely confined to monitoring the inspections of others, licensing inspection teams, training the leaders of those teams and reporting nationally on the outcome of the work of those teams. How they will perform that task is difficult to understand. There will be some 6,250 different inspections. The co-ordination of those reports, when we do not know how many teams will be going into schools concentrated in certain regions, will be impossible to do with with conviction.
From the general picture I turn to the position of the LEAs and what they will or will not be able to do in the way of inspection. The repeal of Section 77(3) of the 1944 Act, which conferred on LEAs an explicit right to inspect their own schools, has caused widespread anxiety—and that has been mentioned today. From correspondence between education officers of the ACC and the AMA and Ministers of the DES in December and January and from Ministers' statements at Report stage in another place, it still seems not at all clear what LEAs can do by way of entry and inspection.
A letter from Mr. Eggar on 28th January seemed to make it clear that LEAs are not intended to have an
616
indisputable right of entry even when they consider that they need access to a school in order to carry out their statutory duties under the education Acts. However, on 30th January, after considerable discussion with Tory M Ps who are extremely worried about this matter, the Secretary of State told Parliament:
"The local authority can have a right of entry and inspection, if one wants to call it inspecting, so long as that right of entry is pursuant to a statutory duty. That is implicit and does not have to be spelt out". [Official Report, Commons, 30/1/92; col. 1110.]
The Minister did not go on to qualify that by any reference to right of entry by invitation only or to any requirement to satisfy a test by an outside body. It is no wonder that the associations want the matter settled beyond dispute. That must be achieved by amending the Bill. What Ministers say or write carries no legal force. The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, seemed to suggest that the right of inspection should remain. If that is so, perhaps she will accept amendments which make certain of it.
LEAs need to know about those matters in order to plan ahead. Indeed, some are taking steps to be ready when the Bill becomes an Act which, at present, we must assume it will. My own authority—Cambridgeshire—has instructed the director of education to put the inspectorate on an agency basis at the earliest possible date. Plans have been made to bring that into operation in three phases. I ask the Minister whether, when the inspectorate becomes an agency, it will be allowed to inspect the schools in its own county. Generally, will inspectors and other professional staff presently employed by LEAs he free to form part of school inspection teams in the future? Paragraph 3(5) of Schedule 2 suggests that that is not so. I should like the Minister to clarify the matter.
All these doubts and queries show a Bill which is ill drafted and put together in a hurry. Indeed, we know that there was no consultation with the national parent teachers associations although the Bill is intended to put the Parent's Charter into legal form. The Bill was published before the period for consultation on the charter with the National Association of Governors and Managers had expired.
It remains an unexplained curiosity that inspection teams should be selected and appointed by the schools which are being inspected. For example, would it be in the interests of children for fairground operators to hire their own health and safety inspectors? I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, mention his anxieties about that matter. I believe that they are shared by a good many people. As the noble Lord said, avoidance of self-serving mutual relationships strongly suggests that a third party should be involved in the appointment process. A school strong in technology or perhaps favouring mixed ability teaching may well choose an inspection team known to favour concentration on that subject or that method of teaching.
The four year cycle, which is not mentioned in the Bill but which now seems to be the Government's intention, is strange. Why was it chosen? As a parent I should be extremely anxious to think that virtually the whole of my child's schooling may take place

617
without a visit by an accredited inspector. Ministers seem to have been beguiled into seeing the full general inspection of all aspects of the life of a school as the main means of quality assurance and development. However, quality assurance demands much more. It would include not only full school inspection but also review of the performance of an individual department or year group, review of the teaching of a subject across a range of similar schools, audit of management effectiveness, and routine and spot monitoring with written reports of visits. There must also be follow up.
We should like to see some flexibility for governors so that they can choose a method of inspection other than one short exercise every four years. Should not governors be able to choose to spend their inspection money on a variety of inspection methods, including more frequent monitoring visits and reports? If there were shorter gaps between the visits of inspectors, a sector of the work of the school could be examined on an annual basis, written reports produced and the whole reassessed summatively, perhaps every four years, for publication. If a model of inspection with greater inbuilt flexibility were available to governors, they would be able to express their own anxieties. Heads would receive a steer in their quality direction and management of their schools. Questions of serious deficit would be addressed swiftly. The main risk associated with delaying diagnosis of a problem is its import on the educational opportunity of the individual child. We shall need to amend Clause 9 to ensure that flexibility.
Another major weakness in the Bill is the gap in accountability. The duty to inspect passes to governors but without apparently leaving them flexibility to focus the inspection in whole or in part and to decide upon priorities on style and content. Similarly, the Bill omits any mechanism for holding governors to account for acting upon the identified deficits. Particularly unclear is their duty to work openly with an unfavourable report.
The inspection report will go to the governors who will then have to prepare a written statement—an action plan—showing the action they propose to take and the period within which they propose to take it. They must send copies to the chief inspector. However, to whom are the governors accountable for carrying out their action? What will happen if they do not do it or parents do not notice? Only in the case of a school deemed to be failing is the action to be monitored "by such persons as may be prescribed". Are governors capable of creating an action plan and monitoring its implementation? Most governors do not have the necessary expertise. I have been a governor of many schools over a long period but I do not consider that I am capable of doing that. If things do not seem to be going well, ultimate recourse to the Secretary of State will take too long. Pupils will suffer along the way.
Surely some kind of intermediate supervising body is necessary at local level to whom the governors should be made accountable. If that is not to be the LEAs, something else must be invented. However, as
618
we have the LEAs—and I was glad to hear the right reverend Prelate praise LEAs—which are experienced in such exercises, why on earth should something else be invented? I hope that when the Minister replies she will tell us to whom the governors are accountable for carrying out their action plan. It seems to me that Schedule 2 will need strengthening. It is interesting that the NAGM in the first sentence of its briefing says:
"NAGM considers that the Bill will hamper and discourage the contribution made by school governors to good education".
I wish to conclude with a few words about children with special needs. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], will speak on that subject and I am glad that other noble Lords have touched upon it. There is a general fear that those children may suffer under the Bill. Is that consistent with the Education Act 1981 and the Children Act 1989? The aim of the 1981 Act to integrate children with special needs is likely to be undermined by measures to encourage increasing autonomy of schools. It seems inconsistent that inspection under the Children Act is firmly placed with local authorities which must act within detailed guidance, in contrast to this Bill. LEAs will find it difficult to keep enough resources centrally to be able to help those children and to provide the extras that they need. One commitment which I ask the Minister to give—and I hope that she will give it when she replies—is that one member of every inspection team should be someone who has experience of children with special needs.
We shall have much work to do on this Bill. We cannot change it fundamentally and I fear it will remain a bad Bill. However, I hope that we can do something in Committee to make it marginally better.
5 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I must first apologise to the House. I have an engagement on a committee at 6 o'clock which requires me to leave the Chamber at that time. The engagement was entered into long before the timetable for this debate was drawn up.
It is common ground on all sides that we in this country need a better educated population than presently exists or has existed in the past. About that there is no disagreement between us. There can be little disagreement also that over the past five years enormous changes and experiments have taken place in the field of education; for instance, the 1988 Act and the national curriculum created large changes in what went on in schools. There have been other important developments such as TVEI. They are all new concepts in schools; they are experiments. We are also changing the methods of teacher training.
All those matters are important and represent large scale alterations. However, even the most arrogant among us cannot imagine that such fundamental changes will get it right every time. It must be true that some of the proposals concerning the national curriculum, school management and teacher training will involve disadvantages as well as genuine gains. Some schemes will not work out as we hoped: we must be prepared to change and change again. But change

619
should only he made on the basis of the best possible information and judgment that we can obtain in regard to how the schemes are working.
It is that which makes it so extraordinary that the Government should choose this moment to make another huge change. It is an extraordinary activity on the part of what is still called a Conservative Government. Unless it be for the sheer love of change, why should they virtually dismantle the school inspection system, the HMI system, which has served the country so well for over 150 years? Adapt it, develop it or extend it; but why change it? We often hear from the Benches opposite, "If it is not broken, why fix it?" Nobody is suggesting that the HMI system is broken and needs fixing. It may need expanding or altering, but why change it and bring in its place this astonishing system of local inspectors appointed by the governors of the schools who are themselves to be trained by the inspectors? It will not be easy to do that. They must find them, select them and train them, and if that training is to be any good they must be able to monitor them to see how the system works.
To introduce a change of that kind at a time when we have the development of great educational experiments going on is quite extraordinary. Is it cost? Is it that the HMIs, because of their calibre, are expensive and that this is a cheaper way of performing their functions? The schools will have to pay the people who will carry out the inspections. If it is a matter of expense it is one of the most short-sighted economies of this Government, who are given to short-sighted economies. They will attempt to save a few pence now even if it costs a thousand pounds later on. I fear that that is what will happen to the change from the HMI system.
The system no doubt needed expanding and adjusting. But to change from that to the system proposed in the Bill produces what must be the only piece of legislation in modern history which lays down that the robbers should appoint the cops. That is certainly a strange way of doing things. Yet that is what, in more eloquent language, the Bill says. The people who are to be inspected are to choose and pay the people who will inspect them. And this at a time when changes of the dimension I mentioned are occurring, and when we need the best possible advice on how those changes are working out.
It is said that the schools will need help. Of course they will need help. We know that in many parts of the country they have had difficulty recruiting and retaining staff; that the staff are overwhelmed by many of the changes. The schools want people they respect professionally. I cannot underline that too strongly. They want people to whom they can listen and from whom they can learn to help them overcome the difficulties presently confronting them. They need not only inspections. Also, as was said earlier, they need people to whom they can turn for advice. Inspection and advice go together. When a good inspector comes across something and realises that all is not well, he will think of ways to help resolve the problem. It is two sides of the same coin.
620
Professional teachers will not accept advice from people they believe know less about the subject than they themselves. That has been one of the strengths of the inspectorate. On average, the inspectors have 16 years' successful teaching experience behind them. Therefore no teacher can say, "What does he know about it?" There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that the teachers will not be justified making that comment when they are asked to accept the criticisms of the people appointed under the Bill.
The help to the schools is a vital part of the inspection process and something which is being placed at risk. It is not only advice to schools; it is advice to the Secretary of State and to the Department of Education. That is only satisfactorily carried out, as it has been in the past, because the inspectors are in the schools. They are familiar with them and spend time with the people who are struggling with the problems of schools and improvement in education; with the people who are able to give up-to-date, informed, professional advice to the Secretary of State and the department which, after all, is not staffed by professional teachers.
As policy develops and changes need to be made —as we know they will—that skilled, professional, experienced advice will continue renewing the knowledge that the inspectors have and can only have because they work in and out of the schools. The more they are drawn away from the schools, the less valuable the advice will be. From where will the Secretary of State then obtain his advice? Who will be able to take the place of the inspectors? The answer is nobody. The professionals are not in the department and the department is not involved on a day-to-day basis in the schools.
I recall the experience some years ago of a friend of mine newly recruited in the department who was supposed to be responsible for secondary schools in the North West. In his youthful enthusiasm he said to his senior in the department, "I should like to see these schools". The reply came back, "I would not do that if I were you, it might confuse you." That is not the way in which the Minister will obtain the best possible advice from the continuing development of policy. That is what it is. The 1988 Act contained much that was good but over the years continuous changes and suggestions will be needed based on the informed experience of people who can assess what they see in the schools. That is what the Secretary of State needs if he is to develop the new educational system as it needs to be developed.
If the country is short of good inspectors it is an extraordinary moment to crack down on the local authorities. I dare say that some local authority inspection is not all that it might be. But if it is difficult to carry out adequate inspections, then it is not the moment to tell the local authorities that they have no continuing right to entry into their schools. As I read it, that is what the Bill says.
One can only suspect that this is yet another manifestation of the extraordinary vendetta that this Government conduct against local authorities. We are bored with being told that there are some very

621
unsatisfactory local authorities. But for one unsatisfactory local authority there are at least 10—I pluck the figures out of the air—very hardworking local authorities with very good, conscientious directors of education who have done a tremendous amount in the development and building up of the schools. Why should they be spurned in this way?
I very much regret that your Lordships' House is not permitted to vote against a Second Reading. I am greatly tempted to suggest that we ought to, although I know that nobody would come into the Lobby with me—not that that would stop me. That is what the Bill merits; it merits being thrown out at this stage.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, despite the exceptionally dedicated, skilled work of many teachers in our schools throughout this country, and despite the outstanding work which has been done over many years by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools and His Majesty's before, there is little doubt that things are not right about British education at the present time. I share the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, when she said that every one of us in your Lordships' House must share the same wish to see British education improve in all its aspects and brought up to being, as I believe it once was, the best in the world.
As many of your Lordships will know, I have been privileged to be asked to chair the Hamlyn Foundation National Commission on Education which began its work in the autumn of last year. That commission has many objectives which it has set out in a paper. This afternoon I would like to bring to your Lordships' attention a few of the targets and visions which that commission has established in its work, and then to ask whether the Bill which we are now considering at Second Reading will have the effect of helping us to achieve some of those targets.
While, as I have said, everyone wishes to see our educational system improved, as we learnt from the highly articulate, lucid and forceful opening speeches made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Denton of Wakefield and Lady Blackstone, there is clearly a very serious difference of opinion in your Lordships' House as to whether the Bill will achieve those aims.
I speak now not as the chairman of the commission on education but as an individual. Nevertheless, wish to speak now about a few of the aims and objectives which it has set out. First, that people of all ages from childhood onwards will have the entitlement, opportunity and desire to develop themselves to the full through learning, in accordance with their individual abilities, needs and choices. Secondly, all that is excellent in the values and aspirations of the United Kingdom will be reflected in the teaching and ethos of its education and training institutions.
As regards the targets which the commission would hope to see achieved on the basis of the recommendations which it will eventually formulate, we hope towards the end of 1993, we wish to see that the recorded achievement of students at all stages shows a marked and widespread rise in learning
622
attainment; that there will be clear evidence that people of all levels of ability are being enabled to grow in knowledge, skills and understanding in accordance with their potential, regardless of wealth, social origin, gender, race, colour or physical or mental handicap. We wish to see that the United Kingdom stands as high as any country in international comparisons of performance in education and training; that enterprise, creativity and achievement in education and training by institutions, teachers and students will be encouraged and rewarded and that teachers at all levels will stand high in public esteem.
In order to fulfil its work and to pursue it, the commission has established seven working groups, the first of which will be looking at effective schooling. The second will be looking at schools, society and citizenship and the third at the teaching profession and quality. The other groups need not concern us in today's argument. I ask: in what way will this Education (Schools) Bill enable us to fulfil some of the objectives set out under each of those headings and answer some of the questions which we have posed? How can a school establish an ethos favouring effective education? How can provision by schools be so articulated that each individual will progress through the various stages of education at a pace suited to that individual and in a logical way, without needless repetition or disconcerting gaps; and also without frustration and boredom for the more able or feelings of failure or rejection for the slower learners?
At present about a quarter of all pupils are hostile towards school; believe that education is irrelevant and get relatively little from their experience of it. How can that very serious problem be tackled? Given how important is the influence of parents and family for the development, maturation and attitudes of young people, how can active parent involvement be built up, especially where it is lacking at present? I believe that there are clauses in this Bill which will certainly improve active parental involvement.
Turning to some of the other objectives and aims which I have set out, is an inspectorial process likely to help one in the educational system to achieve those aims? I believe without question that it would. I believe that the more regular inspection of schools is a very worthy objective underlined by the Bill. Inspecting teams could help very much to improve those standards of education. Speaking from my experience in a much more limited field of medical education, as a former dean of a medical school, then chairman of the education committee of the General Medical Council and ultimately its president, there can be no doubt that when we sent independent inspecting teams to look at the curriculum and examinations of schools in this country and occasionally abroad, they often identified problems which, in some cases, were difficult to eradicate and some easier to put right, and of which teachers in those schools had not been aware.
As has been said by several speakers, inspectors can be of enormous help to the schools. Many HMIs have fulfilled that function, but their number is not sufficient for them to be able to carry out the inspections every four years, as this Bill demands.

623
How can that be achieved? In my view I cannot but express concern about the proposals that these inspecting teams will be employed on a commercial basis, and that they will be chosen by the governors of the schools who will invite them to inspect their teaching and curriculum. How will they be chosen? Will the schools choose the cheapest? Will they choose the inspectors because they happen to know of their political affiliations or beliefs? Will they be chosen because they are local people or because they come from certain ethnic groups? Will they be chosen because of the attitude that the teams of inspectors might take?
I wholly appreciate that the intention of the Government is an exceptionally worthy one and that they hope that the teams they will nominate, or from whom the schools will choose, will be exceptionally well-trained people who will do an outstanding job in inspecting these schools. In my view any inspecting system must have independence. It must be independent of the body that it is going to inspect. For that reason, while I would not favour extension of the local authority education system at all, I believe that it will be far better if that were done either by an extension of the HMI system or under the aegis of some totally independent body which would have a cadre of trained inspectors who will form the teams. That independent body would nominate the teams to go to the schools rather than them being chosen by the schools themselves. That is one of the fundamental principles which, speaking as an individual, is flawed in the Bill and which gives me very considerable concern.
I now turn to the question of measuring added value and the league tables. I believe that that is wholly admirable. I believe that it is right that parents should have much more information about the quality of the education being provided in the schools in their area so that they can make an informed choice. That is very important. But let me say at once that having made that point, raw data is, I believe, very dangerous— if noble Lords will forgive me, raw data are very dangerous—and should not be relied upon.
The education commission, which as I have said I have the privilege to chair, will not be reporting until the end of next year because it is now collecting information and undertaking its work. But it is commissioning a series of independent research papers. Briefing papers will be published every month or six weeks under the aegis of that commission. The first of these, by Professor Andrew McPherson of Edinburgh, will be published next Tuesday. It is called,Measuring added value in schools I am able to quote this, although, as I said, the full details will not be published until next Tuesday. Professor McPherson says:
"The publication of examination and test results, resulting in 'league tables' and calls for calculations of the contributions schools make to pupils' progress—the 'value-added' they offer—raise a number of difficult questions".
He goes on to show by very careful and carefully-validated material and statistical information that raw data in one particular table gave a completely false impression of the quality of education
624
produced by six schools. If well-validated correction factors were applied, then the placing of those individual schools in the league table in question changed very substantially.
In other words, as he says, schools test and examination results are informative, but raw results are misleading indicators of the added value of a school if they are not also adjusted for intake differences. Raw results should therefore be accompanied by an assessment of the contributions a school makes to its pupils' progress. This should take account of each pupil's prior level of attainment and other factors inside and outside the school that may have influenced progress. The basis of the assessment must be made clear, and it must have solid theoretical backing.
In other words, if we are to depend upon the publication of league tables—and I think that it is right that we should —those who produce them must be fully aware that a good system must take account of different needs and uses, but it must be as simple as possible, recognising the individuality of pupils' families and schools. The assessment must be undertaken over a period in order to provide measures of either stability or change instead of single snapshots. Finally, it must have built into it the means of monitoring and improving its own validity. I hope very much that the Government will take account of those views.
Perhaps I may make one last point about the question of inspection and the involvement of lay persons. My own personal experience is that the Government are right to suggest that lay people can make a most important and valid contribution—not of course on the quality of scientific teaching or on the technical nature and content of the teaching that is being provided—but they can be invaluable in assessing the ethos, atmosphere and overall personality of an educational institution. I commend that particular part of the inspecting team. But above all, independence is a crucial point which I hope the Government will note.
5.24 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, from his independent position on the Cross-Benches, has made a most interesting speech to which I am sure the House has listened with great attention. He has made a number of points, which doubtless will be followed up in Committee.
I should like to speak about what the Bill proposes for Scotland. Much of the debate so far, and a large part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has been about the inspection of schools. The system for the inspection of schools in Scotland operates quite differently from the current system South of the Border. In Scotland school inspectors are based on the Scottish Office, not on local authorities. That arrangement is unaffected by the Bill. It is Clause 17 that is the clause for Scotland. It seeks to amend Section 28 of the Education (Scotland) Act, and in so doing it would enable the Secretary of State for Scotland to make certain regulations. Broadly speaking, the regulations would relate to the same

625
areas as those covered by Clause 16, as described by my noble friend on the Front Bench in opening the debate, and as applauded by the noble Lord, Lord Walton.
First, the regulations would relate to the collecting of information about the provision and performance of schools. Secondly, they would ensure that adequate information is available to parents and the public. Thirdly, they would ensure that parents receive proper reports and information about their child's progress and have a chance to discuss that progress with the school.
What the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has said about raw data certainly needs to be closely examined—and I note that data do not come singly. But of course some schools in Scotland regard it as an important part of the education they offer to provide information, to report to parents and the like. They take a lot of trouble in so doing. Other schools certainly do not. Regional and islands councils, which are the education authorities in Scotland, vary considerably in the encouragement that they give to schools in this area, and the extent to which they disseminate information about schools generally. That is why this part of the Parent's Charter for Scotland is so important. Unless the rights of parents are established by law some education authorities in Scotland and some schools will, for whatever reason, drag their feet.
One has only to look back to the story of the right to choose one's school in Scotland. Until Parliament legislated in 1981, very few education authorities—I have an idea it was only one—allowed all parents to choose the school that their child attended. They said it was too difficult to arrange, or was not wanted. In Scotland, since 1981, there has been a legal right to choose. There have been 200,000 placing requests by parents; and more than 90 per cent. of those have been granted. That could not have been done without the legislation at that time which made the right to choose possible.
I turn now to new rights made possible by this Bill: the right to information about schools in the area so that an informed choice of school can be made; the right to information from the school about one's child's progress; the right to discuss that progress. These, one would think, are essential rights in a modern education system, especially in a country which values education as highly as does Scotland. Yet, as with school choice, unless it is a legal requirement, it clearly will not happen.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has written saying, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said in her opening remarks in the debate, that they do not oppose the provision of information to parents, although they object to some of the detail of how the Bill proposes making sure the information is forthcoming. I wonder how enthusiastic the regional and island councils are even about the basic rights of parents to information. If the press is to be believed, when the leaflets explaining the Scottish Parent's Charter —which is about this right—were distributed to the education authorities for sending on to schools
626
and parents, seven out of the 12 education authorities in Scotland—Lothian, Central, Tayside, Fife, Grampian, Highland and Borders; the first five Labour-controlled, the last two independent—either refused to pass the document on to schools or passed it on to schools and advised them that there was no need to distribute it to parents. CoSLA tells us that those authorities took advice and were told that to block the Parent's Charter was within the law. That may well be so but the enthusiasm of Scottish education authorities for the rights of parents to information is at least in question.
CoSLA takes issue with the fact that the Bill is drafted in the form of enabling legislation so as to give the Secretary of State for Scotland powers to require information to be provided without setting out precisely what that information will be. Doubtless this will be discussed in Committee, but it seems to me that no other legislative form would be possible in this particular circumstance. The Secretary of State for Scotland wants to consult local authorities and others about the detail before drafting the regulations and laying them before Parliament. As time goes on, the arrangements are bound to need up-dating. That is not easy to do except through the mechanism of regulations.
On this point, there arises one question which I want to ask the Minister this afternoon. In introducing the Bill, my noble friend Lady Denton referred to consultation on Clause 16 in regard to England and Wales. So far no consultation has begun in Scotland. CoSLA is anxious to know when consultation will take place. Can the Minister help us on this point? CoSLA is also anxious that certain parts of the detailed drafting of Clause 17 are too vague or require clarification. These points will doubtless be discussed at the Committee stage, and I give notice to my noble friend that we shall want that. However, all that having been said, at this stage I commend to the House the broad thrust of the Scottish part of the Bill and I hope that it will get a fair wind as we proceed through the various stages.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, I have some personal experience of the schools' inspectorate. Indeed, I think my experience is probably more extensive than his. Before I came into Parliament 41 years ago I was headmaster of what was then a big boys' school. I had many visits from HMI. There were short visits when the inspectors popped in to discuss specific problems and there would also be a full-scale week-long inspection by four or five inspectors, culminating in a discussion with the school governors. So I have personal experience of their expertise and helpfulness to the schools, not least, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, in carrying ideas from one place to another—a kind of cross-pollination.
Secondly, as Secretary of State for Education and Science, I never at any time interfered with the inspectorate, much less attempted to give it a directive. This Bill empowers the Secretary of State to do that for the first time in 150 years. I found that the

