Sitting of 24 February 1992

PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENERGY

    Electricity Disconnections
    Mr. Ground: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairmen of the regional electricity companies to discuss levels of disconnection for debt.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I am delighted that the number of disconnections for debt has continued to fall. In 1991, the figure for England and Wales was less than a third of what it was 10 years ago.
    Mr. Ground: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is it right to see in the big reduction in disconnections signs of a different attitude on the part of the electricity companies to their customers and signs of better management since the companies were privatised, and is there scope for further improvement in this respect?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, the sharpest reduction in disconnections for debt has occurred since the companies were put into the private sector. I believe that they are now closer to their customers and more able to cater for the needs of their customers, including those who fall behind with their payments. I look forward to further reductions in unnecessary disconnections and I know that that is also the desire of the independent electricity regulator.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: The reason why there are fewer disconnections is that the electricity companies have introduced card meters, so that people cut themselves off rather than having to be cut off by the electricity companies. Moreover, there is an absence of facilities for obtaining cards for the meters, so that many people who have to use them have to spend a considerable amount of money on travelling to get hold of cards. As the meters are now in operation, will the Minister take action to ensure that dispenser facilities are more widely available?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The installation of pre-payment meters is one reason why the number of disconnections has fallen, but more important is the fact that the regional electricity companies, under the terms of their licence, have to approve a code of conduct with the Office of Electricity Regulation and must offer customers who are in genuine difficulties a payment plan so that debt can be paid off over a period. If customers agree a payment plan, they will not he disconnected. That is a very much better arrangement than that which pertained more than 10 years ago, when a
    666
    state-controlled monopoly was only too ready to disconnect customers without agreeing such arrangements.
    Mr. Dobson: What are the prospects of disconnection for industrial customers in the coming year if they cannot afford to pay the exorbitant increases that the electricity companies are seeking from them? For instance, Fields Packaging of Bradford has been asked to pay 30 per cent. more, and Ibstock Brick in Leicestershire has been asked to pay between 20 and 30 per cent. more. How can the Minister or the companies justify increases of five to seven times the rate of inflation?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We are anxious that all industrial customers should have access to competitively priced electricity and I am pleased to say that an independent survey showed that in the first year after privatisation three quarters of those customers experienced at least a 10 per cent. reduction in their bills. Any subsequent increases should be seen in that context. Moreover, it should be an embarrassment to the hon. Gentlemen to be reminded that under the last Labour Government prices for domestic customers rose by 22 per cent. in real terms. That was a scandalous neglect of the interests of those customers and it will not be repeated under this Government.

    Coal Prices
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the discussions taking place in the European Community about setting an EC-wide reference price for the cost of coal.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): No, Sir, because there are no such discussions. The Commission has made it clear that it has no proposals for guide prices on coal contracts or for Community subsidies for coal production. Its ideas on "reference prices" are aimed at reducing the amounts of aid for coal production that member states may give to their industries.
    Mr. Williams: Will the Minister confirm that, at about £42 a tonne, the average price of British coal is well below that of west German coal?
    Dr. Kim Howells: Which costs two or three times as much.
    Mr. Williams: That is right—two or three times as much. As Europe moves to become a single market, does it make any sense that Britain should be closing coal mines which are producing coal far cheaper than those in west Germany? Why are the Government so intent on destroying the industry through imports, through the dash for gas, and through their privatisation proposals? Would it not make more sense to have a moratorium on pit closures in the interests of jobs, the balance of payments and European energy conservation?
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that British coal is the cheapest in western Europe, but it is certainly not cheaper than coal from the United States or Australia and it is still uncompetitive in world terms. However, the next coal contracts will be at competitive rates and I believe that they will be satisfactory for British Coal.
    Sir John Hannam: Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a proposal about coal imports would be in direct conflict with the objectives of GATT and of free trade and would also