627
inspectors were an excellent, objective source of information about schools and about local education authorities to which I could turn at any time. They were always willing to give advice fearlessly and fairly. I did not always agree with them but they were always willing to discuss problems.
Thirdly, as Lord President of the Council, I on many occasions took to the Privy Council names to be approved by the Queen as inspectors of schools. Indeed, those noble Lords who watched the film on the Queen last week would have noticed that at the Privy Council one of the items was the appointment of an inspector of schools in Scotland.
So I have seen the inspectorate from those three points of view. When I look at this squalid, miserable Bill in the light of that experience, I can only assume that the Government have taken leave of their senses. They are off their corporate rocker. Through all the idiotic changes in the Education Reform Act and through all the subsequent pronouncements on policy, not least by the present Secretary of State, who displays a mind-boggling ignorance of what goes on in schools and of what education is about, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, and others who care about the education system consoled ourselves with the knowledge that at least we still had the independent inspectorate, which could be relied upon to report objectively and which, unlike the DES, could not be browbeaten by reactionary Ministers. But now this is largely to be replaced by registered school contractors. That is what they will be. They will have to submit tenders. They will be inspection contractors.
The Government's previous reforms have been stupid, ill-advised and extremely damaging. Anyone who knows about educational institutions today will know that, from the universities down to the nursery schools, morale is at an all-time low. But this proposal is something else. This proposal is something different. In my opinion, it is sinister in the extreme. Before I say why I think that, I invite the House to look at the arithmetic of this proposal.
Every school, we are told, must be examined at prescribed intervals by the new private inspectors. The Bill refers to "an inspector" but later on refers to "the inspector and his team". There are in England and Wales 31,773 schools. All inspections have to be paid for. Therefore it is quite obvious that inspecting schools will become a fairly extensive money-making business. I find that almost as obscene as the Government's policy of turning the care of the aged into a money-making business. Hundreds of school inspection companies will be set up. They will employ staff who will want the protection of a corporate body. Individuals throughout the country will establish companies with the object of tendering for the inspection of schools. There will be teams of inspectors and back-up secretarial help.
Have the Government considered the cost of inspecting a school? I estimate that the very minimum will be £50 per hour of an inspector's time in school, and, considering the ancillary services which must be provided by the inspector, that is probably an
628
underestimate. If noble Lords consider the number of reports that must be sent out, they will realise that a great deal of secretarial help will be involved.
Have the Secretary of State and the Minister—if I may have her attention for a moment—considered how long it takes to inspect a school? If the Government are thinking in terms of one inspector for one day I can tell them now that that is utterly worthless. It will take three or four inspectors the greater part of a week to inspect a medium sized school of 500 pupils. I ask noble Lords to consider the case of a normal sized primary school of 400 pupils. One of the most important elements in primary education is learning to read. How can anyone say anything worth while about the standards of reading in that school without hearing a great many of those 400 children read? However, reading is only one part of one subject; there are all the other subjects to be considered. I believe that it will cost a minimum of £1,000 to inspect a school.
We have been told—and the noble Baroness confirmed this today; indeed it is in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill—that the money is to come from what local education authorities now spend on inspection and advisory services. Local education authorities are very hard up. The one that I know best, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, is closing old people's homes and selling them to private enterprise firms. It is also paying off teachers left, right and centre. If that authority has to pay out money to the schools that it now spends on its advisory services, there will be no advisory service. Anyone who knows anything about schools knows that one of the most useful aspects of the education service since the Second World War has been the advisory service. For the benefit of noble Lords who do not know what it is, perhaps I should explain. It usually consists of expert teachers who visit schools giving advice on specific subjects. Teachers need such advice.
Therefore, the arithmetic of the foolish proposal before us reveals an almost unbelievable lack of thought and knowledge about schools. However, the arithmetic is not the worst aspect. If one considers who will staff these new school inspection companies, one will see the worst aspect of the Bill. It is quite certain—and Sir Timothy Raison made this point during the closing stages of the Bill in another place —that every far-Right reactionary body (and there are many of them around, some of which have been advising the present Government) and perhaps every far-Left reactionary body too will try to get in on the act. But, of course, their fingerprints will not appear on the prospectuses. Those companies will have prospectuses just like double-glazing or timeshare companies. Indeed, they will flood the schools with prospectuses. How, otherwise, will the governors be able to ask for tenders? They will receive prospectuses from all over the place from bodies which have set out to inspect schools.
In exercising his powers under Clause 10, the chief inspector will have no way of knowing who these people are and to whom they answer. Every sleazy educational pressure group will have an influence on school inspections and therefore on the education of

629
our children. As several other speakers have said, if one looks in the legislation one can see that registered inspectors are not required to have any professional or even academic qualification; in other words, not an A-level, not a degree, not an o-level or a GCSE—in fact, nothing. Perhaps the noble Baroness who is to reply for the Government will be able to tell us how she sees the criteria that the chief inspector will use in registering those people. I plead with her not to tell us that it is a matter for the chief inspector. We want to know what are the criteria for selecting the registered inspectors.
It seems to me that those registered inspectors will be like the supplementary teachers who filled the schools in large numbers at the beginning of the century. There were only two qualifications: they had to be over 18 years of age and they had to be vaccinated. That is about what it amounts to with the proposed registered inspectors. Yet those people will inspect and criticise (and make public their criticism) the work of highly skilled and dedicated teachers. Moreover, they will be paid for doing so. The entire teaching profession, if it still calls itself a profession, should rebel against this iniquitous proposal. Let us make no mistake about it, it will be used to browbeat teachers into undoing all that has been achieved in our schools in the past few decades—and a great deal has been achieved —and into adopting teaching methods which were abandoned 50 years ago. That is why, in my opinion, it is a sinister proposal.
From my experience of the inspectorate, which I outlined at the beginning of my speech, I say to the House, to the Government and, if anyone will listen, to the country that our schools inspectorate is far too precious and far too important to be largely replaced as the Bill suggests. Its impartiality, its expertise is a feature of our educational system which many other countries envy. We must not let this Government destroy it.
5.47 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating my noble friend Lady Denton of Wakefield on the way that she introduced this important measure today. I thought that she did so with great clarity, and that she explained in great detail a number of points which have been raised in the course of the debate which subsequently followed. I entirely support the Bill's two objectives; namely, to improve and increase the number of schools that are to be inspected and to make public certain information relating to pupils in schools as fulfilment of part of the Parent's Charter.
I shall start by agreeing with something that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, which was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. There is a broad measure of agreement that we need a better educated population. The objective of all of us is to find a way of achieving that aim. The Bill comes shortly after the 1988 Education Act, which, I am bound to say, was extremely hard fought over in your
630
Lordships' House clause by clause and line by line. I believe that the national curriculum is broadly accepted now, especially as regards the core subjects.
There was enormous debate about the testing and assessment provisions. Although I would be the first to accept that the arrangements originally established were clearly too complicated, nevertheless, we have had the first set of tests for seven year-olds. The process has started and it is working. I believe that it commands a broad measure of agreement, notwithstanding the fact that it was greatly criticised at the time. It gives a measure of how children arc progressing. Despite everything that has been said today, I believe that the proposals in the Bill will also come to be accepted.
Of course, the Bill is a piece of radical thinking. I should like to echo the remarks made about the inspectorate. When I was a DES Minister, I worked closely with the inspectorate, as indeed I did when I served on a local authority education committee. But I believe that the time has come to look at the 1988 education Act and decide what actually needs to be done to fulfil all the high hopes that we had of it. As I understand it, the real problem— and I have listened to much criticism and suggestions as regards what the Government are doing—is that the inspectorate has not been able to do as much inspecting as we would all have liked. I believe that I am right in saying that my noble friend Lady Denton said in her opening remarks that there are 25,000 schools, but that only 150 full inspections were published last year. At that rate, we will be into the indefinite future before we have all schools fully inspected.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, talked about 7,000 inspections. But we are not comparing like with like. I am sure that the noble Lord would be the first to agree that included in such inspections will be short school visits just for the afternoon or perhaps for the inspection of one item in the school. That is not the same as a full school inspection, measuring school by school a whole number of similar and agreed criteria. It is a fact that there were more inspections of further education colleges than there were main inspections of schools. Clearly, there is a need to tackle the problem.
I concede that it would be possible merely to increase the numbers of HMI. A vast increase would be needed to meet the requirements. That is what the Opposition would do, if I have understood their Centre for Measuring Standards correctly. The Government have gone down a different route. They propose a smaller inspectorate, all of whose inspectors will be registered, able to buy-in the necessary expertise. Those people—there will be 600 of them —will be trained. As I understand it, they will not —I hope that my noble friend the Minister will confirm this point when she replies—be free to set any standard they think that they would like. Inspections will have to be carried out to agreed national standards. They will have to be monitored and enforced by HMI.
I see the Bill as complementary to the 1988 Act, which set out and established the core and national curriculum and what children should achieve at certain ages. By establishing a more independent

631
inspectorate, the Bill gives HMI the power to ensure that those objectives are being carried out. It guarantees that schools will be inspected every four years and that there will be an inspection report on schools' strengths and weaknesses which will be made available to parents, teachers, LEAs and all who have an interest in measuring and knowing how each school is doing. That will also be valuable to special schools.
I well recall the 1981 Act dealing with special education, because I was the Minister who introduced the Bill into your Lordships' House. I always understood that one of the reasons behind the Act was the anxiety of parents of children with disabilities that their children were not being as stretched as they should be within the education system. The idea was that such children would do better if they were in mainstream schools. I am sure that that is right in principle. However it is sad to think that almost no special school has been inspected, and so we have no measure of what is happening to those children. We cannot compare special schools with the schools that take children with disabilities. We do not know which is doing better, and such schools are not being measured against objective standards.
No one could have listened to the debate without being well aware that there are many anxieties. I was especially interested in the paper produced by the National Association of Head Teachers which, although accepting the main purposes of the Bill, is clearly anxious about a number of its details. There are a number of matters to which we shall clearly return in Committee.
It is important that the professionalism, impartiality and high quality of the inspectorate is made clear, as the Bill proceeds through the House. It is essential that there should be inspectors, for example, with knowledge of special schools.
As I understand the Government's thinking on the matter, teams of inspectors must have a range of experience suitable for the school being inspected. The teams must spend sufficient time in a school to form judgments on its quality and efficiency. That answers the point of whether they will know that children can read. The inspectors will have to find a means of judging that matter. There must be direct observation of the teaching. That again answers questions about whether the teaching is mixed ability or formal. There must be observation of teaching and learning as well as an examination of performance indicators. All those are matters to which we shall return again and again, and I hope that my noble friend will say something about those issues when she replies. It is important to establish and spell out the criteria against which to judge schools.
Many noble Lords have been less than fair to school governors. A school governor has an important role to play. It is good that all maintained schools now have boards of governors. I should not like to say that in every school it will be the head who will rule the governors. I can think now of schools where that is not the case. Of course one does not want to have a dispute between the head and the governors,
632
but we need strongminded governors who are capable of making a decision on the important question of inspectors.
We should compare the proposal with what frequently happens now with local authority inspectors, who are of course both judge and jury in their own case. Part of the trouble has been the existence of too much cosiness within the present system.
I do not wish to speak at length and so I shall touch just briefly on the Parent's Charter. Over the past few years, the role of parents has been greatly increased and that is much to be welcomed. They have been given a bigger role to play on governing bodies and greater opportunities to choose schools; but, the choice must be an informed one. Under the Parent's Charter, they are to be given far more information from all schools in the area which is to be presented in an intelligible way. That will be valuable. I am pleased that examination results are to be published. I hope that they will include BTEC results as well as those of the GCSE and A-levels and other important vocational examinations.
I also welcome the publication of information across all schools, especially in respect of CTCs. I know that the Opposition want to abolish them, but they will become centres of excellence, especially for vocational training—an area in which the country has been notoriously weak. We have listened this afternoon to some Opposition speeches which have been full of sound and fury; but there are unequal standards in our schools today, especially those in the inner cities where the results have been poor. No one can be satisfied with that.
I well recall that inspectors' reports frequently said that such schools had no examination results because of low expectations. For far too long we have accepted low standards, too many pupils leaving without qualifications, and too little understanding of vocational education in a world in which there will be few, if any, unskilled jobs left for anyone. The Bill, in two ways—the inspectorate and the Parent's Charter —goes a long way towards addressing those problems. It will give schools a measure of attainment. We are, after all, all human beings. One strives to do one's best for pupils. To have an objective measure across a number of issues will raise standards. It will be helpful to teachers, and pupils above all, and will give parents more information.
5.58 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I must apologise to the Minister and to your Lordships' House, because I have to return to Manchester tonight, which means leaving the House at 8 o'clock. When I was last able to be in touch with the Whips' Office the list of speakers was rather shorter than it appeared today. That shows the great interest that exists in the Bill.
The injunction,
"always [to] keep a hold of nurse
For fear of finding something worse",
is one that commends itself to me when thinking about HMI. We have heard from many noble Lords that in

633
1989 the inspectorate celebrated the 150th anniversary of the appointment of the first two inspectors of schools. Although many changes have taken place, we have heard many compliments today about the thoroughness, independence and fearlessness of HMI. Only yesterday I was speaking to a headmistress of an inner city school in Manchester. She spoke of the supportive nature of the work of Her Majesty's Inspectorate, not only in the curriculum and testing, but in interpreting the edicts of the local education authority and also, in her case, more in helping over matters such as racial discrimination. The inspectors have been a supportive group in our education system over many years.
The introduction to the Bill states:
"The Bill gives effect to proposals outlined in the White Paper 'The Citizen's Charter'".
The guide to the charter issued in July by the Cabinet Office refers specifically to tougher inspection:
"In the past, the inspectors of our key public services have usually been members of the profession they oversee. This has made for far too close a relationship. The Government wants to give people from different backgrounds a bigger say in future and will see to it that—starting with the Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Inspectorate of Schools —more lay experts are appointed to inspectorates".
That is a philosophy that I personally find difficult to accept because it devalues professional expertise, often gained over many years of experience. It is held that this kind of inspection creates far too close a relationship. That implies that one professional cannot be objective about the work of another. I have to say from my experience that that is not always the case. Many of us have worked in different parts of the education system. I look back, for example, on experience of course reviews and course validations. I recall that in the past year, with the last two course validations with which I was associated we were unable to validate the course. Professionals looking at the work of professionals did not have too close a relationship.
I was privileged to work with one of the sub-groups of the first research selectivity exercise in the university. There, professionals were analytical and critical of each other's work. There was not too close a relationship.
During the past year I have worked with a programme advisory group for the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. Again, professionals have looked at the work of other professionals. I argue that, without professional expertise and experience, one is incapable of judging the sophistication of the educational system.
I find the paragraph in the guidance on the Citizen's Charter which declares that more lay experts will be appointed curiously self-contradictory. I consulted the Concise Oxford Dictionary and found that one of the meanings of "lay" is "not expert". Why are we having more lay (not expert) experts inflicted upon us?
Having said that, I find much that is positive in the Bill. I commend the proposal that schools should be more regularly inspected. I think that would have been the wish of the present inspectorate had the manpower situation been different. I commend the proposal that there should be a systematic national framework for
634
inspection; that the inspectorate should be independent of the people who finance the schools; and that there should be openness in the publication of data, although we have heard about the dangers of using raw data. I commend the proposal that there should be lay representation on inspecting committees.
However, there are aspects of the Bill about which I am less sanguine. First, the proposed decrease in staff in Her Majesty's Inspectorate from 480 to 175 makes me wonder how they will be able to perform all the tasks allocated to the inspectorate in the Bill and still less how they will be able to maintain any local advisory function. The proposal is that they will be augmented by registered inspectors who, with a minimum of training—a week or so—will supplement the work of professional people. I find it difficult to imagine how the registered inspectorate will be able to function in this situation. Further, I believe that the inspectorate will be in danger of losing its credibility if it is diluted to the extent that the Bill envisages.
Thus, we may be exchanging this over-closeness of the professionals, a professional bias, for what will now be a commercial bias and interest. These are the aspects of the Bill about which I am less sanguine and therefore I am left with two questions. First, is the Bill really necessary; could not a reform of the existing inspectorate achieve at least as much, if not more? Secondly, will the Bill bring us something better or will we, having forsaken nurse, find ourselves with something worse?
6.7 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, the answer to the final question of the noble Baroness is undoubtedly in the affirmative. Before the world was ruined by tourism, there were a number of islands in the South Seas where there were still primitive peoples. Anthropologists of the last and previous generations used to go to investigate their habits. They were particularly interested in initiation ceremonies, some of which were rather jolly.
We seem to have, as an initiation ceremony for newly appointed Members of the Government Front Bench, the ability to present a wholly silly Bill, or occasionally the silliest part of a generally, possibly marginally, silly Bill. It has been the fate of the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, to present what I think is the silliest Bill that any Parliament has ever had to consider. I do not regard it as sinister in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, does because I use the word "silly" in a rather restricted sense. It is a Bill in which the Government having established a problem, the Bill then proceeds to devise a solution which has nothing whatever to do with the problem.
Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, or the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, I am not and never have been a 100 per cent. enthusiast for the inspection system as it exists, either nationally or locally, because I think—and many headmasters of my acquaintance have made the point—that they are occasionally overcome by fashion and tend to ask schools to do things which the schools themselves rightly feel are inappropriate.

635
If the Government had said, at a time when—as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned—we are having immense changes in the school system, that they need to look again at inspecting and monitoring performance and they have proposals to that effect, I would have been open to consider them. But how would such proposals in an ideal, or even an ordinary world, be reached? As has been pointed out by other noble Lords, they would first be reached by consulting at length and in detail with those who have been affected or are likely to be affected by the proposals. A Bill that comes before us with no such consultation —in presenting the Bill the noble Baroness made no case that there had been such consultation—is in itself subject to criticism.
My second point has been referred to obliquely by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. It is an important point. Much of the anxiety about the standards of education in our schools comes from comparisons with other countries of roughly the same level of industrial and social development, particularly with the countries of the European Community. Was anyone asked to look at how France, Holland or Germany inspect their schools? We have not had the slightest indication of any thought going into this Bill. I believe I can pronounce my next statement as a fact. We can be certain that none of the countries I have just mentioned puts inspection out to commercial tender.
I would be prepared to listen to a case for more frequent inspections—there is such a case—and therefore perhaps for a different structure of the inspectorate. One could envisage more local teams responsible to the new chief inspector as contrasted with the teams which have hitherto worked for local government. All those matters are open to discussion in the educational world and in your Lordships' House but none of them points to the idea of turning inspection into a commercial proposition. One could implement all these changes based upon the normal feature that things which the Government regard as essential to the educational system, or any other part of the system, are paid for by government.
I shall explain why I regard the Bill as silly. The idea that the matter I have just referred to should be or could be regarded as a commercial operation, and that a number of noble Lords should go off and register a company offering to inspect at a cheap rate, let us say, all schools beginning with the letter 'C', is what I would call silly in the narrow sense. I cannot say it is the product of thought because obviously no thought has gone into it. It is the product of an impulse, a prejudice and of a notion. Your Lordships should not be faced with products of that kind.
I know the Government will say that if we get all the reports published and circulated and the publication of data is taken into account, all that will help parents to decide which schools they wish their children to attend, and the process of competition thus engendered will have a salutary effect upon schools. I shall not say this is a current illusion but perhaps it is a noble dream that all children have parents who are not merely capable of assessing whether little Johnny is getting on at school, but who are also capable of
636
absorbing raw data, managed data or statistics of any kind, and devoting to that information the attention they might otherwise give to, for example, the statistics of performance in the football league. That seems to me to be a noble dream. There are parents like that, but a great many children do not have parents of that kind.
Surely any system of inspection designed to maximise the achievement of schools and the services schools give to their communities should take all children into account, not only those children who are fortunate enough to have caring, intelligent and assiduous parents. We do not get much consolation out of that concept. I fear this is too much to hope for, but I would much prefer that the Government, having realised this notion would not go down in your Lordships' House—it was hammered through the House of Commons as these things often are, but with some rather notable protests among Members in another place who have interests in education—would take this Bill away and consider that, as they expect to be in power for some time longer—however, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, does not expect the Government to be in power for much longer—they will review possible alternative schemes for inspection and will take into account the need to follow the national curriculum and the other concepts that are now embedded in our system. Perhaps the Government would consider that they should produce another measure.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, was, I think, perhaps a trifle unfair to those Members of your Lordships' House who have a particular interest in higher education as there is no distinction and no discrepancy on this matter. If anything our self-interest as practitioners in higher education is to try to ensure that pupils who come from the schools should receive the best education possible. Therefore it is not surprising that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, with extraordinary ingenuity has managed to think of a way of slightly moderating the horrors of this commercial competition. However, I fear he has not gone far enough to satisfy most noble Lords.
It may well be that if we looked properly and at leisure, and with the guidance which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and his commission will be providing from time to time, we might consider that there was a case for associating the institutions of higher education with the inspection of schools. In countries such as France, which has a highly centralised system of education, there is an association of that kind in which I believe a rector of a university is responsible for education generally. Given the multiplication of universities and given the fact that soon there will be nearly 100 universities, it would not be too difficult to say that the new chief inspectorate, in combination with those institutions, might work out a system of inspection which at any rate would not contain the absurdities of the proposals that are now before us.
A case has been put by the noble Baroness, Lady David—I am sure it will be repeated by other noble Lords—which concerns how the new system relates to the general responsibility for schools. It makes a great deal of difference, surely, whether we are to think of a

637
world in which most schools are the responsibility of local education authorities, or whether we are to think of a world in which most schools have opted for dependence upon central government. Yet this Bill takes no notice of the possibility of changes from one of those worlds to the other. But meanwhile, as has been pointed out, local authorities have a responsibility to those who elect them—I believe the right reverend Prelate made this point—as regards the quality of education in the areas for which they are elected.
In another place a number of Members from West Sussex made that very point. They wanted to know how an education authority can fulfil the responsibility conferred upon it when, by the Bill, it is excluded from examining the schools to see whether they are doing what the authority is supposed to ensure that they do. I would make the same point on behalf of East Sussex, but I believe that my noble friend Lady Cumberlege will do so.
Should we embark on what will cause ridicule not only in this country but even abroad? I can visualise an article in, for example, a German newspaper of repute on the way in which the British inspect their schools: "They invite tenders from commercial firms for inspection by persons who need have no qualifications". That will not encourage exchanges of pupils between us and German and French schools, on which it is said that this Government are rightly keen.
Although we cannot vote against the Second Reading, I hope that we shall so amend the Bill that the Government will lose all patience with it and instead embark upon a progressive course of thinking about the problem from which, so far, they have run away.
6.21 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I share the sympathy expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, on being responsible for introducing the Bill. Much as I admired her performance at the Dispatch Box, I found it very difficult to reconcile her comments on the Bill with my own understanding of it.
The Bill purports to do two things: to improve the quality of education through changes in the inspectorate, and to provide more information for parents and others so that an informed choice and judgment can be made. There is no controversy about those two objectives. One would agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said about the quality of education and the need to improve it. The controversy arises in the way in which the Bill sets about that and that is where the misconception lies.
As many of your Lordships have said this afternoon, HM inspectors have a long and well regarded history of independence and professionalism. At a stroke this Bill diminishes their role and undermines their professionalism, as the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, made very clear. One can only conclude that the Government's drive to privatise has once again got the better of their judgment. No
638
real justification has been given for the proposed changes. The fact that there are 25,000 schools in the country and last year only 150 were reported on is not a condemnation of the system. It suggests that we should build on the system of inspection and provide more inspectors to join the profession.
It has been claimed that the Bill attempts to free HM inspectors and the chief inspector from departmental and ministerial interference. The chief inspector is to be the accounting officer for a new department and so, it is suggested, will be free from such constraints. Yet three factors mitigate against that. First, in addition to the duty to inform the Secretary of State as to the quality of education and standards in schools the chief inspector also has to report on whether financial resources are managed efficiently. Managed efficiently by whose standards? Those three duties appear to be equal duties, but I should have thought that quality and standards were the responsibility of HM inspectors, and the efficient use of resources was the responsibility of governors, LEAs and the Government arising from the reports of the inspectorate on those two functions.
Secondly, as both my noble friends Lady Blackstone and Lady David mentioned, the chief inspector is required to give advice to the Secretary of State on such matters as the Secretary of State may specify. The Bill does not indicate whether advice freely given by the chief inspector is regarded as part of his responsibility.
Thirdly, as was also mentioned by my noble friends, in exercising his functions, the chief inspector shall have regard to such aspects of government policy as the Secretary of State considers proper and as he may direct. That will be an entirely new responsibility to be enshrined in statute if the Bill goes through. Rather than adding to the independence of the inspectorate, that seems to diminish its influence and to strengthen the centralisation of the system in the hands of the Secretary of State.
That point is emphasised by the fact that the post of chief inspector will be one which is held for a fixed period. I do not quarrel with fixed term appointments per se, but in the past the inspectorate has been a coherent profession. There has been an opportunity to move upwards in the team. Again, I find that no justification has been given for that change.
We have been told by the Minister this afternoon that the number of inspectors is to be reduced, not increased. They will therefore work less in the field, their job will be to work through the appointed registered inspectors. I doubt very much whether that is a move for the better. As some of your Lordships have said, the value of the inspectorate has been that the inspectors have worked in the field and have been able to give practical advice to the Secretary of State.
At local level the proposed arrangements for school inspections are another example of the Government's contempt for local government. Local education authorities, in partnership with HM inspectors, their own school inspectors, advisers, governors and teachers, have worked their way through the many changes that have been made in the education system in the past five or six years, as the noble Baroness,

639
Lady Seear, said. As a consequence, they have begun to establish long-term planning to implement those changes. All of that is in jeopardy.
Local education authorities still have a statutory responsibility to provide an adequate education system for their areas but their powers to do so are being limited. Instead of local authority inspectors having the right to go into schools, they will have unattached registered inspectors. One presumes that the registered inspectors will be working on the principle of a small business, or perhaps a large business, because we do not know how many of the inspectors will work together and from where they will recruit their ad hoc team members. Having recruited their teams, they will compete for business from the schools as governors are to have responsibility for arranging full inspections at least every four years.
As your Lordships have seen this afternoon and have heard in meetings with educationists and parents, the introduction of market forces in this way raises all kinds of questions for local authorities. How can there be continuity, and how can they integrate their advisory work with that of inspectors?
I have a list of questions which have been raised by local education authorities on the new inspection system. Will individual inspectors or whole teams need to be accredited? What are to be the criteria in establishing the inspection teams? Will schools have a copy of the approved list of inspection teams on a local, regional or national basis? To what extent will inspection under the new arrangements take account of inspections that have already taken place? What will be the feedback system to ensure that the carrying out of the inspection leads to continuing improvements in the system? How will the considerable experience of the LEAs in inspecting and advising schools be used in the training of the new registered inspectors and their teams? Those are general questions which local education authorities are anxious about and which they will need to have answered.
Some local education authorities face specific problems. For example, in my area, Bradford, 28 per cent. of students come from different ethnic minorities; and in some inner city schools over 90 per cent. of pupils come from ethnic minority backgrounds. That causes particular problems for that local education authority. That brings me to the point which has been raised of whether the publication of raw data was sufficient to cover that kind of situation in some schools. It also raises the question whether the difficulties of bilingual teaching in schools will be taken adequately into account by the standards being set for the inspectorate.
There are a number of specific and general problems as well as fears raised by the Bill. I share the sentiments of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, when she says that it is a pity that we cannot throw out the Bill. Although we shall come back to different aspects of it from time to time in the next few weeks, I doubt whether even the expertise of your Lordships in revising legislation will be sufficient to turn this into a worthwhile Bill.
6.35 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness on her excellent and comprehensive introduction to the debate. I believe that she answered many of the anxieties concerning the Bill. I am pleased to support a measure which proposes ways in which the achievements of schools are made known to those who have a right to know; parents, future employers of pupils and the taxpayer who pays for education.
Anxiety has been expressed in this House and elsewhere about the use of raw data without suitable interpretation and the possibility of misunderstanding that that may cause. While those misgivings are well understood they need not be entertained. I believe that parents do know about the conditions of their local school and understand the circumstances of its catchment area and the make-up of its pupil body. Parents can interpret the data they are given in the light of their specialist knowledge. Unlike my noble friend Lord Beloff, I have great faith in the ability and motivation of parents to read, study and understand data which touch so closely upon the lives of their children. Until they are given the data they do not know how well the school is doing in the circumstances in which they live and are therefore unable to make the kind of choice about their children's education that they have a right to make.
Evidence from research over the past decade shows without question that there is enormous variation in the performance of different schools even where they have a similar population from a similar catchment area. Such variations are not acceptable, least of all if it is your child who is attending the low achieving school. Even more important is the assurance that publication of the raw data will be accompanied by publication of the findings of regular inspection. The inspection reports will provide the key to the interpretive information, giving a rounded picture of the school, the efforts of the staff, the ethos and discipline and the quality of the relationship between teachers and pupils in the classroom and in the wider school campus, the data for which the right reverend Prelate asked earlier.
The Bill's proposals about the inspection of schools are, I believe, a major step forward in the improvement of standards and the provision of information to those who need to know. I am convinced that the arrangements will go a long way to ensuring that inspection is effective in terms of quality assurance and the enhancing of standards of teaching and learning within schools. I say that as one who spent 17 years as a member of Her Majesty's Inspectorate, the last six of which were spent as chief inspector.
During that time I also had responsibility for the training of all new HMIs and that meant many hundreds in those years. I am proud of the work of Her Majesty's Inspectorate. I am a loyal admirer and proponent of its methods, the quality of its work and its reports. I believe that the Bill takes the work of the inspectorate forward in a positive way. The powers of Her Majesty's chief inspectors in England and Wales and the inspectors of schools who assist them will be

641
greatly extended by the accreditation of local inspectors, the monitoring of all school inspections which take place, the receipt of every inspection report and the ensuing action plan of the school itself. With the existing structure of Her Majesty's Inspectorate few schools are inspected in full every 20, or even every 10 years—a target that the inspectorate had abandoned before I joined HMI in 1970. The majority of visits to schools do not result in any published report or indeed in very much feedback to the school about standards. With the extension of the chief inspector's powers to register, train and monitor the work of local teams of inspectors around the country, a much higher standard of inspection will be possible with much greater frequency for every school.
As the chief inspector with her or his HMI will be responsible for the training as well as the monitoring of the work of the local inspectors, there should be every opportunity to ensure that their standards are as high as those of the existing HMI today and that HMI's excellent methodology and focus on the experience and attainment of the pupil will be passed on. By those means we can hope that every school will be motivated to maintain its own internal quality controls and that parents as well as the Secretary of State are kept fully informed about the performance of each school.
There have been many comments today on the reduction in the numbers of HMI. I do not propose to enter into the detailed arithmetic because I believe that would be unhelpful. However, I should like to make one comment. Over the 17 years that I spent in Her Majesty's Inspectorate, numbers inevitably grew and shrank, and the work of Her Majesty's Inspectorate grew and shrank to match those numbers. It is always true that one can do more if there are more people. Perhaps HMI could have expanded to 600 and done all the work itself. Nevertheless, many senior members of the inspectorate—indeed, often the senior chief inspector in the 1970s, Sheila Browne herself—commented that the inspectorate might be more efficient if it were smaller. But how we longed to have some impact on the working methods and standards of the local inspectorates in LEAs.
There have also been concerns that the removal of HMI from the Department of Education and Science to become an independent government body may deprive the Secretary of State and his civil servants of the day-to-day advice which HMI currently gives. As the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to continue to be advised by the chief inspector and to receive an annual report summarising the findings of all inspections, I do not see why that needs to be the case.
I believe that it is more important that the inspection of schools should be independent of all providers of education, whether at local or national level. Under the proposed arrangements HMI can maintain its independence from any political influence at any level. As many noble Lords have said, the independence of inspectors is crucial to the effective performance of their duties. That independence must be independence not only from the providers of
642
education but from the professionals within education. Although every inspection team must and will include professionals who are able to make informed judgments about the quality of what they see, a most welcome feature of the Bill is that it provides for lay people who have no connection with the provision of education to be included in the team.
The value of such a person can be inestimable in asking blunt but direct questions about the success of the school's efforts at the point of delivery to the pupil. There is always a danger that professionals will become so entranced by the excellence of the process that they will neglect to ask whether the final product is successful. The external lay person on the team will rightly focus on just that question. For example, as hospital patients, few of us are impressed by the doctor's professional judgment that the operation was successful even though the patient died. Equally, as parents, we are unimpressed with the statement that the organisation, the methodology and the curriculum of the school are excellent, if the children unfortunately learn nothing.
The Bill further ensures that any professional prejudice or preconception that the inspectors may take with them should be tested against consultation with the appropriate stakeholders in the work of the school, parents and others, whose views must be taken into account in their report.
Many reservations have been expressed today about the feature of the proposals which suggests that LEAs and governing bodies of schools should be responsible for securing their own inspection arrangements and for appointing—against tenders—the team who will perform the inspection. Such arrangements will clearly need close monitoring. A great responsibility falls upon Her Majesty's chief inspector to ensure that the process of registering, training and monitoring of inspectors is tight, of high quality and kept under close review. My own knowledge of the ethos and proud history of HM Inspectorate gives me total confidence that that will be the case.
The chief inspector has power to remove from the register any inspector who is found not to be performing adequately in any sense of the word, including any suggestion of bias or cosiness toward those being inspected. I suggest that the process proposed is far more rigorous than, for example, the external examiner system in higher education, where the academics within a department or running a course choose their external examiners and the institution appoints and pays them. That does not mean that the external examiners' reports are not usually professionally tough and appropriately critical, as are the reports of many local inspectors currently. Nevertheless, for those who inspect the schools, the requirement of registration by Her Majesty's chief inspector, the inclusion of an independent team member and the requirement of independent consultation will greatly strengthen that model.
Nor should we overlook the fact that it is the governing body or LEA which will appoint the inspectors—not the head and teachers who work in

643
the school. I reject the suggestion that the head or teachers can somehow influence that decision. Those who appoint will have a real interest and will be under enormous pressure from other parents to receive an unbiased and accurate report about the quality of teaching in their school.
I commend the Bill as one which will ensure that the most important people in education, the pupils, will have their interests represented and safeguarded and therefore their success and performance enhanced.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, with commendable self restraint I shall resist the temptation to buy into the argument about what has been called the privatisation of the inspectorate. My concern is only with the nature of some of the information disclosed to parents. I hope that the thoughts which I shall lay before your Lordships will be regarded as a cross-party issue and not be in contention.
The 1980, 1986 and 1988 education Acts are all about removing direction from above and offering choice to parents. I understand that in the late 1980s Desmond Nuttall, who was then the director of research for the ILEA, was able to say:
"Parents have taken choice very seriously and research has shown great consistency in what they tend to be looking for: they want order and discipline, academic achievement and proximity".
I assume he meant that the school should be near to hand.
As I understand it, this Bill too is about parental choice and about providing a sound basis for choice. It establishes a basis for choice in relation to academic achievement but it does not help parents to know about the other values which are being taught or promoted in the school. Section 1(2) of the 1988 education Act places upon schools the obligation to provide for:
"the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils".
With the exception of Section 14, which deals with denominational education (to which I shall return later), the present Bill provides only for information relating to quality of education and educational standards achieved. I believe that those phrases will be generally interpreted as meaning academic education and academic standards. I do not underrate the importance of academic education and academic standards, but I do not believe that they will be seen as covering the spiritual, moral and cultural values referred to in the 1988 Act. I think that they should do SO.
At this point I shall digress for a moment in order to ask the question: is it right that values should be taught in state schools? It is a question which people ask. It is a valid question. I believe that there are only two routes that one can take. Either one follows the French and the American systems, where it is forbidden by law to teach faith or values in state schools, or one follows the policy which the Government have adopted, which is exciting and with which I agree. It is to take the stopper out of the bottle, to let the genie out and to embrace the rich diversity which results. However, in order for that latter system
644
to work parents must have the information to help them choose the school which will suit their child. We must not have a clandestine, closet transmission of values. Values must be declared.
One objection which may be raised to the suggestion that I am making is the difficulty of defining the word "values". Perhaps I may give your Lordships one example of how that could be done effectively. It is discipline and behaviour, which is one of the aspects which the Secretary of State will undoubtedly require to be reported upon. Perhaps we may imagine three schools. School A has a clearly set out code of discipline, the breach of which is dealt with by a standard scale of punishments. Courtesy and good manners are expected from pupils. School B believes in the value of individuals working out their own social and interpersonal relationships and it gives pupils a wide degree of freedom within the law. School C encourages pupils to respect the rights of others, to treat others as they would be wished to be treated themselves and to develop a caring and self-disciplined community. Noble Lords will see that the three descriptions give a great deal of guidance to parents about the ethos of those three imaginary schools.
Parents also want to know about religious teaching at the school of their choice. In that regard Clause 14 is confusing. It refers to denominational education. I dislike that phrase as much as the right reverend Prelate. Does denominational education include Jewish or Moslem education? Already there are 22 private Moslem schools and 62 LEA schools have a Moslem intake of between 90 and 100 per cent. I am informed that 230 LEA schools have a 75 per cent. Moslem intake. That is good for them but are they included in the Bill? To me that is not clear. Clause 14(2) defines denominational education as meaning:
"religious education given otherwise than in accordance with an agreed syllabus".
Would the noble Baroness be kind enough to clarify whether the provision would include a minority of, say, Moslem pupils who have been withdrawn from the agreed syllabus and who are receiving other religious instruction on the school premises? Would it include a majority group within the school which has successfully applied for "determination" by the relevant standing council for religious education?
I believe that parents and prospective parents have a right to know about the nature and quality of religious education, if any, delivered by each school. I am not suggesting that government or local authorities should interfere. I am simply arguing for informed choice. Parents want to know, and have a right to know, about the spiritual, moral and cultural values and about the kind of interpersonal behaviour and relationships which the school teaches and holds up for adulation. I do not suggest control, only that information should be available to all parents as a matter of course. I shall be introducing amendments to the Bill which I hope will commend themselves to the House.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I must begin with an apology; one which it distresses me to make. I do not normally take part in a debate unless I can be present at its conclusion. It is a discourtesy to the House, and to the Minister replying, to be absent. However, the debate touches so closely on relevant experience that I must take part. I apologise to your Lordships in advance.
I propose to touch only briefly on the now well-trodden battleground of the structure, control and resourcing of the inspectorate. I shall then speak for a few minutes about what the inspectorate will do and why it ought to do it. That "why" is the key to the value of everything in the Bill and in education. The reason why we exercise ourselves about education is to secure the best possible lives for the children whom we educate, and therefore the best possible life for this nation in the years to come. That is the acid test of anything that we propose to do.
When applying that test to the Bill I was in some doubt about whether it would pass. Like many other noble Lords I had formed a high opinion of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools. That had remained unshaken throughout the many years that I have been connected with education as a governor, teacher and chairman of an inquiry. However, I follow the reasoning of my noble friend Lord Renfrew. I see the need to shine the light into the cosier areas covered by local authority inspectorates. I see that the price of doing so may be taking resources from the national inspectorate. The question is whether the change will be worth the probable loss in the product of the national inspectorate that will ensue.
I was doubtful about the matter. I believe that my noble friend's idea of an assessor changes the balance. It is now possible that we may emerge from the Bill in a better situation than that in which we enter it. That depends entirely on what we do with the opportunity provided.
What do we want inspectors for? In applying the acid test, it is to obtain the best possible education, and therefore future, for the children in our schools. In order to do so we need to know what a good school is. Like the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, whose speech fell like music on my ears, I accept that a school cannot be judged or described in only academic terms. Academic terms are extremely important. If a school fails in its academic performance it fails its pupils and mars their futures. It deprives them of something to which they ought to be entitled in a society as wealthy and as experienced as ours. But one cannot test a school by that means only.
The reason why I am impertinent enough to join in the debate is that a couple of years ago I chaired an inquiry into discipline in schools. It made recommendations to the then Secretary of State, which were subsequently passed with his approval and authority to every maintained school in England and Wales. I do not say that with a glow of conceit. I say it not because of my experience but because the total in-school experience of my committee was 120 years and because its findings were composed entirely by
646
taking best practice wherever we found it: almost entirely in England and Wales but also in Norway, America and Belgium.
In the light of that I believe that the hallmarks of a good school, other than the academic, are simple and striking. First, the school ought to be part of its community and not an appendix to it. Secondly, it should have a staff both academic and non-academic —and that is so often forgotten —which is a unity pursuing an agreed aim in a whole school policy touching every aspect of the life of the children and the staff.
Your Lordships may be surprised to hear the mention of non-academic staff. I pause to remind the House of their importance. It was nicely illustrated to me when a couple of my colleagues visited a school. They watched the dinner being served. They were interested in the fact that pupils tend to be much more disruptive after the midday break than before. My colleagues wanted to see what happened during the midday break. They witnessed a splendid example of a dinner lady with great, though untutored, skill intervening and escalating into a riot a quiet argument between two children. It could be quelled only by the intervention of the head teacher. All staff are responsible for what goes into the school. They should all take a pride in it.
The academic staff should be mutually supportive: practising what they preach to the children—for example, not shouting as loud as you can that it is rude to make a lot of noise—and treating the children with courtesy and firmness, because one does no service to children by allowing them not to discover where are the parameters of decent behaviour until they have gone beyond them. The academic staff should have a clear arrangement for the pastoral as well as the academic management of the school. That leads back into the community and relationships with the family and parents. The school will have pupils who regard themselves in a real sense as belonging to and owning the school in which they are. When they feel that, they will be the best proselytisers for the moral, ethical, behavioural and academic standards of the school. They will be on its side and not attacking it and wrecking its property and denigrating its objectives.
That does not flow from the environment. We found lousy schools in beautiful leafy suburbs, and we found first class schools in run down, desolate slums. It depends on the dedication of the staff and their perception of what the school is for, and how that can be achieved.
I have a question for the Minister because I cannot see the answer in the Bill. Will the inspectors, however they are to be organised, controlled and paid for, be not only allowed but required to assess and comment on those aspects which we call the ethos of the school; and will they make recommendations about that? Further, will they make recommendations about other aspects of the school, because merely to make comments is negative. I noted the negative phrases which noble Lords used about the inspectorate. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that their function was to root out incompetence and expose something else. She smiles and I have the drift of what

647
she said. But it is also to encourage people to do better, to reinforce good behaviour and to spread excellence by taking their experience from one school to another.
Education is like a river. You must follow it to its source. If you go upstream from the school, you reach the teacher training college. I gained a clear impression in my work with the committee that teacher training colleges do not have a clear idea of the way in which schools should be managed in order to manage the good behaviour of pupils. They claim to give instruction in that, but it is always subliminal and included in something else. We felt that it should be explicit.
If we are to get the schools right, we must get the teachers right. They have had an extremely hard time over the past few years. The new recruits into the profession see it as an enormous challenge. They must be properly equipped to achieve the stature to succeed in that work, and also to retrieve the status of teachers which should be that of one of the great and respected professions.
I notice that Clause 2(4) contains a reference to the possibility that teacher training colleges may be inspected. I welcome that with enormous enthusiasm. I hope that I am right in my interpretation. Perhaps the noble Baroness will clarify that matter when she replies. Will she go further and tell us whether there are any means by which departments of education as well as training colleges may be brought into some form of inspection so that that concept of the good school could be brought throughout the profession to people as they are recruited into it?
I have only one other question which I shall not leave until Committee stage because it is a question of great sensitivity and importance. There is much emphasis in the Bill on the publication of facts and information. However, there is no reference to confidentiality. It is better that some matters are kept confidential, not only in the reports but in the preparation of reports.
I am greatly struck by the extent of bullying in our schools. Initially that cannot be dealt with publicly. It can be when it has been discovered, but one is dealing with frightened children who are so skilled in the concealment of their fear that even their parents may be in ignorance of it. Such children need the protection of confidentiality, as do parents who have doubts about the way in which a school is managed. They may also need protection. It is a privilege to speak on this important occasion. We must get this right.
7.5 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred to parents being an important part of the school community. I very much agree with the early part of his speech describing the whole school community.
I am not a parent. If I were, I wonder how I should react looking at the section on inspection in the Parent's Charter. That has only three lines in black on the current position, commenting that HMIs cannot cover all schools regularly. It does not address the question of frequency. I accept that; but as a parent I
648
should be concerned that apparently so much is wrong. I wonder whether it is right to suggest that so little is correct, and whether the proposals set out, covering most of the page on inspection, are the solution.
I am not a parent, but I am a school governor. I accept that experience by no means rivals the experience of many noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. As a governor of various schools over a period of years at both primary and secondary level, I have come to value greatly the role of the LEAs' inspectors. I should like to say a few words about that.
What I value is that the evaluation of curriculum development and institutional support go hand in hand. A system of inspectors which can link between a number of schools provides in a very real sense relationships between schools and helps the governors work in the context of education as a continuing process through primary, secondary and tertiary sectors.
I fear that a system based on institutional inspection may not so easily take account of the other factors in educational provision; in particular, the continuity of the curriculum through the various phases. The proposed system may give the appearance of greater objectivity in the evaluation of schools, but I do not believe that of itself means raising standards. Regular testing does not necessarily mean development. I am anxious that divorcing evaluation from a commitment to development and support could be counterproductive and could lead to further demoralisation on the part of teaching staff.
As other noble Lords have said, over the past few years teachers have suffered a torrent of change. That was a term used by a head teacher at a meeting which I attended last week. I do not believe that it is original, but it is an extremely vivid description of what has been happening over the past few years. In that torrent of change those on whom the teachers lean very greatly include the LEA inspectors.
I know that many noble Lords and many people working in the education sector believe that the torrent of change must revert to a steady flow with a school continuously evaluating and growing. I wonder whether a four-yearly cycle of inspection will encourage some kind of stop-go process in that development.
I am anxious also about the publication of information as proposed in the Bill and as we believe it may be. I do not oppose the provision of information to parents; quite the contrary. Perhaps there is some irony in my making that point as I come from the borough which was top in the recent testing of seven year-olds. However, it was a system of testing with which we did not necessarily agree. The league tables—and there will be league tables—based on raw data will be uninformative and have a great potential for being divisive.
A letter recently appeared in my local paper, not in fact from teachers within my own LEA. It cogently expressed my own anxieties about the Bill. It came from a group of teaching staff at a primary school. They said,

649
"The role of the inspectors and the Education Authorities is a vital one, providing much-needed advice and support to Governing Bodies and staff across a wide range of issues, including curriculum development, whole school planning and organisation, and financial management … The Inspectorate play a key role in disseminating good practice and monitoring standards on a regular and ongoing basis, far more frequently than once every few years".
They went on to say, with which I wholeheartedly agree,
"If all this expertise, advice, support and monitoring is lost, then schools will become isolated and insular, teaching standards and practice are likely to become erratic and much of the structural foundation of the education service will be removed".
On the question of structural foundation, it is just over three years, at the time of the Education Reform Act, since the then Secretary of State was emphatic about increasing the LEAs' responsibilities for monitoring and evaluation. I wonder whether the Bill is purely about standards. Like my noble friend Lady Seear, I am anxious about the doctrinaire aspects of it and the Government's commitment, certainly as it is read by many, to reducing the role of local authorities in education.
I welcome improvements for schools. I welcome meaningful information for parents. I do not believe that the model proposed takes real account of how schools can be supported in raising their pupils' levels of achievement. I wonder whether the Bill will strengthen the structural foundation of the education service or whether the continued "torrent of change" will attack and weaken that foundation.
7.12 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, like other noble Lords I congratulate and thank my noble friend Lady Denton for introducing the Bill. Perhaps I can take the opportunity to thank the Leader of the House who arranged for us to have a Minister on the Front Bench with a desk in the Department of Education. We congratulate the noble Baroness on being chosen and thank the Leader of the House for making such a splendid arrangement.
It is with some diffidence that I contribute to this debate. I am not an educationalist and therefore feel that it is somewhat presumptuous of me to speak. But I am worried about the whole position of education in this country. I was recently privileged to speak to three groups of teachers. A group in Devon is known to the noble Lord, Lord Young, and they are a splendid set of teachers. On Saturday last I was privileged to be invited to the conference of the Assistant Masters & Mistresses Association—another splendid set of people. In Glasgow a fortnight ago I visited the most appallingly desolate estate—the Easter House estate. I visited a primary school in the area and was moved by the quality of the teachers. That being so, why is there a malaise in the world of education? Why is it that in Europe education and teachers are held in high esteem? Are they so held in our country?
I am puzzled by the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, with which I agree, concerning the number of children who leave school unable to read or write. As a social worker I come in contact with many such children. I am puzzled also by the
650
number of children who are non-school attenders. Why is that? I have no answers to the questions; I am simply puzzled by them. I congratulate the Government on their attempt to deal with all those problems. But perhaps my noble friend Lady Blatch, when she replies, can give me some answers.
In my time as a Ministry of Health and Home Office inspector I had to work closely with the inspectorate. I found them to be a dedicated, magnificent and skilled set of people. However, as a present governor of two schools, it seems to me that as the inspectorate stands at the moment it lacks numbers. There are too few people to do the work required. To my knowledge one of the two schools of which I am governor has never been inspected in my time there. With regard to the other school, I had to press for an inspection over a long period of time. That cannot be right.
If an inspectorate is to be set up as recommended by the Bill, will it be completely objective? Will the inspectors be completely outside the Department of Education, as is the present inspectorate, and outside the local authorities? It is essential that one has an independent inspectorate. Will the inspectorate take into account the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and my noble friend Lord Elton, not only in regard to the quality of education but also the happiness and spiritual values held in the schools?
Has the new inspectorate been costed? What will be the cost of adding further numbers of inspectors and specialists to meet the needs of children with special educational needs? Will that be cheaper or more expensive? Have the two systems been costed? That is something about which we should be informed.
I turn to the children with special educational needs. Perhaps the Minister can say what is the position of physically and mentally handicapped children under the Education Act, which deals with their educational needs. Clauses 16 and 17 give the Secretary of State powers to collect and publish information concerning school attainments, thus enabling parents to make an informed choice of school for their children. I understand—perhaps I am wrong—that the emphasis will be on examination results. That may mean that some schools will not admit children with special educational needs. Will children who have been statemented, but who have not been offered a service under the statementing system, be admitted to any school? The school may feel that that will bring down its tariff for examination results.
In a number of authorities children have been neither statemented nor assessed. I wonder whether head teachers and governing bodies will be willing to admit those children. It may mean that children with special educational needs will only be admitted to the schools where poorer standards exist. How will the system of assessing schools be introduced? I understand that at the moment children with special educational needs will be assessed as to whether they have made progress. How is that to be shown in a tariff? I am puzzled about that. I shall be very grateful if my noble friend the Minister can reply to those two points.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I speak as an enthusiastic supporter of the Education Reform Act 1988. I am afraid that I cannot say the same about this Bill which has managed to unite the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in eloquent denunciation of it. Such a Bill must have something wrong about it. I do not know whether any noble Lords have read the brilliant article by Chubb and Moe which was published in the Sunday Times supplement last Sunday. They are two American academics whose work for the Brookings Institute was a milestone in research into American education. Anyone seriously interested in the future of education in this country will need to address their arguments.
Chubb and Moe believe that a population of effective schools depends upon three things: open enrolment, the parents' right to choose schools; something to choose from—in other words, a variety of schools and schooling—and school autonomy, all crucial decisions being made within the school itself. They call that "a choice system". The Government opened up the road to a choice system in this country. As it goes further I hope that it will find ways of making the national curriculum and assessment scheme less of a straitjacket than they now are because otherwise the concept of choice will lose its meaning.
The question I ask is this: what kind of inspectorate is suitable for an evolving choice system? That is something to which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, alluded. We are going down the road towards a more varied system. What kind of an inspectorate is needed, and what kind of things should it do?
I suggest that there are four functions that we require from an inspectorate. The first is information to parents. Parents need a flow of information to direct them to the schools of their choice, and that the Bill provides. I am always a little surprised when people object to raw data. I believe that raw data is exactly the kind of thing that parents need. For example, when I am looking at a tertiary college for my own son, who is a good historian, I am not interested in value added at this point. If I see that out of an intake of 50 there is one grade A at A-level and another institution has 10 grade As at A-level, am I being completely irrational in believing that the second institution has a better chance of getting my son a grade A at A-level? That is simply raw data. For other purposes one needs all kinds of doctored or managed data, but raw data is an essential element in the exercise of parental choice. I find it surprising that that should be denied.
Equally, I know that this House is well endowed with professional knowledge and expertise, but I still find very odd and surprising the objection to lay people being on inspection teams. Experts do not always know best. As Winston Churchill once said, experts should be on tap, but not on top.
Advice to schools is the second function that one expects from an inspectorate. That is crucial. A national school system is not a true market and cannot be made to run on the analogy of opening up firms and shutting them down. There is the prospect of new foundations opened up by the 1988 Act. I find that
652
very exciting. It could be another 19th century with a wave of new schools. I find that an exciting vista, but it can only happen at the margin. Basically, we have to do the best we can with the existing schools.
Schools need advice to reform themselves, and they may sometimes need instruction. I believe that falling enrolment which is not clearly linked to demographic factors might well become an automatic triggering device to start an inspection or investigation process. That may be quite valuable. I wonder whether there might be some way to insert such a triggering mechanism into Schedule 2 to the Bill which deals with schools at risk.
The third function of an inspectorate should be to provide an annual audit on the state of the school system as a whole. I do not believe that there is very much dispute about that. On the fourth point, I believe that your Lordships have been almost unanimous. In order to perform these functions effectively the inspectorate should be, and should be seen to be, independent of government, LEAs and the schools themselves. In that respect the Bill is silly in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said. For example, I refer to the independence from government. Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State not only the right to appoint the chief inspector, but also the power to sack him or her at any time on the vague ground of incapacity or misconduct.
Clause 2(5) states that,
"the Chief Inspector … shall have regard to such aspects of government policy as the Secretary of State may direct".
These two provisions do not secure the independence of the chief inspector or the inspectorate; they undermine it. Surely it would be better to have an inspectorate that was independent of government and something more like a public agency and not part of the Civil Service. The Bill does not provide that which I believe to be its main purpose—adequate independence of the inspectorate from local authorities.
Clause 15 empowers any LEA to provide an inspection service for schools in its own area. I believe that that gives the local authority the dominant position in inspection. The more locally-based the inspection team is the lower the costs one would expect it to charge. I do not for one moment believe in the nightmare of the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, of hundreds of new private companies of fascists and communists springing up to exploit the schools, either for profit or propaganda. I do not believe that that will happen.
I cannot really convince myself that there are any adequate financial incentives for anyone to go into the inspection business as a private company. Therefore, I anticipate that the vast majority of the contracts to inspect will go to local authority inspection teams. It may well be that the matter about which your Lordships have been so upset and which I also find to be indefensible in principle, may turn out to be much more of a mouse than a mountain and that nothing very much will have changed.
Nonetheless, I completely accept the principle enunciated by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that the regulators cannot be allowed to be clients of

653
the providers. It is not a good defence of a bad principle to say that in practice most of the inspections will probably be done by the same people as before. Therefore, I beg the Government to reconsider their position.
7.29 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as the 21st speaker in this debate and having reached the age of discretion a good many years ago, I interpret discretion at this hour to mean brevity. I intend to be very brief. I wish to comment first on the second part of the Bill, which concerns the information which must be published to parents and others. Like the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, I very much welcome that aspect of the Bill. But other noble Lords during the course of this debate have expressed reservations about the crude nature of the information required to be published and the fact that league tables ignore vital factors such as the social origins of pupils. But in my experience league tables concentrate the mind wonderfully. They give policy makers the opportunity and the ammunition to ask the awkward question. Frequently, I know, the answer is prefaced by the words, "Ah, but"—"Ah, but we have a catchment area unlike any other"—"Ah, but you are not comparing like with like" —and so on. But I do not think that that matters because what it does is give the lay person an entree into areas which need probing and it puts teachers and others on their mettle, appropriately calling them to account. Their answers have to be convincing, they have to stand up to cross-examination and they have to be credible.
I was interested, however, to learn from my noble friend Lady Denton of Wakefield, in her excellent introduction to the Bill, of the Audit Commission's "value added" approach, which would refine, define and make the information more meaningful. But whatever sophistication is introduced in the future —and I am sure that there will be room for improvement—I do hope that the waters will not be muddied and the clarity lost because I think that is important for lay people.
However, primary concern is with the first part of the Bill, which deals with arrangements for school inspections. It echoes the point made by my noble friend Lord Beloff and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. As I understand the new arrangements, they would require the repeal of Section 77(3) of the Education Act 1944, which gives local education authorities the explicit right to inspect their own schools. If this is correct, it follows that local education authorities will not have an indisputable right of entry, even when they consider that they need access to the school in order to carry out their statutory duty under the education Acts. Instead, they will have to turn to the courts for a decision, or seek the intervention of the Secretary of State under Section 68 of the 1944 Act. If I may, I suggest that this would be profoundly unsatisfactory. Local authorities will be deprived of the automatic right to assess how their responsibilities are being discharged, or otherwise, by contracted third parties.
654
Without the power to inspect schools, or even an automatic right of entry, local education authorities will not be able to gather the information they need to allow them to plan and budget for education in their areas. Nor will they be able to monitor the implementation of the national curriculum as required by the Education Reform Act.
As I understand the Bill the money to fund inspections will be transferred from local education authorities to individual school governing bodies, which I think is sensible as it is they who will be required to commission the inspections every four years. But care will need to be taken to ensure the transfer of resources does not have a damaging effect on LEAs' advisory services which could inhibit their current levels of training and support for teachers, for this in turn could have a serious impact on the implementation of the national curriculum.
My fear is that, if the Bill is enacted in its present form, local authorities will be in the extraordinary situation of being required by law to provide a service over which they have no quality control. With the strong and welcomed emphasis on quality and accountability by this Government, I cannot believe that it is the intention to restrict both. To this extent I very much look forward to hearing the Minister's response to this point.
In general I should like to add my support for the intentions of this Bill and its attempt to raise the standards of schools to those of the highest. Like my noble friend Lady Young, I welcome the strengthening of the influence of school governors and the impact it will make on empowering parents. I do, however, have some reservations as to the details of the Bill and I look forward to having those resolved during the passage of the Bill.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, as the 22nd speaker, I hope that I have not yet reached the age of discretion except in one respect: I hope that I shall be able to discipline myself to detain your Lordships for a very short period of time. I do, perhaps surprisingly from this side of the House, see some merit in the Bill. Naturally, parents have a right to information, and much more information than they have customarily received. If it were the case that this Bill were to give parents more useful information, then the Bill would have considerable merit.
I also like the proposal concerning lay members of inspection teams. However, I only wish that the Government had gone much further with that. I should have thought that within the existing structure of the HMIs and the local authority inspectorate it would have been possible to bring in lay people and train them. They could have been particularly useful if they had been parents as well as ordinary lay people. By that means the number of inspectors could have been increased, but within the existing structure rather than in part destroying that structure, which I fear will be the effect of the Bill if it becomes law.
The purpose of the Bill may be admirable but not so the means. Information for consumers is not of much value at all if it is low grade information. I spent

655
a good part of my life, as the founding chairman of the Consumers' Association—now I am the president— and the founding chairman of the National Consumer Council, in trying to improve the quality of information available to consumers. It is hard graft. But unless that information is of good quality it can be worse than useless. Which? magazine has only achieved the reputation it has—getting on for 1 million subscribers and a much larger readership than that —because it is recognised that it contains reliable information.
I do not believe that the inspection teams of the kind proposed will produce reliable information. In fact I think that the Bill breaks three of the fundamental rules or requirements for the provision of good quality information for consumers. The first requirement is that information should be reliable. But we have heard many times from many people that in place of HMIs, LEA inspectors and advisors, we are to have predominantly lay teams; that is, teams consisting of amateurs, who are useful in their place but certainly not if they dominate the inspection. No one in their senses, whether or not they have heard the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, speak, would expect that the reports coming from those sources would contain the kind of information that people would be able to rely on. Surely what is only too likely to happen if it is ever enforced is that consumers—that is, parents and children—will know perfectly well that the reports have come from people with very little expertise about education and, for that reason alone, do not warrant very great concern.
On top of that, we have, as has been said by many other speakers, the fact that schools will be able to choose their own teams of inspectors, and will almost certainly tend to choose teams which will give them very good results. It seems to me that the result is probably going to be much like Gresham's law—bad currency drives out good—and that this law could apply to school inspections. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Walton, argued very trenchantly earlier on, we may think that there is to be a new law which we might call "Walton's Law of School Inspection" —that is that bad inspectors will drive out good where the inspected choose their own inspectors. If that does not happen I shall be very surprised. Many noble Lords will be equally surprised.
The second requirement of useful information is that it should make comparisons possible. However, I do not see how the new inspection teams will add anything that will make comparisons more possible for parents than at present. The proposal could make comparisons less easy to make because the standards used to judge different schools will be different according to the inspection teams that are applying them. The Government's proposal seems to go right against the principle of national consistency that was behind the national curriculum. Two schools next to each other could be judged in largely different ways by different inspection teams—not on all criteria but on some of the most important quality criteria—because the members of the teams are different and do not belong to a common service where experience can be exchanged between its members.
656
The third requirement is that information gained from inspection should be followed up and that something should happen when weaknesses are revealed. The value of LEA inspections is that if things are found to be seriously wrong the LEA is in a position to act. The value of HMI inspections is likewise that they can use their influence, at any rate on occasions, to secure changes where they have found changes to be necessary. When their contact with schools makes it clear that government policy needs to change they can push for that also. It is not clear that with the new inspection system there will be any decent follow-up to the inspections that are carried out. Inspectors will not themselves be responsible for acting on the results of their own work. That is a serious handicap. Since the Bill breaks three fundamental rules about consumer information, it is so deeply flawed that it needs amendment in depth.
7.41 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I approach this Bill with a mixture of weariness, puzzlement and dismay; weariness, at the continuation of a long line of educational legislation from a government who are never less than active—hyperactive even—but who so often seem to miss the mark; puzzlement. at many of the features of the Bill, puzzlement which, I am sorry to say, was not wholly banished by the exposition of the noble Baroness the Minister; and dismay, at the attitude displayed by the Government in introducing the Bill, which I shall refer to at the end. And when I think of the thousands of people working their hearts out in the education service under adverse conditions —people whom until very recently I worked alongside, first, as a teacher and then as a local government education officer—something a hit stronger than dismay creeps in from time to time.
It is not that I am arguing that the aims of the Bill are wholly wrong. But the first of a series of questions it gives rise to is: why are the basic assumptions made that are made in this Bill; and why has there been so little debate on them? To slash the inspectorate by two-thirds and to set up a massive and intensive inspection system of a different kind are major changes indeed. Yet consultation, as so often, has been minimal, and the DES review on which these changes are based has never been published. Why is this? Surely it is understood that the best results are gained by involving early in any changes those who are going to have to operate them eventually.
Quality control is important; not as important as getting the right thing in place to begin with, as witness the present move to cut back on GCSE course work for the sole reason that it cannot easily be measured, but it is important. What is not self-evident—here I differ from my noble friend Lord Walton—is that a heavy, formal inspection programme is the best or the most cost-effective way of delivering it. It may be; but equally, it may not be. There are other models. This is the authoritarian one, and it will send corresponding signals to teachers in schools who can spot a hidden curriculum at 100 paces. I should like to quote what a chief education officer of my acquaintance wrote some three years ago:

657
"Experience tells me that the methods and purposes of assessment, whether of individuals or institutions, can sometimes have a beneficial effect on performance, can sometimes have no effect at all and can sometimes have a negative effect. My hunch is that assessment is more likely to have positive effects on long term performance where the subject of the assessment has substantial responsibility in the review, evaluation and reporting process. Conversely the greater the external component then the less the good effect on development and growth".
It is a worrying thought that, in the absence of full debate and sound evidence, we may be embarking on an elaborate scheme which is not very effective, and which takes money—because there is no new money here—from other duties that need to be done at local level.
What of the reduction in size of Her Majesty's Inspectorate, not recommended in the DES review? What are the assumptions here? Will the many other jobs that HMI does, as we have heard this evening, from advising on opting out bids and reorganisations to assessing the state of language teaching countrywide, simply not be done? Why throw away such a unique fund of professional knowledge and expertise? In the absence of good argument this looks like vandalism.
Will the inspectorate retain its independence? What does it mean, in Clause 2(5), that the chief inspector must have regard to government policy? Does his or her general duty under Clause 2(1) to advise whether resources are efficiently managed by schools extend to advising whether there are enough of them—or is that aspect of government policy taboo?
The oddest part of the Bill, of course, is the provision that schools should choose their inspectors by competitive tender. Let us have radical ideas by all means, but let us not have dottiness. It is the market-place run mad. How can you have true impartiality under a set-up like that? The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was perfectly accurate in correcting the Minister's view of governors. They are not at arm's length. They are usually fiercely patriotic in the cause of their schools. How can you have comparability across schools and LEAs and the build-up of a reliable national picture which has been a hallmark of HMI? If the Government are serious about raising standards and inspiring confidence in them, they must surely think again on this.
Then we have the proposal that LEAs shall no longer have a right to inspect their own schools. What on earth is this about? Ostensibly it is to stop them piling inspections on top of inspections provided for in the Bill, as though any educationalist of experience would dream of such a thing. This is so out of proportion, and so remote from reality, as to be an insult to the profession, quite apart from its harmful consequences. I sincerely hope that it will not survive your Lordships' scrutiny at a later stage.
Finally, there is the clause on information about schools. One of the good things about the past dozen years has been the greater flow of information to the consumer—that awful word. Educationalists, like doctors and others, were not as good as they should have been over their facts and figures. But there is a point with figures beyond which you do need help to
658
interpret. Mere common sense, as invoked by Mr. Fallon, will not do, and to talk of "cooking the books", in trying to render exam results intelligible, is absurd.
"A comparison based on raw data is invalid".
That is a quotation from the medical journal, The Lancet. Mr. Fallon's colleagues have no problem with "cooking" the unemployment figures—this point has already been made—to take account of seasonal variations and the inflation figures too.
If, in consequence of ministerial pronouncements on Clause 16, we are to see only the raw data of schools' exam results, then not even the best trained eye will spot for sure whether school A in the Surrey suburbs is coasting on its high ability intake—and if it is, by how much—and none of us will be any the wiser whether school B does well by its low ability children but fails its brightest, or the other way round. There are techniques of analysis—my noble friend Lord Walton dwelt on this point—and of showing added value which are crucial to an understanding of what schools are achieving. I was to some extent reassured by the Minister's recognition of that, although I could not accept all her arguments.
It is doubtful whether either of the major measures in this Bill—the frequent formal inspections under a reduced central inspectorate and the provision of information about schools—will, as they are envisaged at present, yield the precise answers which parents would like. However, beyond that there are two strands which I find deeply disturbing, the more so for being visible in much of the Government's legislation on schools.
The first is a bureaucratization—and we had this very much in the Education Reform Act—a huge increase in systems procedures and paper work generally, to which I remember drawing attention in the early stages of that reform Bill in your Lordships' House. We shall now have an inspection industry, with all the infrastructure and administration that that entails. I believe that we should be chary of introducing anything more that takes educationists' energies away from children, unless we are quite certain that the benefits in the classroom will be unmistakable.
The second strand is an unattractive one. It is a frank anti-professionalism, and it shows itself in ministerial pronouncements and actions as well as in legislation. As we have heard there was, as so often, virtually no consultation with the profession over this Bill. Protests are dismissed with little argument, as the outpourings of special interest groups. A national core of expertise is jettisoned at a stroke. The local experts, and they are experts, are forbidden to inspect their schools. The big-stick model of quality control is chosen without argument. Provision is written in for inspection teams to include people with no direct experience of education (which is fine). Here I differ from other noble Lords. I think that that is a good provision. But there is no corresponding provision for people who do have that experience. These things all give messages to a a hard-pressed profession, and they are the wrong messages.

659
When I went recently to see a Minister at the Department of Health, he said quite firmly that it was not the Government's business to tell doctors how to do their job. But the Secretary of State for Education tells teachers nowadays how to train, how to test, what to teach and even how to teach. One has to remind oneself, in the face of this constant deprofessionalising, that the so-called trendy 1960s to 1980s saw a steady improvement in school attainment, however measured, and that the myth of plummeting standards has been firmly put in its place, for those who want to read the evidence, not least by the retiring senior chief inspector in his annual report last year.
Sadly, however, there are people in the press and in politics whose book it suits to talk down our achievements and to emphasise the bad. And so we get a stream of legislation designed to do something about education. And so we get a Bill like the present one which, while not wholly bad in intention, rushes to an ill-argued conclusion and, at the expense of another great upheaval, promises to do nothing very much for our schools, while throwing out a number of important babies with the bath water. My Lords, I think that our education service deserves better than this.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, noble Lords will be relieved to hear that much of what I intended to say has already been said, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and my noble friend Lord Elton. Therefore, I shall speak very briefly. I am happy to do so in support of the Bill. I believe that the Bill is to be welcomed. It proposes to open up and let some fresh air and light into two of the secret gardens of our state system of education; namely, Her Majesty's Inspectorate and local education authority advisers and inspectors.
It must be pretty obvious to most people by now that our publicly funded education system has failed and is continuing to fail too many of the children who are forced to attend it. Much of the blame for that tragic state of affairs must fall on local education authorities and on Her Majesty's Inspectorate. I am afraid that it is now clear that governments of both parties placed far too much trust in those bodies for many years, until, I would estimate, about 15 months ago.
I shall give your Lordships one example. It is now clear that the trendy child-centred methods of teaching children to read often failed to do so. Yet those methods have been encouraged for years by local education authorities and by Her Majesty's inspectors upon whose expert and professional opinion we were supposed to be able to rely. I am afraid that it comes down to this:
"By their fruits ye shall know them."
We now know that the experts were wrong. That has been very damaging for generations of our young children. The Bill will do much to let common sense and parental interest decide what is best for our children within the framework of the national curriculum. I am sure that that is very much in our children's interest.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, who spoke earlier, I shall confine my remarks to Clause 17 of the Bill which relates to the Scottish position. In fact the clause adds a number of sections to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 after Section 28H. But, contained within the clause, not quite as a totality but very much a significant percentage of its detail, is a huge swathe of enabling legislation. I do not think that we should make reference to the clause in your Lordships' House without emphasising that very important point.
As other noble Lords referring to other Bills in this House have frequently said, and as I now reiterate, there is a considerable objection to the whole principle of the increase of enabling legislation which is taking place. It gives the Secretary of State for Scotland unwarrantedly wide powers in the future to make provisions without further reference to Parliament, with the consequent diminution of the democratic process. In my view, at any rate, the democratic process today is very much under threat because of the alarming increase of executive government.
Having said that, I believe that I should point out that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, in making reference as I have just done to the issue of enabling legislation, says:
"Clause 17 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring information to be made available to himself and to 'prescribed persons' or information on specific `areas' or on different 'cases or classes of case'. In effect the Secretary of State can decide what information is to be provided, by whom and in what form. He is also able to vary his demands depending on the education authority. The role of central government should be to establish legislation which imposes requirements on local authorities and establishes a clear framework for the implementation of these requirements".
That has been the traditional position.
"Clause 17 does not provide this as it merely allows the Secretary of State to introduce arrangements which suit his particular objective at that time".
I mentioned that point a moment ago and I should like to stress that what worries many people in Scotland is that the clause should be tacked on to a Bill which applies to England and Wales. I should say this: it would not have happened in my time as a Scottish Minister. However, that is another story because I am probably a nastier person. What also worries many people very seriously in Scotland is the publication of the information as it will pertain to schools.
On one view, and taking a benign view, the information published will probably be wholly unexceptional. But if one were to take a malign view —and there are Secretaries of State who are not men of the most ultimate principle—there is an area of abuse which is possible because personal information about pupils, their families, their backgrounds, and so on, will be within his power.
Again, CoSLA tells me that proposed Section 28J(1) requires the information to be given to prescribed persons. There is no definition of those prescribed persons. One must assume that they could include not just parents but the police, social work departments, the RSPCC, and any other body that the

661
then Secretary of State might decide to include, without any further reference to the democratic process in your Lordships' House or the other place. That is the kind of legislation we are being asked to pass. I merely point that out so that your Lordships can bear it in mind when voting.
I want to outline one or two areas where amendments will be tabled in Committee with regard to Scotland. I consider proposed Section 28I(b) (i) to be too wide. It requires clarification and definition. It is essential that some reference is made to the nature of information involved and to its relevance. The proposed Section 28I(4) is again vague and provides wide powers. It is not clear who would provide the information required under that clause. It will require amending. Subsection (6) (b) is vague. It gives the Secretary of State power to cause information to be published in any form he wishes. I have touched upon that matter. There is no restriction on the nature of the information. It could include the circumstances that I have already outlined, and it requires amendment.
The proposed Section 28I(7) requires clarification. It is not clear whether the Secretary of State is taking power to release different information in different geographical or social areas. I have outlined the possible areas for amendment in Committee. I reiterate my anxiety, which I hope I have expressed with some clarity, about the vast increase in enabling legislation which is coming before us today. In more general terms, although I do not intend to speak on the English and Welsh clauses, I deplore the whole concept of the Bill.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Rennell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Denton of Wakefield for explaining the Bill to us with such good common sense. I should tell you that I was not educated at a state school but that I do have four children between the ages of two and 14. Whereas I am not sure that how I was educated is necessarily today's way forward, I am certain that your Lordships will agree that the options available to all parents are matters of major interest.
I welcome the Bill. Its implementation will help three important groups of people—parents, children and teachers. The Bill relates to the provision of information about the performance of schools. It is designed to provide parents with up-to-date facts and figures on every school in the country. At present parents do not have enough information to enable them to make the most important decision of their lives: selecting the right school for their children. Some parents feel it important enough to move to another area in their quest to provide their children with the best education; but the assessment of where and which school is best for their child's needs, can be made only when all the data are publicly and comprehensively available.
The Prime Minister's Parent's Charter, with its pledge to require all schools and colleges to publish examination results in local newspapers, to produce league tables of examination results and truancy rates
662
and the destination of school-leavers, will provide parents with the information they so badly need to make the right choice.
I welcome the plan of the Secretary of State for Education to award charter marks to deserving schools; that is to say, those which combat truancy and maintain a high level of contact with parents, and which do well in local and national inspections. The Bill will bring pride to the schoolroom. For too many years, the status of the teaching profession has waned. I am sure that when their dedication and skills are recorded for all to see, teachers will once again become one of the most respected sections of society.
Providing correct information for parents will depend upon the high standard of the proposed new inspectorate which will be allocated £75 million a year to carry out local and national inspections. For the moment, we must have faith in the successful training of the inspectors and the subsequent integrity of their reporting.
I hope that that will prevent what has occurred and been reported by the headmaster of a major comprehensive school in the Midlands. The local council inspectors, who should have been making annual visits, often failed to turn up to assess its 117 teachers and their methods. The school has become grant-maintained and now voluntarily pays £30,000 a year—less than 1 per cent. of its budget—to hire independent inspectors, on contract, from a nearby county council. I am sure that it will not surprise your Lordships to learn that the morale of the teachers in that school who performed well and received a pat on the back from the new inspectors, has soared.
I have omitted until now the most important people in the debate—the children. Improving the quality of schools inspectors and teachers, and spending more money on schools, are all important. But nothing is more important than encouragement from the family. If parents are too busy or are unaware of the need to show interest, the child will suffer. It is a reflection on people in this country that many pupils from the ethnic minorities, especially recently arrived immigrants, appear to fare far better in some examinations than our own pupils. The parents of those immigrant pupils look upon education as a valued privilege. We at home too often view it as a chore—a way perhaps of getting rid of the children for six hours a day.
With the Bill and the Parent's Charter, the Government are stepping out in the right direction to improve standards in our schools. However, until we change the nation's attitude to education, progress will be slow. I should like to suggest a way to change that attitude. Many of your Lordships have children, grandchildren, nephews and nieces. I have no doubt that many noble Lords, like me, have learnt that the secret of keeping them quiet on a Saturday morning is to switch on the television and to let them watch cartoons, "pop" interviews, and so forth. What they probably enjoy most is the advertisements. Why do we not advertise on television and tell children, and their parents, about the joys of school and the benefits of an education? It would be compulsive viewing. We know that youngsters are influenced by television advertising. Why do we not use their favourite medium to

663
extol the virtues of learning? Spreading the message of the joys of schools could improve the future lives of 20 million children.
With good will on the part of teachers and local education authorities, with sound guidelines on the criteria for the selection and training of inspectors, with efficiency, diplomacy and integrity shown by the inspectors, the Bill will revolutionise morale and efficiency in schools. It will raise standards and it will give parents the confidence to make the right choice of school for their children.
In 1944 Bernard Shaw, who had been a day boy at school in Ireland, said in a chapter of a book headed "School Made Monsters":
"I hated school and learnt there nothing of what it professed to teach, when I escaped from it and at the age of 15 I was condemned to five years in another sort of prison called an office … I knew at the end of my sentence much more of the world than a university graduate from Eton plus Oxford or Harrow plus Cambridge".
At that time, Shaw was of the opinion that the old Etonian system must die a natural death. He knew that schools were going to change, but he admitted that the new system was beyond his powers of planning.
I believe that with the Parent's Charter, together with the new determination for excellence, the new system is on its way. It is up to us to make the system work.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I too wish to start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, on her debut on the Front Bench. She gave a clear and forthright exposition of, regrettably, an unsatisfactory Bill. Whether that will endear her to the powers that be, I do not know, but I found her speech most helpful.
All the good points have been made most powerfully by my noble friend Lady Blackstone and other noble Lords. All I can do is to underline a few of the most significant criticisms and to utter a few words on resources and the economic viability of the proposals.
What I find most puzzling is the Government's inability to explain why these changes are needed. Is it the Government's view that HMI has failed the schools and that our troubles in education are due to it? If that is so, can we be given the details? Does the Secretary of State believe that the inspectorate has let him down in its advisory role? Again, if that is so, I ask for more and better particulars.
At the local level also, an explanation is called for. I am aware of the criticism made by the Audit Commission, but that criticism leads for a case for reform, as explained by my noble friend, not the destruction brought by the Bill. I ask again: are local inspectors to blame for the problems in maintained schools? Is that what the Government believe? For that matter are they not also to be praised for the great successes in such schools which characterise most schools?
On the positive side, I have to ask: what are the benefits of the privatisation of the inspectorate? What can the commercialised inspectorate do that cannot be
664
done under the existing arrangements? Is it expected to be cheaper? If so, what are the grounds for believing that?
As I understand it, the DES has suggested that the new system will cost £70 million per annum, which will be paid for out of money currently spent by local education authorities on inspection and advice. Again, I ask: how does the DES reach that figure, especially as officials of the department suggest that costs will be contained by market forces? What I know about market forces is that one cannot predict what they will do, that is their whole point. However, that is by the way.
I ask the DES: has it simply and arbitrarily divided by two the £135 million that the local education authorities are spending? Two is about the easiest number we can divide by. Did it then come up with the £70 million? Or will we be offered more sophisticated calculations?
On market forces, presumably the Department of Education and Science expects that many enterprises will enter the inspection field. They will compete with each other. For that to happen, the business of inspection—and my noble friend Lord Glenamara is right to emphasise the word "business" because that is what it is about—must be profitable. It must therefore meet all the costs but it must also include the profit margin to pay for both the costs of the capital involved and the heavy risk involved. To save money, the private enterprise inspectorate must be tempted to cut corners.
In this connection, may I offer my own attempt at a calculation? We are told that there will be 6,000 inspections per year. It has been suggested that the registered inspector and his team will typically carry out 10 per annum. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, suggested 10. That means we need 600 inspectors. Even I can calculate that. The individual inspector will therefore carry out one inspection a month.
The Government have said that the cost will be £70 million per annum. If we divide that by 6,000, we reach approximately £12,000. In other words we are given the average cost of an inspection at £12,000. If there are 10 inspections per annum, we can work out that the gross revenue to the inspector and his team will be £120,000 per annum. That shows how much progress one can make with a little useful information. The gross revenue is £120,000 per annum for the team. The trained inspector needs premises, back-up staff, secretaries, equipment, and travel costs and subsistence will have to be paid. From my experience of running all kinds of operations, I cannot see that that will cost less than half the £120,000, and that is a conservative estimate. So we subtract £60,000 from £120,000 and end up with £60,000 available to pay the salaries of the inspector and the team, with a suitable margin for profit.
I am not certain—perhaps we shall be told—but incidentally I assume that VAT will be payable on this enterprise. From my knowledge there is no way it can avoid paying VAT. However, perhaps the Finance Act will be abolished.

665
What I have demonstrated, it seems to me, is that the figures simply do not add up. Therefore there are only these possibilities: either no profit is available, in which case there will be no enterprise and it will not happen; or, to reiterate my point, the inspectors will cut corners and try to do many more inspections than 10 per annum. They will try to rush through them and earn, in American parlance, a quick buck.
Having put that into perspective—and I offer it as my opening professorial contribution—I look to the DES officials to attempt something better. Notice that I offer that for free. Since the commercial inspectorate needs the business, it must satisfy its customers. Again, that is the nature of the market mechanism: one must satisfy one's customers in competitive conditions.
What do the customers want? They want a clean bill of health. They do not want a critical, objective report at all. They want the inspectorate to come in and they want a tick at the end. I therefore ask: how is the objectivity of the inspectorate to be maintained? Others have also asked that.
I am aware that we shall look more carefully at certain parts of the Bill in Committee, particularly Clause 11(2) (d), which states:
"he has knowingly or recklessly produced a report of an inspection which is, when taken as a whole, seriously misleading".
That seems to me to raise more questions than it answers. I should be interested to know the legal status in education law of "seriously misleading".
We have been told that Her Majesty's Inspectorate will monitor standards and arrange for the training and the setting of training standards of inspectors. I hope the Minister will clarify the next matter I wish to refer to. I believe that, essentially, HMI will now consist of inspectors of inspectors. They will largely cease to be inspectors of schools. I believe that is what the Bill seeks to do. The Bill uses such expressions as, "keeping under review the system of inspecting schools and promoting efficiency in the conduct and reporting of inspection of schools by encouraging competition in the provision of service by registered inspectors". If the model we are being offered is that of the chief inspector as a regulator, by all our normal standards of regulation his powers are distinctly limited.
I hope the noble Baroness will be able to clarify a specific matter for me. I draw the attention of noble Lords to the duties of a registered inspector concerning an inspection. Clause 9(4) (c) states that one of the duties of a registered inspector is to report on,
"whether the financial resources made available to the school are managed efficiently".
I have no objection to that provision, but why does the clause not also take account of whether the financial resources that are made available to the school are sufficient for its purposes? Are we to interpret what is written in the Bill to mean that, if an inspector in making a report said the problem with the school was that it simply did not have enough resources, he or she
666
would be told that he was acting ultra vires? That is an important matter and we shall table amendments on it in Committee.
We all believe in the provision of information. That is not what is between us as regards this Bill. However, the Government propose to publish figures which are meaningless because they have convinced themselves that it is difficult to publish figures that are meaningful. I should have thought that the DES had one responsibility above any other, which is to maintain a high standard of logical analysis. If it is impossible to publish figures that make sense, why publish them at all? The annoying point here is that it is possible to publish figures in a proper context which elucidate the concept of "value added". It just happens to be harder and a good deal more expensive to do so. However, it can be done. I, my noble friends, and, I hope, other noble Lords will strongly object to the publication of figures that are not worth publishing.
We must ask how the crude figures will be interpreted. If school A has low truancy rates and a high success rate in GCSE and A-levels while school B has not, will parents then decide that is not relevant information because it is not interpretable? Will they decide they need to know a great deal more about a school before coming to a conclusion? My own view is that that is not remotely likely to occur. School A will be praised and school B will be denigrated.
In that connection, I suggest that the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, on the powers of parents were particularly far-fetched. She claimed that parents could interpret crude data in ways that professional social scientists have found to be totally impossible. Noble Lords may wish to engage in one of their happier activities of attacking professionals and I suggest that we wait until the Committee stage to discover what may happen in that regard. I have to say, however, that I do not accept the view put forward by the noble Baroness.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, asked whether, if one school had achieved a much higher success rate at A-level than another, he was completely irrational in considering prima facie that the school with the high success rate was the better school. In all friendliness I must tell the noble Lord that he is certainly irrational. There is no reason to believe that simply because one school has achieved a much higher success rate at A-level than another that school is suitable for one's own child or any other child. One needs to know a good deal more about why the school in question has achieved such a high success rate. Any decent parent would need to know such information when deciding whether a school was suitable for his child. That takes me back to my point that what one wants is relevant information and not just any old information.
I have a further point on information. Again I am wearing my professional hat in making this point. The information that is provided must be relevant to the questions one wishes to ask. If I am trying to decide where to send my child to be educated—that assumes I have some choice within the state system—there is certain information that will be relevant to that. But if I want to know how well a school is doing from the point of view of government or from the point of view

667
of a local authority in the circumstances in which it finds itself, I shall want to obtain quite different information. The notion that all and any information is relevant to all questions is simply incorrect. That point leads me to the problem of whether we believe we live in a world where the overwhelming majority of parents can do much in terms of interpreting information unaided. I shall not dwell on that matter tonight.
I wish to discuss the matter of the lay person in the inspection teams. I have agonised over this matter. I must admit that my natural bias is to be in favour of the lay person. In general I favour lay representation. However, I am not convinced that in this case the lay person is an important figure. My noble friend Lady Blackstone may think differently about that matter. Perhaps I did not listen attentively enough to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, when he said he favoured the lay person on the teams. In Committee he will no doubt expand on that point. If it were a matter of inspecting medical schools—I believe the noble Lord was discussing that—would the noble Lord really include in his team of inspection people who had no knowledge of medicine, medical education or, for that matter, education? If I were a professor of medicine, I should not find such a person terribly helpful. Perhaps the noble Lord will comment further on the matter in Committee. My general view on the lay person in this case is fairly brutal. I suppose that, as a teacher myself, I have simply never really appreciated ignorance.
I hope I may discuss the advice given by HMI to the Secretary of State. Many years ago I was the adviser to a Secretary of State in the Department of Education and Science. Indeed the right honourable gentleman will be joining your Lordships' House tomorrow and no doubt will sit on the Government side. He will recall that I was his adviser. My advice was theoretical and typically professorial. The senior officials also gave advice. They knew a great deal about policy and they were helpful in their way. However, HMI was the only body which was represented at the meetings I attended which knew anything about the real world. That was the only body which knew about what happened in schools.
The job of HMI—its members carried out that job admirably —was to throw cold water on many of the schemes the rest of us suggested, as those schemes were not based on proper experience. The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, can confirm that that was the case. We were undoubtedly saved by HMI from many of the bad mistakes we were inclined to make. Whatever the formal legal position of Her Majesty's chief inspector—I am not sure whether that position is different to that of civil servants or whether it is even right to call Her Majesty's chief inspector a civil servant —in my day Her Majesty's chief inspector showed an independence of spirit and of courage in telling the Secretary of State and the rest of us not what we wanted to know but rather what we needed to know. That is why I am so disturbed by Clause 2(5) of this Bill. Either that subsection is a triviality, and as such should not be in the Bill, or it carries new weight,
668
in which case it seriously circumscribes the power and limits the independence of Her Majesty's chief inspector.
We are enjoined not to wreck a Government Bill, especially one that has been passed in another place. That occurred despite the fact that, so far as I know, the Bill had no place in the Conservative Party's manifesto and despite the fact that, in panic, the guillotine was used in another place only last week or the week before. A limitation was placed on the official Opposition's ability to examine the Bill on many important matters. We must not wreck the Bill. However, we are certainly obliged to subject it to the most detailed scrutiny. We shall do that but I must confess to being deeply depressed at the prospect.
The problem is the one referred to by my noble friend Lady Blackstone, the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, and others: the Bill is nonsensical, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, put it in more restrained terms, it is hare-brained. We can counter the nonsense with good sense but how can we amend rubbish and still not leave it as rubbish unless we break our rules and wreck the Bill, which we would not dream of doing?
There is one hope, to which the noble Lord. Lord Beloff, alluded. It is possible, though only remotely, that the Government will listen to our arguments and, rather than wishing to go down in history as ignoramuses and educational vandals, will withdraw the Bill. I hope that they will do so. Otherwise, as my noble friend Lady Blackstone said, we in this party will repeal the Bill if it becomes an Act immediately on taking power.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, I wish to join all those who have congratulated my noble friend on her debut with a Bill in this House. She gave a tremendous performance. We all look forward to hearing much more from her in her place. I cannot possibly do justice to the debate. I shall try to do so, and if noble Lords will bear with me, I shall do so at my usual indecent pace.
I begin by referring to remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in relation to the use of the guillotine in another place. There has been reference to the use of a timetable Motion to secure the passage of the Bill in another place. Let me make the position clear. The Bill was fully debated in Standing Committee without any need for timetabling. Indeed, the final session which we had allocated for Committee discussion was not used. The Bill had 36½ hours of Committee debate. It was only at Report stage that the Opposition adopted tactics which required us to move a timetable Motion. The result of that Motion was to secure two full days for Report stage debate. It is unfortunate that the first such day was taken up with delaying tactics and most of the second with debate on the timetable Motion rather than on the substantive issues in the Bill before the House. That was not the Government's fault.
The Government tabled 31 amendments, 17 of them directly in response to amendments proposed by

669
the Opposition in Standing Committee, demonstrating the Government's willingness to improve the Bill following constructive suggestions. Indeed, we accepted an opposition amendment during the Committee stage. Other changes were requested by the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches. I am sure that our acceptance of those will be welcomed on all sides. The other amendments were largely technical and did not affect the substance of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and her colleagues attacked the Bill as evidence of the Government's wish to demolish HMI and destroy its independence. At the same time she and her colleagues trumpeted the proposals of their own party for an education standards council. However, those proposals, as the previous chief inspector, Eric Bolton, made plain, really do wreck HMI. We would set up HMI as an independent department of state with statutory independence. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, advocates putting HMI under the control of a politically controlled quango. We would preserve the crucial relationship between inspection and advice to Ministers. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and her colleagues advocate dividing up HMI between those who inspect and those who advise Ministers. Those who inspect will not advise; those who advise will not inspect.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene but I must correct something which the Minister said. It is not our intention to divide the inspectorate into those who advise and those who inspect. There will be a small group within HMI who spend time advising Ministers for a period. They will then return to inspection in the education standards commission. Similarly, people from the education standards commission who have been inspecting and working with local authorities in schools will advise Ministers. That seems to me a reputable and sensible way of preserving the independence of the inspectorate and making sure that inspectors who advise Ministers have some knowledge of the system.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have also read the document and I believe that it is a certain recipe for the destruction of HMI. That is not only my view and the view of the Government; it was also the view of the senior chief inspector.
We create a national system of inspection under the control of HMI ensuring consistency of approach and consistency of standards. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, advocates a local system run by LEAs with some loose or undefined form of validation by HMI. That is essentially the system which has served us so ill in recent years. The monopoly of the LEA is not a model which inspires confidence. We know of the virtual non-existence of inspection in some local authorities, and only very few authorities achieve anything near the standard we set in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked why we did not require inspectors to assess the adequacy of the resources available. I suggest that that is another windmill to tilt at, another Aunt Sally. Inspectors will be entitled to report on any factor on which the
670
inspectorate wishes to report. But the focus is on the way in which resources are used because resources are finite and it is for the Government and others to decide whether they should be increased. It is also a very important part of the inspection to ensure that the resources available are used properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, will have to do better than pose rhetorical questions about whether HMI has failed to please. The Bill increases the independence of HMI.
Lord Peston: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if I am to do justice to the debate I shall have to leave those comments to Committee stage.
Lord Peston: My Lords—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I must be allowed to continue in the interests of the business of the House. We wish to increase the independence of HMI and broaden the range of its responsibilities. Why should we perpetuate the canard that we are diminishing the status of HMI?
Lord Peston: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, some hours have been given to noble Lords to put their opinion. I am responding to what has been said in the course of the debate; that is my duty at this stage. I have a very long submission to make to the House in response to individual points and I hope that the noble Lord will not interject. There has already been one interjection and here is another. It may well be that the noble Lord will wish to interject on every point that I make with which he disagrees.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way for one moment? I have sat here for as long as she has. I shall listen for as long as she wishes to speak. I shall not wander off early. I simply wish her to know that my questions were questions to which I want answers. I will not tolerate being told that they were rhetorical. They were questions to which I want answers. If the noble Baroness does not want to answer them, that is one thing, but she must not accuse me of asking rhetorical questions when I would not dream of doing that. I asked her some questions and I should like the answers. I shall not interrupt again because I should like to hear the answers.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the particular question which the noble Lord asked and to which I referred was asked rhetorically.
HMI has no direct remit and no prescribed duties under existing legislation. It is a body which is at the service of the Secretary of State to carry out inspections as he may direct. It is a matter of convention that it is independent. That independence, which is not guaranteed by law, consists of being able to define its own broad programme of inspection and having the right to report its findings in its own words so that if Ministers decide to publish its reports the words are those of HMI. However, that is convention,

671
developed over many years. It is not backed by statute. The Bill strengthens HMI by giving it for the first time ever a statutory basis which underpins its independence.
A number of noble Lords referred to value added. From what I have heard today it appears that a number of noble Lords have very different views as to what they mean by value added. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, will agree that the important point is that we need objective information about a single cohort of young people which can be assessed at a later stage in their education so that one can measure whether value has indeed been added to the education of those young people.
Many noble Lords referred to the authority and independence of HMI and the fact that its reports are published. The availability of published HMI reports is a recent innovation. It is also an innovation of this Government. It was my noble friend Lord Joseph who took the important decision in 1983 to make all inspection reports public. This Government agree that HMI is a valuable bulwark of the education system and an essential source of independent advice. That is why we made its reports freely available to the public for the first time. That is why we intend to extend published inspection reports to all schools under arrangements which will guarantee high national standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, asked how people would know about sporting achievements, make judgments about ethos and other things. The reports will be comprehensive, whole school reports. But I think we delude ourselves if we believe that parents do not understand. I would not wish to be as patronising as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about parents. Parents are able to make real judgments about the ethos of a school. After all, they live in the area and are witnessing the behaviour of young people every day. They know a great deal about those schools.
The analogy of the restaurant was an interesting one. The noble Baroness referred to a restaurant buying in its own inspection. The analogy which was used by my noble friend was not that the restaurant should choose its own inspectors but that the customers should do so, which is a very different proposition altogether.
I welcome the remarks of my noble friend Lord Renfrew. He was absolutely right. He talked about an "open system", unqualified raw data, examination results, truancy reports, the destination of young people, the effectiveness of a common form and the understandability of information that is put before people. He also came to the House with an interesting proposition about an obligation in relation to an impartial qualified assessor sitting in when schools are requisitioning inspections. I was struck by his suggestion that we might reinforce the governors' position and help them in a new and difficult task by involving HMI or those appointed by it in the process of selecting an inspector. I believe that could serve two purposes, perhaps more. It would offer independent professional advice to governors and allow HMCI to be alerted to any signs of possible collusion. I know
672
that that concern has been expressed throughout the House. More generally, it would keep HMI in touch with governing bodies on a systematic basis. The suggestion appears to work with the grain of our proposals, and I hope that my noble friend will allow me time to consider the proposals he has made. Perhaps we may talk about it between now and Committee stage.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford and the noble Baroness, Lady David (who is not in her place now), made reference to LEAs, governors and head teachers being charged with the duty to exercise their functions. That point was made by a number of your Lordships, including my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. It was said that the LEAs would exercise their functions with a view to securing the implementation of the curriculum, including the national curriculum, in every school as laid down by the 1988 Act. Noble Lords will argue: How can LEAs do that if they are no longer empowered to inspect?
First, the duty to secure implementation of the curriculum also rests with the governors. In the Bill we have shifted the balance of functions from LEAs to governors, and it is the governors rather than the LEA who have the main duty to secure implementation of the curriculum. For that reason they have the duty to secure regular inspection. Secondly, LEAs will continue to be able to carry out routine monitoring. The combination of inspection reports, published comparative tables and day-to-day contact with schools will give LEAs regular information evidence of a much higher order than they have at the moment. LMS schemes will secure the flow of information on financial management. Local education authorities can also secure detailed written reports on any aspect of a school's activity. Thirdly, LEAs continue to have a right of entry to tackle specific problems or in the exercise of their specific functions. That right can be exercised when it is necessary on an objective test; it cannot simply be exercised when the authority would like to exercise it. That is the simple answer to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady David.
My noble friends Lord Renfrew and Lady Cumberlege will, I think, continue to concern themselves with this point, and I offer a meeting to anybody who wishes to consider further the issue of rights of entry. But inspection reports, annual reports to parents, governors and the LEA, examination results, the duty to oversee governor training, LMS flow of information will serve to help the LEA fulfil its duties under the Act.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that there is no need for an amendment to enable rights of entry to schools for LEAs. Local authorities will still have right of entry but they will continue to have to justify it, especially to the governors.
I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady David, who made governors responsible for carrying out the action plan. Governors have an obligation to report annually to parents. Both the report and the summary of the inspection will be in the public arena. Parents will expect to see an action plan and action to be taken. Of course, four years later that is justification

673
for the inspection team to come along and make judgments about whether what they said was followed up.
The quality control of school inspections was an issue of concern to many noble Lords. The detailed arrangements for securing quality control of school inspection teams will be for HMCI to determine. The Bill secures two levels of control over registered inspectors. In addition to carrying out basic checks on the fitness and competence of candidates for registration and ensuring they are properly trained, the HMCIs will be able to ensure that inspectors work in particular ways which are imposed as conditions of registration under the Bill, as well as having regard to the national guidance which they will issue on the way in which school inspections should be conducted. Any significant failure to comply with any conditions of registration would be a sufficient reason for removal from the register. The national guidance will have a less direct force, but if inspectors do not work in accordance with the guidance it will contribute to the view that they are not capable of conducting inspections as required under the Bill.
In addition, all inspection reports will go to HMI. HMI will be able to look at the information which underpins the report and the inspection schedules which contain the raw evidence. HMI will accompany each registered inspector on an inspection at regular intervals. It will be for HMI to decide what degree of scrutiny any particular inspector requires.
As to team members, we would expect HMCI to include in the national guidelines for the conduct of inspections guidance on the nature of the team required to inspect different types of school and the competencies to be expected of team members. All will receive training which will be designed to give them a full working knowledge of the national guidelines and their implications. Both the inspector and his teams will be monitored by HMCI and by the school authorities which employ them to ensure that they observe the guidelines in practice and are competent to offer an accurate report on the school.
The primary responsibility for ensuring that team members are and continue to be fully competent will, quite rightly, rest with the registered inspector. The fact is that registered inspectors will want to be confident that those they employ are up to the job. The registered inspector knows that his livelihood depends on the quality of the team he chooses to work with him. He cannot afford to carry weak or unsuitable team members who will not inspire confidence and help him win contracts. An incompetent team member may cause him to be struck off the register as being no longer able to conduct effective inspections. The registered inspector is best placed to judge on the basis of experience over time whether a person is able to make a satisfactory contribution to the work of a team.
Those who commission inspections will also have a quality control function. They will want to be assured that the team they are offered meets the published guidance and the requirements of the Bill. If they wish, they may seek assurances about the checks which have
674
been carried out on team members. If they are offered a team or an individual whom they judge unsuitable no doubt they will complain to HMCI who will be able to investigate. The key points are the following. We are concerned not to write into the Bill details which are properly the prerogative of HMCI to settle. We believe in the independence of HMCI. We have provided a broad framework which gives a basis for the kind of delegation and accountability which we believe is likely to enable a cost-effective system of quality control to be established with a minimum of bureaucratic interference. It would be a mistake to add to that framework more detailed requirements which at this stage could not take account of the national guidance to be prepared by HMCI and which it would be hard for HMCI to alter if, in the light of experience of the new arrangements, he wished to do so.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford and other noble Lords commented on Clause 14. As noble Lords are aware, religious education is part of the basic curriculum and must be offered in all schools, a position that has been re-established most recently in the Education Reform Act. Religious education in most schools is carried out in accordance with an agreed syllabus for the area, formulated by a standing advisory council on which local church and other religious groups are represented, and adopted by the local education authority. I sat on one such committee for many years. However, voluntary and certain grant maintained schools may be subject to trust deeds which require them to offer religious education of a particular type. Those schools are not required to use an agreed syllabus.
I was slightly puzzled to hear the right reverend Prelate regret that continued separation in the Bill. The only alternative would be to allow HMI for the first time ever control over denominational provision; but we amended the Bill to make clear that denominational religious education is to be inspected with the same frequency and depth as other provisions, and indeed to encourage joint inspection arrangements. The governors will be able to use registered inspectors to carry out such inspections, but they will not be obliged to do so if they wish to use other means of inspection that they believe better suited to the particular needs of their religious community.
I find it almost impossible to disagree with anything said by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and my noble friends Lord Elton and Lord Pearson. Certainly education, if it is anything, must address the spiritual, cultural, moral, physical and academic dimensions of the upbringing of young people. The spiritual and moral development of all pupils must be one aim of the curriculum in all state schools. That is fully secured by Section 1 of the Education Reform Act. In reporting on the quality and standards of education in schools, as HMI and registered inspectors are bound to do under Clauses 2 and 9 of the Bill, inspectors will be required to address that aspect of the curriculum as well as others. They will not be limited to looking at the formal curriculum. They will also be able to report on the so-called hidden curriculum, which includes the

675
values and relationships established within the school community. So I do not believe that noble Lords need fear that the matters which concern them will fail to be dealt with by inspectors under the Bill as drafted.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, asked about the scope of the special arrangements under Clause 14. The only religious education which schools are required to provide other than in accordance with an agreed syllabus, is that required by the trust deed of a voluntary or former voluntary school. Provision in accordance with an agreed syllabus will be inspected under Clause 9 and provision in accordance with the trust deed under Clause 14. Under Section 84(12) of the Education Reform Act 1988, which applies to grant maintained schools which were county schools, if parents of pupils withdraw them from religious education and desire them to have their own denominational religious education, that may be permitted so long as no costs fall upon the governing body. Such RE may be required to be carried out on the school premises.
Similar arrangements may be made for pupils in aided schools. But we did not intend to cover such provision under Clauses 14 or 9 of the Bill. After all, it is provision made while pupils are withdrawn from the education which the school is obliged to offer them. In some cases such education will take place elsewhere—for example, at a religious centre—and it is not the intention to subject such additional denominational provision to inspection under the Bill. It would be wrong to hold a school accountable for a provision that takes effect outside the school curriculum.
League tables are another cause of concern. League tables cannot tell parents about the ethos and values espoused by the school. They will be set out in the school's prospectus. The league tables will give an important additional piece of information, information which on the whole—in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone —is meaningful and not misleading. The inclusion of information about truancy and pupils' destinations will perhaps reflect as much as anything on the values and attitudes of the pupils as on academic success.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether she would deal with the issue of how the Government will deal with misleading information in school prospectuses. I accept that there will be other information about some of the aspects of the school which many noble Lords are concerned that parents should understand and know of. It is equally possible for that information to be misleading. How will the Government cope with that problem?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have addressed the point of misleading information. I am barely half way through the points that I want to address during the course of the debate. I shall not neglect the point. I hope that I have a reputation for not neglecting points. If I do not cover it in the debate, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, asked a number of questions. How can a school establish an ethos? There is nothing in the Bill that precludes a
676
school from establishing an ethos. Indeed, one would expect schools to do so. How will a child progress? There will be a great deal more information that measures whether a child is progressing and at what pace. It will be possible to use that information, which builds on the child's strength and addresses the child's weaknesses. Will it stretch the most able? The same arguments apply. The information will provide a very important database for teachers, schools, parents and all those involved with the education of children, to help them achieve their potential.
Inspectors often find problems that are not known at the school and problems of which the school is not aware. That is the whole point of inspections; namely, to raise awareness of things which may be happening to which the school has been too close for too long. I feel that inspections in that situation can be very positive. The noble Lord was concerned about how they will choose. That ties up with the point about collusion. But even if at worst there were sycophantic teachers and governors, I simply cannot harbour the patronising view that parents would also go along with soft options, soft reports and whitewashes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was concerned about current LEA practice. In the case of school inspection the ratio of one to 10 is not, I am afraid, in favour of a good and effective LEA. There are only nine local authorities which HMI now suggest have strong and effective inspection systems. As my noble friend quoted earlier today, only a third have systems likely to yield reliable outcomes. We simply cannot accept that situation.
My noble friend Lord Beloff spoke about the French system. The French have a monolithic, uniform system. That is certainly not our intention. We want national standards, but we certainly do not want to go down the road of perpetuating a French-type monopoly. My noble friend suggested that parents will not pay attention to published information or understand its complexity. Again, I cannot share that view. Parents are very anxious to secure the best possible education for their children. We owe it to parents to give them good information to help them with the important responsibilities that they have as parents.
The noble Lords, Lord Walton of Detchant and Lord Skidelsky, referred to raw data. I presume in favour of all that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said about raw results—raw results on what will enable value added to be calculated in due course. I have mentioned that one has to start off with basic, unqualified information, unfettered by subjective judgments. One can later make judgments and add qualifications. It will be possible to refine the situation once the system is up and going. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that it was all very easy. I am afraid that it is not.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, asked how long it took to inspect a school. The answer is, as long as is necessary. It will be a matter for the school, whatever its size, complexity and nature. It will require an inspection and will specify its nature. The inspector will respond to that particular specification. What will be the criteria? I do not know whether the noble Lord

677
suggests that politicians determine the criteria. We have taken a very firm view that the HMI will be independent and HMCI will determine the criteria. It will be very public and very professional. I believe that we should not interfere with that.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, and my noble friend Lady Faithful] asked whether there will be enough money to attract inspectors. Our reforms involve making better use of existing funds for local inspection and advice. Some £135 million is spent by local authorities each year on inspectors and advisers. We estimate that just over half that total—some £70 million—will be needed to meet the costs of inspection for the quarter of schools which must be inspected each year. That is important; it is a quarter per year. Those estimates cannot be finalised until HMCI's guidance is known. We are still some way off the first inspections in September 1993. They are based on a range of costs from some £6,000 for a small primary school to £30,000 for large secondary schools. That reflects current HMI practice in terms of length of inspections and an estimate of about £350 for the daily cost of any inspector. The speculation about the viability of inspection teams, which noble Lords may have seen in the press, has generally been based on a much lower daily rate.
As I have said, £135 million is now being spent by local authorities on inspectors and advisers. A considerable further sum is being spent on the employment of some 3,000 advisory teachers. The new inspection system will require £70 million of that to be delegated to schools each year. That leaves a large amount for the other important advisory functions of the authority about which we have heard much today. They include training, appraisal, curriculum support and the necessary help to schools which for one reason or another find themselves in crisis.
Authorities will need to decide in the light of the new arrangements how to structure their advisory services. Much of the funding could with value be delegated to schools so that they can buy in the help which they need to follow up inspections and to meet other priorities. However, they will need to retain the capacity to intervene, in, thankfully, rare cases, where schools cannot cope. We believe all that is fully possible within the sums which will remain available.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, was critical about consistent standards. That will be a matter for HMI. We believe in their professionalism. A great deal has been said about that on all sides of the House. The criteria will be established by then and information will be published in a common format.
My noble friend Lady Young was right in saying that each school will be different. Some will have a technical bent. Indeed, BTEC courses are very much a feature of key stage IV and above. If that is an important element of the school it is important that it should be inspected. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked about VAT. LEAs will be able to reclaim VAT. They must pass that back to the schools once it has been reclaimed. Therefore, VAT is not a part of the figures which we have been talking about.
The noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, asked about
678
the training of registered applicants. I do not know where she obtained her information about the training lasting one week. There is nothing in the Bill which spells out how long the training will be. It will be as long as is appropriate. That will also be a matter for HMCI.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, asked: why four-yearly inspections? I thought that he was on weak ground in asking why once there has been a full inspection the school should be bothered again. He added that it would be a long time before a school was again inspected. I cannot agree with his argument. If a school has had an inspection it will not need another for a long time. Four years is more than the lifetime of a child in an infant school; it is comparable to the lifetime of a child in a junior school and it is only one year short of the lifetime of a child in a secondary school up to the age of statutory schooling—
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I said that it might be unnecessary to have a full inspection. However, I specify that inspectors would return to the school to look into any matter that was not up to the standard required. That might happen frequently.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, there is absolutely nothing in the Bill to preclude a school from calling in inspectors at almost any time. Of course there will be inspectoral activity between the four-yearly inspections. We are making a guarantee to parents that once every four years all schools will have a full inspection. That is important information for parents. This is not a cost-cutting exercise.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that the Bill makes explicit the principle that HMIs should in their work have regard to government policy. That aspect has worried many people. It is having regard to government policy. I hope that noble Lords opposite would expect any HMI to have regard to their policy for education. They have been so influenced since 1839. It would be no use having HMCI as an entirely loose cannon operating wholly independently of government policy. Perhaps that is what noble Lords opposite are advocating.
HMIs now report and must continue to report not only on educational quality and standards but on contributory factors. They include the way in which resources available to the school are managed. How otherwise are we to secure the improvements? Clause 2 does not limit HMIs' right to report to the Secretary of State about any matter, whether asked and whether the information is solicited or unsolicited.
My noble friend Lady Perry made an excellent contribution to today's debate. She pointed out that numbers will be adjusted according to the size of the task. That is right; nothing is static. She also said that an important feature would be to take into account the views Of parents in making such a report. That too is an important point. I believe that what we are doing recognises the professionalism of HMIs to do the job and we believe that they will rise to the challenge.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy was concerned with points Scottish. She made a number of points about Clause 17 as it related to Scotland, as did the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. She correctly noted that the Bill

679
does not contain provisions on schools inspections in Scotland. However, that does not mean that no changes in inspection procedures are proposed for Scotland. We propose to bring forward regulations under existing powers to require each school in Scotland to set out its educational plans and targets for two years ahead. That document will be given to parents and an audit unit will be established with an HMI to collect, analyse and publish evidence about how well schools are performing. In future, inspectors will take parents' interests and views fully into account in carrying out inspections.
My noble friend also pointed out that a number of local education authorities in Scotland have blocked the issue to parents of the summary leaflet describing the Parent's Charter. That leaflet met the strict conventions for government publications. It also contained information to which parents have a right. Indeed, some 20,000 copies of the charter leaflet have since been issued to parents and to others on request. That is why Clause 17 introduces a new section by means of which the Secretary of State may make regulations to require the distribution by local authorities in Scotland of proscribed information on school education.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy also asked whether the Secretary of State for Scotland had plans to issue a consultation paper on the information provisions along similar lines to the paper recently issued for England. I can give her an absolute assurance that that will be the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, queried the decision to include a clause containing Scottish provisions in a Bill which in the main applies to England and Wales. Clause 17 relates to the publication of information about schools in Scotland and in Clause 16 it makes similar provisions for England and Wales. Therefore, it makes sense for the necessary enabling powers relating to information about schools to be contained in a single GB Bill. Your Lordships will be aware that there are many precedents for such Bills over a wide range of subject areas and I assure the House that there will be ample opportunity to consider the Scottish application of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Elton raised the issue of confidentiality. Again, the Government are acutely conscious of the need for confidentiality both for teachers and for pupils. They expect HMCI to ensure that such confidences are preserved. Registered inspectors may need to look at pupils' records in order to judge whether pastoral care is effective. In that context, the point about confidentiality is important.
My noble friend Lord Elton asked whether the inspectors would make recommendations. The inspections are designed to report on what has been achieved and to identify the causes of both good and bad results. Therefore, the report will be diagnostic but not prescriptive. It will be for the governors, with advice and help from the LEAs and others, to decide what to do to follow up such a report.
The Secretary of State has a duty to approve courses of initial teacher training which will lead to qualified teacher status. He relies on HMI's advice on all such courses. As a result HMI has for many years
680
inspected universities and colleges which provide such courses. The new office of HMCI will continue to do that and will advise the Secretary of State as necessary.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lady Faithfull that the current HMI is within the Department of Education. All other inspectors are within LEAs. The new system will allow for real independence. It is not cost which leads us to choose a system of local inspectors supervised by HMI but the desire to set up a flexible system rather than a monolithic central structure, but with national standards. I repeat that the aim of our plans is not to cut costs. It would be irresponsible not to plan for the number of inspectors at the same time as increasing the overall volume of inspection as provided by the Bill.
I should say to my noble friend Lady Faithfull that we do not believe that the publication requirements will make schools any less likely to accept pupils with disabilities or those who are simply less able. Schools named in statements of special educational need must take the pupils concerned. In other cases it would be unlawful to discriminate against a child on the grounds of ability unless the school is selective. Schools have published examination results since 1981 and we are not aware of any evidence that they are discriminating against less able pupils as a result. Indeed, there is rarely any chance for the school to know about the ability of a particular pupil until he takes up his place.
My noble friend Lord Rennell made a thoughtful contribution to the debate today. He described a school which I visited last Friday—Great Barr School in Birmingham. I cannot tell your Lordships how uplifting it was to visit that school. I have confirmed with my noble friend that it is the same school. If any noble Lord is worried about ethos or the moral, physical, academic or spiritual dimensions of education he should visit that wonderful school in Birmingham. There one can see all that is best in education for young people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was extremely precipitate, as she has become accustomed to be, with her criticism of the Government. She referred to the Parent's Charter and the fact that there was only a cursory comment about inspection. She asked what the Government are doing. The Government have introduced a Bill before the House and are addressing that gap—namely, that there were only 150 inspections per year.
The noble Baroness referred also to poor continuity. It is important to inspect the institution but it will not be possible to inspect a cohort of 11 year-olds at the first year of secondary school without having some view or understanding of the school or the sector of education from which they came. Equally that will apply to pupils going on to tertiary education because we have built into the system that we should know the destination of young people. Secondary education is all about preparing young people either for tertiary education or the world beyond.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull referred to her visits to schools and how uplifting she found them to be. I have referred to my recent visit to a particular

681
school and how much I enjoyed that. My noble friend asked why children leave school without being able to read and write. The present framework of the national curriculum and regular assessment and testing—and, my goodness, how the passage of that provision was opposed when it went through this House—will help, as will regular inspection of schools and clear, raw information for people to couple with all the other information which is available. There will be annual reports to parents, giving them information. I do not believe that, unless there is a very good reason, it will be possible for young people to leave school without being able to read or write. We shall know about their weaknesses much earlier in the system. The tests will be objective and I hope I have addressed the point about statemented children.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, asked what kind of inspectorate we need now because there is a diversity of schools emerging under the new system and the broadening of choice. That is an important point to raise and no doubt we shall discuss it further in Committee. It is not an argument against inspection. There are standard factors which one will look for whatever the school. What is essential is that, when a registered inspector is inspecting a school with his team, he understands the nature of the school, the aims and objectives of the school and all the measurements are against that information.
I do not intend to address in detail anything said by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. He was puzzled and dismayed and wholly wrong in almost all that he said. I simply pose four questions to him. What is wrong with aiming to inspect all schools on a regular basis? What is wrong with taking stock of what is being achieved against consistent criteria? Why deny the information which will act as a positive basis on which action plans can be developed to build on strengths and to address weaknesses? Finally, what is wrong with governors, parents, staff and the wider public having access to that information? I can think of no argument against it and I dismiss almost everything said by the noble Lord that countered that information.
There was recently a reading survey. What was quite tragic was that the Government did not have the information to counter the survey. What was even worse was that the local education authorities also did not possess the information to counter the survey. The reason was that local education authorities did not keep the data and they were not available nationally.
I must wind up. We owe it to the pupils, above all, to ensure that these disturbing facts are not just exposed in a national document each year, but are reported on in detail and tackled effectively in each school where they occur. Indeed, we must make it our aim to raise expectations for all pupils; to see that, whatever their ability, they are offered real challenges and then given the help that they need to meet those higher expectations. The challenge for us is to set in place systems which will ensure that all pupils achieve the very best of which they are capable.
I believe that these issues will be tackled with more vigour when we have well-informed public debate
682
about quality and standards in our schools. I believe that they will be tackled to better effect when governors have detailed and dispassionate reports on their schools and can direct their energies accordingly. That, in essence, is why I commend this Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Cheques Bill
9.15 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Stamp Duty (Temporary Provisions) Bill
9.16 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill is part of the package of measures announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Statement on 19th December. That package is specially aimed at helping borrowers in difficulty over the mortgage repayments on their homes. The Chancellor announced a variety of measures to reduce substantially the level of home repossessions this year.
In his Statement the Chancellor also recognised people's concern about the depressed state of the housing market, which has been affecting home owners in general and also has implications for the wider economy. In order to provide a stimulus to the market, the Chancellor announced the substantial lifting of the stamp duty threshold for an eight-month period, with which this Bill is concerned.
Stamp duty on house sales applies at 1 per cent. of the purchase price where that exceeds the threshold, which stood at £30,000 at the time of the Chancellor's Statement. The duty is normally paid by the buyer, because it has to be paid before the Land Registry can register a change of ownership.
The Bill raises the stamp duty threshold to £250,000 for all documents executed between 20th December last year—the day following the Chancellor's Statement—and 19th August this year. That is an eight-month moratorium. As a result of the measure, around 600,000 private house purchases will not bear stamp duty during that period. That is about 90 per cent. of all residential property purchases. Home owners will be able to save up to £2,500 on the cost of moving home, and there will be a good saving of £600 on the purchase of an average priced house.
The benefit of the higher threshold will also apply to transfers of leasehold property and, in general, to the premiums on new leases. Documents effecting transfers of any other property, except shares, will also benefit from the change.
The Bill is short. Clause 1 effects the increase in the stamp duty threshold for sales of land and buildings to £250,000. The purpose is to encourage people thinking of moving home to get into the property market, and

683
make sure that their purchases come within the period of the moratorium. We believe eight months is a reasonable period for that purpose.
It is of course still too early to assess the full extent of the effect of the measure. Decisions about house purchase take time. But reactions from those in a good position to judge—for example, the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Housebuilders Federation —have been encouraging.
Clause 2 enables the Inland Revenue to make refunds in appropriate cases where people executed their documents between 20th December and 16th January, the date of the resolution founding the Bill, and also chose to have their documents stamped within that period. Before the resolution came into effect on 16th January, documents had to be stamped on the basis of the previous £30,000 threshold. The Revenue will be making refunds in those relatively few cases as promptly as possible once the Bill becomes law.
The cost of this measure to the Exchequer will be about £420 million; £110 million in the current financial year and £310 million in 1992–93. The cost will be met out of savings arising from deferral of the abolition of stamp duty on shares. In his 1990 Budget Statement, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister stated that stamp duty on shares would be abolished late in 1991–92, to coincide as closely as possible with the introduction by the Stock Exchange of paperless trading—the system known as Taurus. The Stock Exchange has recently announced that Taurus will not be ready before April 1993. The Chancellor has said that the abolition of stamp duty on securities will also be deferred at least until then. That means a saving of £1 billion in the public sector borrowing requirement.
The proposal in the Bill is a particularly well-targeted measure. The vast majority of the transactions that will be taken out of the stamp duty charge as a result will be in residential rather than commercial property. Nearly all the benefit of the measure goes to home buyers. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
9.21 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, for introducing this Bill. I believe that we should start from the position of how we got into the mess that we are in. It is well-known and accepted that the financial liberalisation towards the end of the 1980s lead to enormous asset price inflation, and notably within that the rise in house prices. In general most experts—certainly most economists—believe that the housing market was simply over-stimulated. I am not opposing financial liberalisation, but the failures of Government policy. An interesting technical aspect of financial liberalisation was the Building Societies Act 1986 which helped to make liquid capital, notably in the form of housing, more liquid, which therefore encouraged people to spend their assets when otherwise they might not have done.
684
The result was that because the Government failed to recognise the over-stimulus we had runaway inflation towards the end of the 1980s. The Government have had to depress the economy to get inflation back under control. Having over-stimulated housing prices we now overshoot in the other direction and we have disaster in the housing market with all the problems that I shall not be dwelling on in this short debate, such as mortgage arrears and repossessions.
The Government now wish to stimulate the housing market. They are willing to abandon all their principles by engaging in Keynesianism of the most active and interventionist kind; the kind of thing that a Keynesian economist like me has advocated for years. I am somewhat surprised to find those measures coming from the Government themselves. It is essentially a temporary concession which it is hoped will have permanent effect. In other words, as I understand it, the purpose of the measure is not to bring purchases forward in time, although it will do that, but to engender further rounds of purchases of houses. That seems to be the rationale.
In endeavouring to assess whether the measure will work, during the inflation and excessive expansion of the late 1980s most economists believed that the ratio of house prices to incomes was far too high. House prices now having fallen relative to incomes, the interesting question is whether we have yet got to about the right level. Certainly there are respectable economists who believe—it is a source of no happiness to me—that the ratio may have to fall further still. I throw that in as a perspective in the debate.
The difficulty is that this situation clearly distorts the housing market. I have no objection to that if it works. We have to ask the question: is the measure likely to work; is it sufficient in magnitude and does it get anywhere near dealing with the causes of the trouble? If one takes the view that the causes of the trouble are, on the one hand, the cost of borrowing and, on the other, the very great uncertainty coupled with pessimism about future incomes and employment, then it is unlikely that the measure will work.
Perhaps I may also draw the attention of the noble Lord to this point. I am sure that he knows more than I do about this. We have seen, as a result of the recent experience, a considerable increase in so-called mortgage indemnity insurance. That is costing more and more. It may more than offset the concession on the stamp duty that we are being asked to consider.
I should like to ask about the calculation of the cost. What is the basis of that? I believe that the noble Lord said that it would be £110 million in the financial year 1991–92, and then it would rise to £310 million in the financial year 1992–93. What assumptions are made in order to come up with that calculation? It seems to me that essentially the cost must be made up of two parts: it must be made up of the concession to transactions that would otherwise have taken place. That is the deadweight loss of doing it. In other words, that is money thrown away because those transactions would have occurred without the stamp duty concession. If the policy works at all, then there will he some additional transactions. That will be the benefit

685
of the policy. I believe that the noble Lord said that it would refer to 600,000 houses or dwellings. How many of that 600,000 would be the normal number of transactions subject to stamp duty in this period? How many are the result of the policy? There is no way of assessing whether this money is at all worthwhile unless we have that breakdown. If the answer is that no transactions are generated by this, then the whole £400 million is just thrown away as far as concerns the purpose of stimulating the market. On the other hand, if a large part of the 600,000 are net additions, then it becomes a much more cost effective policy. May we have that question answered?
I shall not take any more time to discuss the subject of what we need to do to stimulate the economy and to make up for the Government's mistakes. I hope that between now and the Spring we shall have a more general economics debate when I can talk about those subjects.
However, there are two other technical matters which I want to make sure that I understand. There is one that I should particularly like to ask, but I should also say that I understand that my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar will be introducing another technical point which he feels is particularly damaging to the viability of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will explain this point when he replies at the end of the debate. Have I fully understood the point that all transactions which are appropriate—in other words, which are subject to stamp duty and which get the concession and that take place between the relevant dates; that is, between 20th December, 1991 to 20th August, 1992—will get the concession? For example, if lots of people have already paid the stamp duty will they get that money back? Is that what the noble Lord was saying? He said there would not be very many. That puzzles me. Perhaps that is because many people have not yet paid the stamp duty. However, I take it that if stamp duty has been paid, and it should not have been paid under this new Bill, the Inland Revenue will simply write a cheque for, on average, £600? I should like to have that clarified. I think that is what the noble Lord said.
We shall do nothing to impede the passage of the measure, although going back to my younger days when I worked at the Treasury, I am a trifle worried about whether this is an incorrect way of spending money. However, I shall not waste time on that now; the Bill can go ahead. In due course we shall get some measures which might deal with the problems that confront us.
9.28 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I do not intend to go into the problem of repossessions which are taking place at the present time because I spoke for more than 30 minutes in this House just before Christmas on the subject. However, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, for introducing this measure to the House today and explaining its contents. It is a small concession but nevertheless is very welcome. I am not one of those who thinks it will be much of a stimulus to the housing
686
market, except possibly to first-time buyers buying a property somewhere in the price range of £30,000 to £70,000. I concede that there it could be of help. I hope to God it is. Any cut in overheads for young people buying their first home must be helpful.
I have long felt that stamp duty on house purchase is an anachronism, and should have been abolished long ago. It is that extra, quite substantial cost in house purchase which most of us tend to forget. I do not state that, I have to say hastily, as Liberal Democrat policy because I shall no doubt be asked how the revenue lost would be replaced. Some figures have been quoted from the Opposition Front Bench this evening. It is yet another source of income to the Treasury which may have to be replaced.
However, I sincerely hope that future Chancellors of the Exchequer—I hope that it will not be too long away—will in time be able to do away with stamp duty on house purchase altogether or, at the very least—perhaps those people who want to buy in the £250,000 and upwards range can pay it—amend the duty so that it comes into effect only on a sliding scale when the sum involved exceeds £100,000.
I am thinking of my own children, one of whom lives in London where I suppose a first time buyer has to think in terms of paying between £60,000 and £70,000 when buying a first home. In rural areas I am pleased to see that there are now opportunities in the £30,000 to £40,000 region. This concession is helpful, particularly where people are having to take out mortgages of 90 per cent. or thereabouts. I hope that by putting my suggestion on the record the Chancellor will take some note of it. I do not believe that we should reintroduce stamp duty—if it has to be reintroduced after next August—for purchases of under £100,000.
I should like to make one other point. I wish that I had done a little more research before I put down a Question for Written Answer the other day. I am told that stamp duty is still being charged on assured shorthold tenancies lasting a year and upwards. That is totally wrong. Surely the Government want to encourage people who are unable to purchase because of financial difficulties of one kind or another. People should not be encouraged to buy things that they cannot afford to buy; but at least they should be able to rent. I supported the Government on introducing assured shorthold tenancies, but I am told that stamp duty is still being charged in certain circumstances. That is wrong, and the charge should be withdrawn. I ask the Government to look at that point. The answer that I received the other day was not at all helpful. Having said those few words, I welcome the concession that has been made, and I hope that it will be made permanent.
9.32 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, this is a short but important Bill despite its transitory nature. My noble friend Lord Peston has already dealt with its fiscal and political aspects. I do not intend to dwell on those because they are not my reason for contributing to the debate.

687
I should like to raise a matter in relation to conveyancing. The Bill applies to stamp duty in relation to instruments executed on or after 20th December 1991 or after 16th January 1992. The important word there is "executed". There are various definitions of the word "execute" in the Oxford English Dictionary. I shall quote four of them. If I quoted them all we would be here for a considerable time. The first definition is:
"To follow out into effect, carry out … To follow out, carry into effect (an intention, purpose, plan, instruction, or command.)"
The second and perhaps more important definition is:
"To give practical effect to (a passion, sentiment, principle"—
I do not think that we have any of those qualities in this debate—
"Also, to bring (a weapon) into operation".
I do not think that we shall have that spectacle in your Lordships' House.
The third definition is:
"To carry into effect ministerially (a law, a judicial sentence, etc.).
The final definition is perhaps more relevant to the present debate:
"To go through the formalities necessary to the validity of (a legal act, e.g. a bequest, agreement, mortgage, etc.). Hence, to complete and give validity to (the instrument by which such act is effected) by performing what the law requires to be done, as by signing, sealing, etc."
At first blush, that would give support to the use in the Bill of the word "execute." However, I want to draw the attention of the House to the peculiarity of conveyancing because the execution of a deed—it applies both in Scotland and in England—is not the point at which the transaction takes effect. In Scottish conveyancing practice the deeds which transfer ownership of heritable property and which are subject to stamp duty may be executed some time prior to the date of entry to the property when physical possession of the property is given to the purchaser. It is only at the point when the executed deed is delivered that the transaction becomes effective; that is, that the intention is put into effect and a real right in the property is given to the purchaser. Up until that stage, there is a paper contract between the parties which has been signed but not delivered. Of course, if one party resiled from the contract, that would lead to actions in the court —in Scotland, for specific implement. I am not sure what it is called in England. Therefore, it is at the point of delivery that the real right goes to the purchaser of the property which has been bought.
The point I am trying to make is that it appears that by restricting the increased threshold to deeds which are executed on or after 19th December of last year and before 19th August of this year, the Government may be penalising all those purchasers who were sufficiently organised to have had their solicitors prepare deeds for signing by the sellers before 19th December but where delivery is not made until after 19th December and between that date and 19th August. That means that any person who delays until then for delivery will not receive the benefit of the Bill's provisions.
Of course, it is a two-way process. At the other end of the scale, on 19th August 1992, as a specific date for
688
the termination of the concession, it may be found that many people will be forced into the position where they will execute the deeds within the period in the Bill but delivery will not take place until perhaps September, October, November or sometime thereafter.
There is precedent for using the date of delivery as the effective date for stamp duty purposes. For example, if a penalty is to be charged on the late stamping of a deed in conveyancing practice, the date of delivery is used as the date rather than the date of execution of the deed. Further, as I understand it, in terms of the question of a change of rate of stamp duty, the date of delivery will normally be considered as the effective date of the deed rather than the date of execution.
It is my submission to your Lordships that there is no definition of the word "execute" in the Bill. The Bill is deficient to that extent, quite apart from the other matters to which I referred. In view of the fact that no amendments can be put forward from this side of the House due to the nature of the Bill, I suggest to the Government that they consider amending the Bill themselves. Alternatively, they may wish to take it away for further consideration. A simple amendment could be made which would, I believe, bring a degree of fairness into the proposals of the Bill and meet the point that I have made. I suggest that the words "or delivered" could be inserted after the word "executed" in Clause 2(a) and (b). I am trying to be constructive to ensure that the proposal fits in with the Scottish method of conveyancing. I have consulted English colleagues and, apart from the differences in terminology, the principle appears to be exactly the same. I ask the Government to take time to consider what I hope is a constructive proposal.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for participating in what I believe has been a useful debate. I listened with great interest to the remarks made. As I said earlier, the measure before the House has been well received by those concerned with the housing market. Indeed, many people will gain from it between now and late summer. The property sector of the economy can only benefit as a result. That is my answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, as to whether we believe it is likely to work. From the evidence that I have heard, I believe that it is likely to provide a stimulus.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked, perhaps, rhetorically—though I think that I should be careful in using that word, having listened to an earlier debate —how we had got into this mess.
Lord Peston: It was rhetorical!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I explained when I repeated the Statement of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer just before Christmas that the current weakness in the housing market is due to many factors. To return to the question of whether the Bill is likely to work, I believe that I have already outlined the reasons why I believe that it will.

689
On the cost of borrowing, I merely remind the noble Lord that interest rate changes since we joined the ERM—an action of which I am aware he was in favour—have given the average householder a reduction of something like £70 a month in his mortgage interest payments, which can only be helpful.
On the calculation of the cost of the measure, the £420 million is the duty forgone on transactions which would have taken place and upon which duty would have been paid in the absence of the change. That figure relates to the 600,000 people, to whom I referred, who would otherwise have paid duty. The extra transactions which would not have occurred in the absence of the proposal would not of course have produced any duty and so they do not count towards the £420 million cost.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the Minister. I merely want to say that I do not understand his answer. Will he write to me? I should like to know the answer. I do not want to press him at this point. I am probably just a trifle tired.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will read tomorrow in Hansard what I have said before pressing me to write to him. Having read that he may well find that he understands my reply. The noble Lord further asked whether everyone who has paid stamp duty since 20th December would receive back their money. The answer to that is an unequivocal yes. People who executed their documents after 19th December will not pay stamp duty on their purchases between £30,000 and £250,000. Duty paid before the passing of the resolution in another place on 15th January will be refunded by the Inland Revenue.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, for his general welcome of the Bill. He said that he did not think that it would produce much stimulus to the market but then went on to argue for the permanent abolition of stamp duty. I do not wish to comment on that point at this stage. I welcomed his statement that he thought the measure would help first time buyers in particular.
Since 1979 stamp duty has been reduced by a considerable amount. In 1979 stamp duty of 0.5 per cent. was payable below £20,000, and of 2 per cent. above £30,000. Before the Bill, it was 1 per cent. above £30,000 only. The noble Lord also referred to duty on rent under shorthold tenancies and leases. The Bill is concerned with the threshold of the 1 per cent. stamp duty on the purchase of property or on the premium on a lease. The duty on rent under a lease is charged on a separate scale of rates and is not altered by the Bill. Any duty charged on a rent under a shorthold lease is likely to be small. I note, however, the point that the noble Lord makes, and I shall of course refer his remarks to my right honourable friend.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, for his constructive suggestions, in particular those relating to Scots law. I do not wish to give him a definitive reply now. On the date of execution, the general stamp duty rule is that a document has to be
690
stamped in accordance with the law in force at the time it was executed. Stamp duty changes therefore usually apply to documents executed on or after a particular date. The Bill follows that practice. "Executed" is a legal term. Broadly, a conveyance or other document is executed at the point when it becomes legally effective. The precise point at which that occurs may well depend upon the particular circumstances of the case.
A purchaser who is in doubt about his own case may need to consult his solicitor. I shall read carefully what the noble Lord said, and I shall write to him if I can go further on that matter. The Inland Revenue has issued two press releases—one on 19th December outlining the change, and another on 16th January about the practical arrangements. A further announcement will be made once the Bill becomes law. Stamp offices have also been giving detailed guidance to their customers. I hope that I have answered the main points raised by noble Lords.
In conclusion, this is a positive measure to stimulate a depressed housing market by giving people a bit of encouragement at a difficult time to buy houses or to put them on the market. Stamp duty can be an important element of the costs of buying a house and a saving of £600 on an average priced dwelling is a big incentive. The measure gives help to the housing market in the right place by concentrating on domestic property, and at the right time by taking effect well in advance of the peak period for housing transactions in the summer. I therefore once more commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 6th February), Bill read a third time and passed.

Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill
9.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD SKELMERSDALE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [New offence of aggravated vehicle-taking]:
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, after ("a") insert ("motor").
The noble Lord said: It has been suggested that this amendment and Amendments Nos. 9 and 15 should be taken together. However, I do not find that there is a great deal in common between the three except that they are all in my name. I think that we shall get on faster if we take them one at a time. I therefore propose to move Amendment No. 1.
The Bill operates by reference to Section 12 of the Theft Act 1968 which states in the side note:
"Taking motor vehicle or other conveyance without authority".
I suppose "other conveyance" means chiefly push bikes but, as we fully realise, this Bill is concerned only with motor vehicles. I believe therefore that the first opportunity should be taken, in conformity with the Long Title, to make clear that in the Bill we are discussing motor vehicles.
The first opportunity occurs in the second line of the new Section 12A, but it is not taken. The wording refers not to the taking of a motor vehicle but the taking of a vehicle. Admittedly, paragraph (a) clarifies the matter with the words "mechanically propelled vehicle." However, I suggest that no harm would be done and it would be clearer and better in line 8 to refer to "a motor vehicle." I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is always a purist in these matters and I see what he means by inserting the word "motor" before "vehicle". However, if he were to read through the proposed section, as he did, he would realise that it says that,
"a person is guilty of aggravated taking of a vehicle if he commits an offence under section 12(1) … in relation to a mechanically propelled vehicle".
He cannot commit an offence unless the offence is against a mechanically propelled vehicle. That expression has an established legal meaning which goes wider than motor vehicles and covers, for example, tractors and plant machinery. That category may not be classed as motor vehicles through not being, in the words of the Road Traffic Act 1988,
"intended or adapted for use on roads".
I understand the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. However I think he will realise that it is covered by the words that are included in new Section 12A(1) (a). I therefore suggest that the word "motor" merely has the effect of elongating the Bill without adding anything to it.
Lord Airedale: I am always grateful to the noble Earl for taking a great deal of trouble over these matters. I do not think I would be thanked if I pursued this drafting argument at this time of night. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert ("by the accused or by another person incited by the accused").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 6 and 7. Although on the suggested groupings list Amendment No. 10 is included in that group, the Minister is at the moment reading our suggestion that we wish to consider Amendment No. 10 separately if there is no objection to doing so.
Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 7 explore the legal position as the Bill now stands, of what one might think of as the passive passenger. That may be a person who has perhaps been casually picked up after the basic offence has been committed. He is aware the car does not belong to the person who is driving it but thereafter the passenger does nothing to aggravate the situation. He may actively persuade the offender or offenders to desist from the offence. The amendments
692
all have the same purpose, which is to tighten up the Bill so that degrees of liability can be measured and fairly punished. There is no intention to let anyone off the hook. The amendments seek to distinguish between degrees of culpability.
By inserting the words,
"by the accused or by another person incited by the accused"
a defendant who was merely sitting in the car without inciting the accused to drive dangerously would have an adequate defence. As the Bill stands at present, passengers are liable to increased maximum penalties of up to two or five years' imprisonment because of aggravating behaviour by another person who was driving the vehicle.
It has been suggested to me that to give someone an aggravated sentence for another person's actions offends against all the normal canons of criminal responsibility, and that public support for this measure is much more likely to be gained if the penalties to which any individual is liable correspond much more closely to that individual's degree of personal responsibility for the harm done.
We are not entirely happy with Clause 1 as it stands because the criminal law in this area surely deals with personal liability. The present wording seems to us far too wide. As Clause 1 now stands, damage could be caused by any other person—such a person may be wholly unconnected with the accused or with the event —or by any other thing, such as a tree falling on the car, even when the taking away has been completed.
An example has been suggested which I do not think is particularly far-fetched. X commits the basic offence and then returns the vehicle intact and undamaged. He parks it properly in an appropriate area and secures it properly. He may use a phone box nearby to confess his sin to the owner of the vehicle and beg forgiveness.
While he is doing that Y, who happens to be blind drunk at the time, drives into the back of X's stolen car causing damage to the amount of £2,000 plus VAT. In those circumstances, X is guilty. He may plead subsections (3) (a) and (3) (b) in his defence, but they are no defence. It seems unusual to us to attribute criminal liability for events which can neither be foreseen nor controlled by the accused. I suggest these simple drafting amendments would put things to rights. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: I should like to support the amendment. An illustration which appeals to me is the case of several youths who decide to commit what is called the basic offence of taking a vehicle merely to drive to a football match or to the seaside. Initially there is no question of driving dangerously, but along comes another hooligan driving another car and the two drivers decide to have a road race just for the hell of it. They drive dangerously. The passengers in the back are horrified. That is not what they had in mind. They are terrified. They think that they will probably be killed. It is wrong to suggest that those passengers are guilty of an offence. The word "incitement" should be inserted into the Bill to make quite sure that passengers placed in that position are not guilty of an offence unless they can be shown to have incited the offence.

693
I hope that that illustration, added to the illustration that the noble Lord put forward, will convince the noble Earl that the word "incitement", or words to that effect, is necessary to improve the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: As I heard the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, add his weight to the amendment I practically fell off the edge of the Bench. What are we talking about? We are talking about people who have stolen someone's car and who have driven that car. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, suggested that there were two people who unfortunately found themselves in the back of that stolen car and had nothing to do with the offence, and when the car started going too fast they said, "Help! We don't want anything to do with it".
The Bill is designed to deal with people who individually or collectively steal people's cars, drive them, and as a result of having driven them end up committing an aggravated offence. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, then says that the poor chaps in the back were so frightened that they said, "For goodness sake stop". I ask the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, what on earth they were doing there in the first place. They should not have been there.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said that his amendment was a simple drafting amendment. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, he knows perfectly well that it is not a simple drafting amendment, it wrecks the whole Bill. It destroys the new offence of aggravated vehicle-taking. The amendment would emasculate the Bill, leaving the law in practice unchanged.
If the amendments were accepted, it would never be enough for the prosecution to show that danger, damage or death had been caused. Under the amendments, the prosecution would have to prove first that the existing basic offence of taking a vehicle had occurred and then exactly who caused what damage, what injury, or did what driving and why. If four people had taken a car and it had burnt out, the prosecution would have to go to the same lengths to prove the offence of aggravated vehicle-taking as for criminal damage. The penalty for criminal damage is a maximum of 10 years; for the offence of aggravated vehicle-taking the maximum is two years.
If the amendments were accepted, the Bill would offer no improvement over the existing law. It would offer even less than the existing offences because the maximum penalties which could be imposed on the basis of the same evidence would he less in some cases under the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Morris. The message would then go out to those deadly hooligans who travel around on wheels, "Don't worry, the law cannot keep up with you. Carry on joy-riding". That is not the purpose of the Bill. The purpose is to ensure that people who take cars should be collectively responsible for having taken them and for the damage which results irrespective of which person was involved in the deed at the time. If three, four or more people gather together to offend by taking a vehicle, driving it and possibly changing drivers and an accident takes place, any damage that occurs is the corporate responsibility of those people.
694
It is for those reasons that I suggest to your Lordships that it would be completely inappropriate to accept these amendments.
10 p.m.
Lord Airedale: I nearly fell off the Bench, too. I thought I had made it clear to the noble Earl that passengers in the vehicle are parties to what is called the basic offence. All they want to do is get to a football match or the seaside. The spontaneous road race that develops between the drivers of two vehicles has nothing to do with the passengers in the back. It is wrong to make them responsible or liable to be convicted of the aggravated offence when they are utterly against it and are terrified of what is going on. It is not good enough to say that those passengers are liable to be convicted without the word "incitement" or words to that effect applying to them.
Earl Ferrers: Having heard that speech, the noble Lord makes me fall even further off the Bench than did in the first place. What the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is saying is, "These poor chaps who just wanted to go to a football match went along to some person's garage and stole his car. That is all right. But when the person who happened to be driving it drove it at 70 miles an hour they were terrified and said, "Look, Joe, ease off". Joe did not ease off and they had a smash. The noble Lord says that they are not responsible for what happened. Of course they are responsible; they stole the car in the first place. What happens to the car afterwards is the collective responsibility on the part of those people who stole the car. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, wags his head like a metronome. All I can tell him is that if people collectively steal a vehicle they are collectively responsible for having stolen it and for what happens thereafter.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I have managed to remain remarkably well tethered to my Bench. I have greatly enjoyed the heat and passion which seems to have been engendered across the Committee by what I thought was a comparatively harmless amendment. I have carefully avoided using emotive words like "stealing". I understood we were talking about taking and driving away, which I imagined was something quite different from stealing. The matter seems to be so basic to the Bill that it appears to some of us that, provided a person can be convicted of the basic offence, there is no end to what can be pinned on him and his uncles and aunts or anyone else who happened to be in the vicinity when he committed the basic offence.
It is far too late and there are too few of us to seek the opinion of the Committee, but I have noted carefully what has been said and the passion with which it has been uttered. While reserving the right to come back to the point if necessary at a later stage, I beg leave, in the interests of peace and harmony, to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 3:

695
Page 1, line 23, after first ("the") insert ("dangerous").
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I shall deal with Amendment No. 3 and speak also to Amendment No. 5. These amendments have the purpose of harmonising the circumstances in which an offence can be deemed to have been committed. As the Bill stands at present the accused can be convicted of an offence either under Clause 1 (2) (b) if owing to the driving of a vehicle an accident occurs by which injury is caused to any person, or under Clause 1 (2) (c) if an accident occurs by which damage is caused to any property other than the vehicle. Our amendments ensure that the aggravated offence would apply only where the damage was linked in each case to the dangerous driving of those in the vehicle. We suggest that the higher penalties ought not to apply where the driving was careless or indeed possibly blameless, or where damage was inflicted on the vehicle without reference to the driving.
Possible cases have been cited by many people on many occasions. For example, a dog—or it might even be a child—runs out in front of a car which has been taken and driven away. The driver swerves to avoid striking the child or animal and damage ensues. It seems a trifle unjust that that should result in an aggravated offence automatically involving all those in the car at the time.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 have the additional small virtue of tidiness in that the word "dangerous" can now appear in all three places and "dangerous" and "dangerously" would be words as defined in subsection (7) (a) and (b). I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: We are discussing a point similar to that which arose in the previous amendment. The noble Lord says that the word "dangerous" ought to be added in front of "driving" so that only the person who has driven the vehicle dangerously would be subjected to those additional provisions. A scenario which the noble Lord might have painted would be that of a person who steals someone else's car, drives it away and everything is fine until somebody else's dog runs out in front of it and the car crashes.
The noble Lord says that it was not the fault of the poor fellow driving the car; the fault was that of somebody else's dog. But what was that person doing with the car in the first place? He had stolen the car. If he has stolen the car and driven it, it does not matter whether he drove it into a lamp post or whether someone else's dog ran into the path of the car which ends up being driven into the lamp post. That person is responsible. I do not believe that the noble Lord can say that the poor fellow who stole the car did not mean to run into any trouble; that he just wanted to use the car perhaps to go, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said, to a football match. He did not mean to run into the lamp post. It was unfortunate that somebody else's dog ran into the road. I do not believe that that argument holds water at all. I hope that the noble Lord will concede that if a person steals a car what happens to that car after he has stolen it is that person's responsibility.
Lord Airedale: The noble Earl goes on talking about stealing. We are not talking about stealing cars. We are talking about taking cars, not stealing cars. If you take a car and abandon it by the roadside and it gets back to the owner, you have not stolen it. You never intended to steal it. So let us talk about what the Bill is about.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is always a man for punctilious purity. If someone takes my car without my consent and drives it around London, so far as I am concerned he has stolen it. It may not be stealing under law but it is stealing as regards the fact. The noble Lord cannot use that argument.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: So far as the law is concerned, he would nevertheless be charged with taking and driving away, though in certain cases that circumstance might be aggravated by something else that happened. I am disappointed that the noble Earl feels unable to receive these two amendments in any happy way. The unexpected support that I received from the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, would no doubt be echoed by many other noble Lords had they been in the Chamber at this time.
There are many people with views quite contrary to those expressed by the noble Earl as regards the blanket culpability of absolutely everybody concerned with an aggravated offence. However, once again I should like to return to this matter after I have read even more carefully tomorrow morning what the noble Earl said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 7 not moved.
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("he proves that").
The noble Baroness said: I start from the premise that the traditional principle of the English criminal law is that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution to prove each ingredient of the offence. The defendant need prove nothing.
As presently drafted, the Bill diverges from that rule. As it stands at present the Bill provides that the prosecution need only prove, first, that the basic offence has occurred and, secondly, that one of the aggravating features set out in Clause 1(2) (a), (b), (c) and (d) has taken place. Thereafter the burden shifts to the accused to prove that he was not responsible for those aggravating circumstances, either because they happened before the vehicle was taken or because he was not on the scene when the driving, accident or damage occurred.
There is no special justification in this legislation for removing from the prosecution the burden of proving the link between the accused and the damage or the injury for the aggravated offence. I submit that before that basic principle of English criminal law is departed from, the Crown must have exceptional reasons for altering the law in that way as, for example, was necessary in relation to offensive weapons. There is no such reason here. I ask the noble Earl to consider that none could be justified.
The potential for a miscarriage of justice is always increased when the burden is on the defendant to prove his innocence rather than on the prosecution to prove guilt. That is particularly so when those likely to be prosecuted under this Bill will in most cases be youngsters. They will usually have been committing the offence with others. Defence witnesses who could speak to those matters which at present the defence must prove are likely to be other youngsters from the same area, with friendships and loyalties and fears about telling tales on others. Also, they may well be accomplices and they are likely to prevent the defendant, who should in justice be acquitted of the aggravated charge, from being able to discharge the burden of proof placed upon him. In other words, how will he show that the aggravating features occurred before he came on the scene or after he had left it, when he is likely to have witnesses of that kind available to him, if he has any witnesses at all?
Further, any law which makes a defendant guilty of the aggravated offence, even though he does no more than commit the basic offence and the events which make the crime aggravated are outside his control, offends against justice and common sense. This clause as presently drafted is causing anxiety not only to the legal profession but also to organisations such as Justice which are fearful of its consequences.
When the noble Earl dealt with this question of the burden of proof on Second Reading, he said that it did not reverse that burden. I hope that he has now had time to study carefully Clause 1(3) which states:
"A person is not guilty of an offence under this section if he proves that … ".
Those words make it absolutely clear that the defendant is required in terms to establish his innocence. If the noble Earl has had an opportunity to look at those words since he made his remarks on Second Reading, perhaps he will feel able to accept the amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: I should like to intervene on one very short point. I heard the noble Baroness make her submissions during the course of Second Reading and of course, as is so often the case, she is absolutely right. The burden is on the defendant. However, we should not become too horrified about that situation. It is constantly referred to as being a breach of the fundamental provisions of the English law but many statutes make specific provision for it.
Because we are somewhat busy at the moment, I asked an industrious pupil in my son-in-law's chambers to be kind enough to give me a few examples. Like most pupils at the Bar, certainly in their pupillage stage, he was immensely industrious. He produced a ring binder the contents of which referred to 14 Acts. The first dates back more than 100 years; it is the Explosive Substances 1883 dealing with the possession of explosives and the onus of proving that they were not in the person's possession for any nefarious purpose. Other Acts were the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916; the Criminal Justice Act 1925, dealing with the coercion of married women by
698
husbands; the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, dealing with offensive weapons to which reference has already been made; the Sexual Offences Act 1956, relating to living on immoral earnings; the Homicide Act 1957, dealing with the defence of diminished responsibility; the Theft Act 1968, relating to going equipped for stealing; and so on and so forth.
The normal justification is where it is immensely difficult for the prosecution to establish the ingredient, where it is particularly within the knowledge of the accused as to whether the particular defence exists. I should have thought that this is just that class of litigation because it will be immensely difficult to establish exactly who among a number of young men was doing what and why. I thought that Members of the Committee would permit my intervention because a fundamental point of criminal law is raised.
Lord Airedale: I venture to give an illustration in support of the amendment most ably moved by the noble Baroness. Let us suppose that one dark night a hooligan commits the aggravated offence and in the course of it he knocks down and injures a person. In the dark the person cannot recognise the features of the hooligan. However, he can see the number plate of the vehicle and he manages to note the registration number.
The hooligan decides to make it a hit and run job. He drives on a safe distance and then abandons the vehicle, runs away from it and is never apprehended. The vehicle remains there for some time.
Then along comes Mr. Smith who is a basic offender. I urge the noble Earl to accept that it is possible to be a basic offender. Mr. Smith has missed his last bus home and all that he wants to do is to get home. He discovers the vehicle standing by the roadside. He gets into it and drives carefully towards his home. In the meantime, the police have discovered that the vehicle with that registration number is very much sought after. They spot Mr. Smith driving the vehicle towards his home. They stop it and take Mr. Smith's particulars.
Under the Bill, the burden is upon Mr. Smith to show that he was not the driver of the vehicle which knocked down and injured the pedestrian a short time previously. There is no evidence that anyone else except Mr. Smith was driving the car at that time. The burden of proof is upon Mr. Smith. It is well known that to prove a negative—to prove that one has not done something—is very difficult indeed.
In the history of the English criminal law the time since 1935 is not long. It was in 1935 that Lord Chancellor Sankey pronounced those well-known words that throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is ever to be seen: that the burden of proof is upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the offender. If it can be said that in the intervening years we have become so clever that we have managed to avoid miscarriages of justice, there may be a case for saying that in cases such as this it is sometimes safe to place the burden of proof upon the accused. But we cannot say that. We have recently seen appalling miscarriages of justice. The whole basis of criminal justice in this country is coming under

699
scrutiny. How can it be said that in the illustration I ventured to give, it is right that the burden of proof should be upon the defendant to show his innocence?
Earl Ferrers: The morals of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, never cease to make my eyes open wider. He says that a person wanders along in the middle of the night and wants to go home—Mr. Smith—and he finds a car sitting there. He therefore drives the car and takes it home. Along comes Mr. Plod and says, "That car has just run over an old lady and it is your responsibility".
The noble Lord is quite right. The Bill will catch that person because it will catch any person who has taken the car from the original owner. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, says that that is unfair. There is plenty of provision in the Bill to allow the person to show that he was not the driver at the time the car ran over the old lady. For the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, to attempt to use as a defence that a poor old fellow walking along in the middle of the night finds a car sitting in a side road and it is all right for him to pick it up and drive it away, leaves me astounded.
When I saw that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, had attached her name to the amendment, I thought that we would have a little trouble with the law. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, stood up and said, "The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, is quite right", my heart sank even further. Fortunately, like all lawyers do, they managed to end up supporting the side one does not necessarily expect them to support. For that I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
The Bill creates an aggravated form of the existing offence of unlawful vehicle taking, which is taking without consent. The aggravating factor is not the conduct of a specific defendant. That is the whole purpose of the Bill. The actual consequences of the vehicle-taking episode as a whole must be judged entirely as a matter of fact with all those involved in the vehicle equally liable for the consequences of that event, whether they can be proved on an individual basis to have intended or caused those consequences.
In other words, if a vehicle is taken and damage occurs, all those people involved in the taking of the vehicle, or indeed in the passing on of the vehicle to another group of people, are responsible for the damage. To guard against the possibility of an injustice we have provided defences for those who can show either that the aggravating event occurred before they committed the basic offence or at a time when they were not in or in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle concerned. That should satisfy the noble lord, Lord Airedale.
The burden of proof is distributed in this way. The prosecution must prove that the individual defendant committed the basic taking without consent offence and also that an aggravating event occurred. The prosecution must prove both of these elements beyond reasonable doubt in the usual way. Even where those have been proved the defendant will escape liability where he can establish, on the balance of probabilities only, either of the defences which are covered in subsection (3). That does not place an unreasonable
700
burden on the defendant. The matters included in the defence seem to lie peculiarly within his knowledge. I do not believe that it is an injustice for him that these matters shall be for him to establish if he wishes to rely on them.
We should not forget that the defendant was not a passing member of the public who was dragged into court and pressed to prove his innocence; of course he was not. He was someone who had committed the basic Theft Act offence. He can only be convicted of the aggravated form of the offence if he is guilty, and can be proved guilty, of the original criminal undertaking. As I said at Second Reading, if people wish to be sure that they will not be convicted of aggravated vehicle taking then they should make sure that they do not commit the basic offence. The practical effect of the amendment which the noble Baroness has moved would be that people who have been proved guilty of criminal taking would then be acquitted of the aggravated offence even though the aggravating circumstances had also been proved. I believe that that would undermine the whole purpose of the Bill.
Baroness Mallalieu: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for his support. With some temerity I suggest that the arguments which have been advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, do not apply to the circumstances of this Bill. Essentially, the pieces of legislation which he listed are ones in which the circumstances effectively call for some explanation from the defendant. Perhaps I may take just two of his examples: as regards the offensive weapons legislation, where someone is found in possession of a weapon, it is for the defendant in seeking to avoid conviction to show that he falls within one or other of the exceptions. As concerns the immoral earnings legislation, someone living with a prostitute and having money then has the burden put on him to show that he came by it legitimately. But that is a wholly different type of situation to the one with which this Bill seeks to deal.
Here, what is suggested is that, in a case where it is not known who is responsible and the offence cannot be proved against any one of a number of possible suspects, they are all guilty unless they can prove otherwise. The noble Earl said that these are not innocent people but people who have taken a car in the first place. He is right to this extent: they have taken a car and they will be convicted in relation to the offence that they have actually committed, which is the basic offence. But it cannot be right then to go on to say that we can extend guilt to all those with them, whether or not we can prove it, simply because of their presence at the time. In that way we may end up catching the guilty, but we shall also end up catching the innocent as well.
I appreciate that the noble Earl has given no encouragement that he intends to give any further thought to this matter. Perhaps I may ask him to re-read the subsection before the next stage. At this stage I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale: moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 8, leave out ("in the immediate vicinity of") and insert ("very near").
The noble Lord said: I regard words like,
"in the immediate vicinity of",
as the language of the estate agent. For example, "This desirable property lies in the immediate vicinity of the Lake of Geneva". I feel sure that the late Lord Gardiner, who strove very hard to get the statutes into simple, straightforward English, would have opted for the expression "very near" in preference to,
"in the immediate vicinity of".
If the noble Earl can find a difference between these two expressions I may be tempted to withdraw the amendment, but as it is, I suggest that two words would be better than five. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: As usual, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, are superficially very attractive. The noble Lord's amendment has the great advantage of brevity. If brevity were the only matter which concerned us I might go along with him, but I do not believe that that is the main issue. It seems to me that "very near" is a fairly vague and somewhat comparative expression. One could say that the Kent coast is very near to France. But one would not say that we were in its immediate vicinity. We can perhaps take an even closer example. For instance, today a bomb was placed in Whitehall. When the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, writes his memoirs he may say, "I was in the House of Lords, and I was very near to the bomb". But I do not think that he could say that he was in the vicinity of the bomb. Therefore, the words in the Bill are a good deal clearer and more succinct, even though the terminology may be two words longer than the words proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
Lord Airedale: I do not think that the late Lord Gardiner would have agreed with the noble Earl. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
[Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.]
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert:
("(c) he was not driving the vehicle and he had taken reasonable steps to make sure that driving, accident or damage would not occur.").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment I take on board what the noble Earl has been saying in answer to virtually all the amendments that have been put before the Committee so far.
As I understand the noble Earl, the intention of the Bill is to make offenders liable for the consequences of their acts. But I am sure that it is not the intention of the noble Earl that those who are not responsible should also be held responsible in law. The purpose of this amendment is simply to provide a further defence to those who are not responsible for the aggravating features and who are at the moment caught by the proposed legislation.
The Bill is surely intended to make those who take cars responsible for the consequences of their actions but not, surely, responsible for the actions of others. It
702
does not require any great imagination to envisage a situation where an accused person, for example, takes and drives a car away, then takes it back-as often happens-parks it, gets out and then it is run into by another vehicle. He is caught under the Bill as it is at present drafted. So is the passenger who has persuaded the driver to return the car and on the return journey a crash occurs through the fault of another vehicle. As the Bill stands the passenger would also be liable, even though all he has done is to urge the driver to take the car back to where it came from. So also is the passive passenger liable. That may be thought to be a special danger with an offence which is likely in the main to involve defendants who are members of groups of young people.
Further, as the Bill is presently drafted, there is no incentive whatever to a passenger to try to persuade the driver either to return the car, or to drive it with care. This amendment is intended to ensure that only those who are at fault will bear responsibility. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: Again, this is what one might describe as "variations on a theme by Haydn". The noble Baroness seeks to show by these amendments that the person driving the vehicle is the person who is concerned and that those who are passengers, and who may have tried to prevent the driver from driving quickly, ought not to be guilty.
The whole ethos underlying the Bill is that, if a vehicle is taken, whether by one person or by a group of people, the whole group is responsible for what happens to that vehicle. When the owner regains the vehicle-if he or she does regain it-and it is in a damaged condition, those who have participated in the illegal taking are also responsible for the damage which has been done. With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, I do not think that it is enough to hear that the people in the back said, "For goodness sake, slow down!" My answer to the noble Baroness is, what were they doing in the back in the first place? If in the first place they had been party to removing that vehicle, then they are party to the offence which that vehicle creates as a result of its illegal taking.
I cannot advise the Committee to accept an amendment which waters down the whole provision so that the prosecution would have to show that person A was the person driving and persons B, C and D who were also in the car could not be convicted because they were not behind the wheel at the time. The whole philosophy of the Bill, which has been introduced because of the devastating effects of "joy-riding", is that those who individually or collectively remove vehicles should be both individually and collectively responsible for what happens to them.
Lord Harvington: What would happen if, having taken the car and driven away in it, the hooligan saw a group of people on the road thumbing a lift and, out of the kindness of his heart, stopped and gave those people a lift but subsequently got into trouble with the car? Would those people in the car be included in the group to whom the noble Earl referred? That seems rather unfair.
Earl Ferrers: First, the group would be very lucky if it managed to get a lift from the car because such cars are normally being driven at 70 m.p.h. Secondly, the group would be unfortunate if it got a lift in the car because the car would continue at 70 m.p.h. Thirdly, if the group did get a lift, it would be convicted because it would be in a car which was the subject of a taking without consent offence. It would be up to the members of the group to say, in the circumstances which my noble friend expostulates, "As a matter of fact, we were not there at the beginning. We were collected some way down the road and we were not there when the original basic offence took place."
Baroness Mallalieu: I wonder whether the noble Earl will consider again the answer he has just given. My understanding is that, unless the passengers who were picked up were parties to the basic offence, they could not be convicted under the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: That is what I tried to explain. They would have the opportunity of saying that they were not party to the basic offence but were picked up later.
Baroness Mallalieu: It would go further than that. It would be up to the prosecution to prove who committed the basic offence—that is the first step in the Bill—and presumably therefore the prosecution would not be able to get off the ground in relation to those people.
I am profoundly depressed by the noble Earl's exposition of the philosophy behind the Bill. It seems to be a completely blunt instrument. As I understand him, the intention of the Bill is to make people responsible not simply for the consequences of their acts, which they must readily have appreciated, but for unintended consequences and also for consequences which occur that were not their fault. I am somewhat discouraged by the noble Earl's response to the earlier amendments and it may be necessary to return to this matter. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Obligatory disqualification]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 21, leave out first ("obligatory") and insert:
("(a) obligatory where the vehicle was driven or the damage was caused by the offender or by another person incited by the offender;
(b) discretionary in any other case.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 12 and 14 as all the amendments relate to obligatory disqualification.
The amendments seek to make this harsh Bill a little less draconian. They seek to link the punishment with the crime. As the Bill presently stands, any passenger who cannot prove that he did not incite the accused will receive a mandatory disqualification of at least 12 months. The same disqualification applies to all those convicted of the offence even where the consequences which aggravated the offence were neither intended nor foreseen by the accused personally.
It has been forcefully argued by many that the magistrates' courts and other courts are much better able to make the relevant decision since circumstances will vary infinitely in offences of this kind. The magistrates' courts particularly should have the discretion to decide whether a ban should be enforced. In many cases disqualification will be the right and proper course of action. Magistrates have never been known to flinch from such action. But the courts should have the ability to exercise that discretion. We ask no more than that.
The second point I wish to make is that mandatory disqualification will, as things stand, damage the work of motor projects which, it has been proved, are almost miraculous in deterring young offenders from re-offending. Project workers all over the country say that one of the most powerful incentives that they can offer young people is the prospect that they will eventually be able to drive legally and safely. As the Bill stands, that incentive could be eliminated in many cases because of disqualification.
David Walton, of the Association of Chief Officers of Probation, is quoted this very day in a press release as saying:
"We need to work on those who break into cars, steal cars and recklessly hazard lives and limbs, not least their own. The growing numbers of probation-linked motor projects across the country do just this. Evidence from a survey of 25 projects carried out in 1988 suggested that, of 4,500 young people who had participated, only 100 had committed car-related offences during their period of attendance".
Such projects are extremely important and valuable and, as David Walton said, they can,
"divert young people from motor crime. They challenge the offending behaviour, educate young people about safe and legal motoring, and absorb their energies"ߞ
that, I believe, is most important—
"by providing supervised experience of driving and working on vehicles".
David Walton also said:
"We need closer evaluation of these projects and of what works best. But there is enough information around us for us to know that car-related work with young people diverts their enthusiasm into constructive channels and reduces car crime. A one per cent reduction in the number of car offences represents 10,000 fewer cases for the authorities and 10,000 fewer costs in money, property, pain, and shame".
I believe that the amendments proposed would go a little way towards encouraging those who are concerned with the spread of motor projects throughout the country. I believe we all agree that the law should be clear, coherent and efficient to enforce. These amendments, like all the others that we have tabled, have that sole aim and object. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I always long to be able to go along with the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, in his views; indeed, I struggle like mad to do so. However, it is sometimes quite difficult. The Bill before the Committee was brought in for one specific purpose; namely, to deal with the effects of people who take, as opposed to steal, cars—I use the word "take" in deference to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale —and then drive them thus causing mayhem, damage, death, destruction and injury. That is the philosophy behind the Bill.
The proposed amendments would simply water the whole thing down. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of

705
Castle Morris, says that we should accept an amendment the aim of which is to provide for greater flexibility in the range of sentences. There is nothing new about mandatory disqualification. We already have it for offences such as dangerous driving and causing death by dangerous driving in the Road Traffic Act 1991. We believe that we should also have it for this new offence. The penalties in respect of imprisonment, fines, endorsement and penalty points for the aggravated offence are in line with those in the Road Traffic Act 1991 for dangerous driving and causing death by dangerous driving. I do not see why they should differ in respect of disqualification. The aggravated offence is considerably more serious than the basic offence of taking a vehicle without consent. That already carries discretionary disqualification.
The Government's view is that it is right that every offender who is guilty of the more serious offence should not be deemed to be fit to get behind the wheel of a vehicle for at least 12 months. Passengers and drivers will be equally liable as they are for the basic Section 12(1) offence. As the Committee is aware, the Bill is not concerned with who was responsible, directly and personally, for any particular aggravating event, but rather with punishing all those who become involved with the illegal taking of a vehicle when that event has serious consequences.
For those reasons it makes no sense to differentiate between offenders for the purpose of disqualification. The offence is a serious offence, and all those involved in it should be equally liable for the penalties incurred by their criminal behaviour. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, will understand the reasoning behind the provision and will be able to agree with it.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: To ask me to agree with the reasoning is perhaps to go a little far, but I am grateful to the Minister for struggling with himself. I fully accept that he has done his best to accommodate us although, I regret, without success. We were merely asking for discretion for the courts. We should like more trust to be placed in the courts in their administration of a Bill such as this.
I believe that we have all heard that many magistrates dislike mandatory disqualification. In many cases they have no option but to impose that sentence, even though they may be of the opinion that, in the light of the circumstances before them, they could do better than that. They are not given the choice. We hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter between now and the next stage. We may yet assist him at a later stage in his most commendable struggle. In the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): I have to advise the Committee that the
706
Marshalled List has been mismarshalled and therefore I have to call Amendment No. 14 before Amendment No. 13.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 34, at end insert:
("( ) In section 22 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, which requires a court to notify the Secretary of State for Transport that an accused may be suffering from a disability, there shall be added the following subsection—
"(3) where a person is convicted of an offence under section 12A (aggravated vehicle-taking) of the Theft Act 1968 a relevant or prospective disability (within the meaning of section 92 of the Road Traffic Act 1988) shall be deemed to include a propensity to misuse or abuse alcohol or controlled drugs.".")
The noble and learned Lord said: Having so recently, to the surprise of the Minister, established my total objectivity, I hope that he will return the compliment to me. Although I accept that there are fields in which they can be criticised, I have sought in the amendment not to criticise what the Government have done because I know that they are anxious to give the greatest possible protection to the public against these dangerous offences. I have therefore put forward a point which the Government have not considered before because they wrongly construed the legislation and overlooked the existence of a decision of the Divisional Court.
I claim no proud parentage of the point. As I disclosed on Second Reading, it is His Honour Frank Blennerhassett, a retired circuit judge, who has been for many years a chairman of a Home Office committee on drink driving and who is particularly experienced in this matter, who drew my attention to it. As I pointed out, the matter arises simply in this way: in in this type of offence, which is committed mainly by juveniles (those between 13 and 16), drink and drugs play a major part. I do not mean by that that the youngsters are alcoholics or drug addicts. They misuse, or abuse—the word so constantly used —alcohol or drugs.
On occasions they go out on what used to be known as—I am not sure what the "with it" word is—a blind. They drink too much and in that state they drive recklessly and dangerously and end up doing damage, either personal injury or damage to property or both. Their licences are taken away from them or they are disqualified in futuro.
As the noble Earl appreciates, because I discussed this with him in some detail when he was kind enough to see me before the Second Reading, I seek to suggest that we add a further safeguard to the public. These young men should not get their licences back immediately the period of disqualification runs out. They should be subject to a medical inquiry to see whether they are fit to go back to driving. That cannot be done at the moment for the simple reason, as I pointed out, that the court can only refer to the Ministry of Transport persons with a disability as defined in the appropriate legislation. That is Section 92 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which is headed "Physical Fitness" and the side note reads:
"Requirements as to physical fitness of drivers".
Subsection (2) states:

707
"'Disability' includes disease, 'relevant disability' … means (a) any prescribed disability",
that is prescribed by regulations and made by the Minister,
"(b) any other disability likely to cause the driving of a vehicle by him in pursuance of a licence to be a source of danger to the public".
For many years, despite Judge Blennerhassett's enthusiastic efforts to persuade the Home Secretary, the Minister of Transport, the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General, there has been a fallacious assumption that a disability consists of misusing alcohol or drugs. That is not a disability; that is an activity.
On Second Reading, I quoted from a letter dated 31st July 1991 from the Minister for Roads and Traffic which read:
"It remains the Department's view, and one which is supported by the Medical Advisory Panel on Driving Alcohol and Drugs, that alcohol misuse represents a relevant or prospective disability".
I pointed out on Second Reading that there was a case decided in the Divisional Court by Lord Justice Waller and Mr Justice Kilner Brown. It was called the R v. the Chichester Justices, ex parte Crouch, decided in February 1981. The very point was raised through an optimistic but rather unfortunate plea in mitigation made by a solicitor who told the Bench that his client, who had pleaded guilty to drink-driving offences, had a drink problem. As a result, his case was referred to the Ministry and I provided the noble Earl with a transcript of the judgment prior to the Second Reading. The Divisional Court said that it was not a disability.
The noble Earl told me that I could not seek by this Bill to amend Section 92 of the Road Traffic Act. I accept that. I suggested that the Gordian knot could be cut by the Minister exercising his powers of designation. That has, so far, not fallen on fertile ground. I have therefore tabled this limited amendment, which is directed solely and wholly to cases where an offence has occurred under this Bill when it becomes an Act. The amendment provides that:
"where a person is convicted of an offence under section 12A … of the Theft Act 1968 a relevant or prospective disability (within the meaning of section 92 of the Road Traffic Act 1988) shall be deemed to include a propensity to misuse or abuse alcohol or controlled drugs".
As I said at the outset, this is not a criticism of the Bill. It does not seek to reduce in any way the strength of the Bill; in fact, it seeks to add a tooth to the Bill and to provide further protection for the public. I hope the noble Earl in his sense of objectivity will welcome the suggestion and accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu: We on these Benches support this amendment. It is clear that the courts cannot at present use Section 22 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act to refer to the Secretary of State for Transport those suffering from,
"a propensity to misuse or abuse alcohol or controlled drugs".
It is clearly desirable that such people should be referred to the medical advisers' branch of the department so it can be determined whether they are fit to hold a licence after the period of the disqualification. If Section 92 of the Road Traffic Act does not allow such people to fall within the definition
708
of disability, ideally—as His Honour Judge Blennerhassett has tried to persuade the department to do—it ought to be amended. But, if the department will not amend it at this stage it would seem, at least as regards this Act, those who are convicted under it could be properly referred and a further safeguard might easily be incorporated for members of the public who are at risk from people who drive when drunk or under the influence of drugs. I hope the noble Earl will accept that in this instance at least there is no attempt to water down his legislation.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: It falls to me to try to answer the noble and learned Lord. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has explained, this amendment concerns the driver licensing system under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988. In Sections 92 to 94 of that Act, the Secretary of State has various powers aimed at preventing driving by persons who are medically unfit to drive.
Briefly, licence applicants must state if they are suffering or have suffered from any from a list of prescribed disabilities, or from any other condition that could make their driving a source of danger to others. If it comes to the Secretary of State's notice that a licence holder is suffering from a disability, he may, after making the necessary inquiries, revoke the licence. I stress that this draconian action can only be taken on medical grounds after considering medical evidence.
One way in which a disability may come to the Secretary of State's notice is if a court refers the matter to him under Section 22 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act. This states, essentially, that if it appears to a court that an accused person may be suffering from a relevant or prospective disability, as defined in the Road Traffic Act 1988, the court must refer the matter to the Secretary of State. I must say that reading this section cold it appears to give us all we could wish for; but unfortunately the courts have not always taken this view, as the noble and learned Lord has so eloquently explained. The difficulty is partly due to the nature of alcohol misuse, and, I suppose, misuse of other drugs. What begins as a social problem—an activity, as the noble and learned Lord puts it—can well become a medical problem, that is a disability, often before the person is even aware of the fact.
Let me assure the Committee that the majority of medical experts in alcohol misuse have no hesitation in describing the condition as a disability, although it is very different in nature from certain other conditions that are more obviously disabling. In medical circles alcohol misuse implies the taking of alcohol to the extent that it causes harm to oneself or others, or is illegal.
Although alcohol or drug dependence have never been on the prescribed list of disabilities, it is worth reminding the Committee of the "High risk offenders" scheme, which is prescribed under the powers relating to disabilities. The scheme applies to those who have been disqualified by a court either for two drink-drive offences in a 10-year period or for a single offence where the alcohol level was at least two-and-a-half times the legal limit. For drivers in those categories,

709
the Secretary of State has powers to require a medical examination and to refuse them a licence if they still have an alcohol problem.
If I understood the noble and learned Lord correctly, I think that he too recognises that alcohol dependency and possibly misuse falls within the Road Traffic Act definition of a "disability".
Lord Ackner: Perhaps I may intervene. I understand no such thing. I thought that I made it very clear at Second Reading that while I accept that an addict—a person who is properly described as an alcoholic—may well suffer from a relevant disability, a person who from time to time drinks to excess does not. That was my purpose in drawing to the attention of the noble Earl the decided case, handing him a transcript of it, and setting out in my speech at Second Reading the excerpts which made that clear. Clearly, we are not at eye level.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall come to the case to which the noble and learned Lord refers.
However, it is well enough established that alcohol misuse is, or can be, a disability within the meaning of road traffic legislation.
The noble and learned Lord argued that the Crouch judgment is incompatible with that view. Let us examine that judgment once again. The only material the magistrates had to work on was the solicitor's plea in mitigation that the applicant had had a drink problem. The Divisional Court concluded that that statement:
"does not go far enough to suggest that the applicant is in fact an alcoholic, and … there was no sufficient material in this case on which the magistrates could properly refer the matter to the Secretary of State".
There was no evidence of a continuing drink problem, nor of any misuse of alcohol.
I shall quote another passage from the Divisional Court's conclusion:
"That does not suggest at that stage either that [the applicant] was suffering from a relevant disability or a prospective disability. It may be that it could be said that it was a prospective disability but that is not sufficient".
I make two comments on that passage. First, the Divisional Court seemed to recognise that a drink problem falling short of alcoholism could amount to a prospective disability. Secondly, Section 22 provides in terms that if it appears to the court that the accused may be suffering from a prospective disability, no less than an actual one, they have no option but to notify the Secretary of State.
In his speech at Second Reading of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord said that a person who misuses alcohol or drugs may be on the way to dependency. I fully agree, and that can only mean that such a person had a prospective disability within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Therefore, I suggest that the Crouch judgment, for all its inconvenience, does not cast doubt on the principle that alcohol misuse is at least a prospective disability, although it affects the level of medical evidence which a court requires in order to refer a case to the Secretary of State.
We must not overlook the other, perhaps wider, issues involved in the definition of disability. Those
710
are: the duty of individuals to report their own disabilities and to refrain from driving when that would endanger others; and most crucially, the power of the Secretary of State to revoke licences.
Much as I sympathise with the sentiments behind the noble and learned Lord's amendment, I fail to be convinced that it would solve the problem without causing others which were more severe. It applies only to persons convicted of one particular offence —aggravated vehicle-taking—and only to the Section 22 procedure. It provides that only in that very limited context alcohol or drug misuse is "deemed" to be a relevant disability. That would seem to imply that in any other context, whether or not affected by the Crouch judgment, alcohol or drug misuse would not itself be regarded as a relevant disability. A court would then not be under a duty to refer an alcohol-related condition in any other person, possibly not even if there were evidence of a dependency. There must surely be some doubt whether the Secretary of State would have powers under Section 94 of the Road Traffic Act to revoke a licence on evidence of alcohol misuse. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord had no intention of opening a can of worms such as that.
Although I am sure that nobody in the Committee condones the offence at which the Bill is aimed, I also think it is rather odd to single it out from all other offences that may be committed in a motor vehicle. Let me return to my earlier point that revocations by the Secretary of State are on medical grounds. If there is a medical case for revoking a licence it should not depend on what kind of offence has been committed. That is not the factor which affects the degree of danger to the public.
I cannot commend this amendment to the Committee, nor can I conceive of any other amendment within the scope of the Bill which would do any better. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has suggested an alternative way forward. He said that it would be open to the Secretary of State to prescribe alcohol or drug misuse as a "relevant disability". At this point I should remind the Committee that the definition is twofold. A relevant disability is either one from a prescribed list or any other condition likely to make driving a source of danger to the public.
This course of action would put beyond any doubt that alcohol or drug misuse were conditions which the courts must report to the Secretary of State. That is its obvious attraction, but there are a number of practical difficulties. For a start, there is a problem of definition. We should need a definition of alcohol and drug misuse that could be applied both by individuals and the courts with reasonable certainty, as we would not want to create a class of unwitting criminal offenders. The definition would need to target the real sources of danger to the public so that medical resources were not spread too thinly over too many marginal cases.
Much though I sympathise with this proposal I do not think we should underestimate the problems. I have not yet had an opportunity to take soundings among my ministerial colleagues. I am clearly not in a position to give the noble Lord any kind of

711
commitment this evening. But I do assure him and the Committee that I will take the view of my honourable friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic between now and the next stage and shall be ready to return to the matter then. I have dealt with the matter at some length. I hope that, with that assurance, I shall be able to persuade the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Lord Ackner: I am bound to say I am astonished that the Government, who have leaned over backwards to the extent of reversing the onus and spreading the doctrine of vicarious responsibility in the field of criminal law, are so stubborn in their resistance to admitting that it was wrong in the light of a judgment of the Divisional Court to refuse the public, which it is so anxious to protect, this one small measure. I have heard what the noble Earl has said with regard to seeing whether a designation power would be exercised. I have a settled, hopeless expectation that nothing will come of it, but at this hour there is little purpose in seeking to test the views of the Committee, which in other circumstances I would expect to be highly sympathetic to the amendment. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment essentially on the basis of reculer pour mieux Sauter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, line 35, leave out ("Aggravated Vehicle-Taking") and insert ("Motor Vehicle Taking with Aggravation").
The noble Lord said: On Second Reading the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, drew attention to the inelegant Short Title that the Bill now bears. I think it must be a rule of good parliamentary drafting that one does not start the Short Title with an adjective if one can avoid it. I can foresee people confronted with the list of the statutes racking their brains to try to think of an adjective that denotes seriousness as the key to finding the Act of Parliament which they are seeking.
The Short Title that I propose begins with "Motor Vehicle". Everybody knows that the Bill is about motor vehicles. There must be some merit in my proposal, if only in that it will enable more people to find more quickly the Act for which they are looking. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Students of human nature are well aware that nothing is more likely to destroy a happy marriage than the problem of naming the baby, especially when father and mother disagree. So it is with legislation. The title, as we have it on the Bill, although inelegant, uneuphonious and in so many ways unattractive, however, perhaps aptly stands at the head and tail of a Bill which describes a distinctly unattractive offence. We on these Benches remain entirely neutral on this crucial matter and will watch with great interest to see who falls off his Bench first.
Earl Ferrers: Fancy the noble Lord, Lord Morris, saying that he is entirely neutral and cannot make up his mind which side to take—whether to come down
712
on the side of the noble Lord's amendment or of what is in the Bill! The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said that it was an inelegant Short Title and that one should not start with an adjective. I can understand that argument. I am bound to say that I thought that "Aggravated Vehicle-Taking" was a somewhat ungainly title for the Bill. I also hesitated because "vehicle-taking" is a somewhat unattractive new coinage. I feel that noble Lords will agree that we have sufficient unattractive new coinages nowadays.
While it may not be saying much, it might be said for the title of the Bill that it is marginally less ungainly and less unattractive than the title suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. He suggests "Motor Vehicle Taking with Aggravation". At least we have the decency to provide a hyphen between the "Vehicle" and the "Taking".
However, as the noble Lord said, apart from his desire to modify the style of the Bill, he has the very laudable concern for the convenience of practitioners and others who may need to consult the legal textbooks. He feared that they may not think to look in the right place in the index if the first word in the name of the offence is an adjective rather than a noun. There are other offences and Acts of Parliament the names or titles of which begin with adjectives-for example, the Obscene Publications Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Dangerous Dogs Act and the Malicious Communications Act.
This Bill is concerned mainly with amendment to part of the Theft Act. We are debating a criminal taking offence in its aggravated form, which will follow the existing offence in all the new textbooks. I am sure that the editors of those textbooks will provide cross-references in their indices, which is what they do now with the basic taking without consent offence. It can be found in the index to Archbold, which I understand is the bible of criminal practice. It can be found under "Motor vehicle" but with the main reference under "T" for taking, with cross-references under "Vehicle" and "Theft". I am sure that, with all the ingenuity of those who compile these dossiers, the Bill, with its existing title, will not be found difficult to find.
Lord Airedale: In the matter of the hyphen I shall be quite happy to catch up with the Government when we come to Report by putting a hyphen between "Motor" and "Vehicle". We shall come back to this point on Report. It is quite clear that we shall have a Report stage. However, it is getting late.
Earl Ferrers: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I agree that it is getting late, but the hyphen ought not to be between "Motor" and "Vehicle" but between "Vehicle" and "Taking".
Lord Airedale: I shall consider between now and Report the place in the Short Title where the hyphen ought to occur. With those few words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, there has been no agreement that the Report be received. Is the noble Earl negativing the Report stage? There has been no agreement about that. In fact, on the suggestion that it might be, the answer was no.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not privy to the arrangements which were made. However, as no amendments have been made in Committee, the normal convention is that there is no Report stage. If amendments are to be made, they can be made on Third Reading. However, I am entirely in the hands of the House. If the noble Lord, Lord Graham, wishes to have a Report stage, so be it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I appreciate the fairness of the noble Earl. When the suggestion of dispensing with the Report stage was put to me earlier, I indicated to the usual channels that we preferred to have the Report stage in order to provide another opportunity for debate if we so wished. I can understand the misunderstanding.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the last thing that I wished to do was to try to bounce the noble Lord, Lord Graham. If I did try to do so, I should not succeed. I was unaware of the conversation which the noble Lord had and therefore I am content not to move that the Report be now received.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past eleven o'clock.

  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 3rd FEBRUARY
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 3rd FEBRUARY
  THE FALKLAND ISLANDERS: INCOME AND TAX
  THE FALKLAND ISLANDERS: INCOME AND TAX
  TAXICARD SYSTEM
  TAXICARD SYSTEM
  IRAQ'S NUCLEAR PROGRAMME: UK SUPPLIERS
  IRAQ'S NUCLEAR PROGRAMME: UK SUPPLIERS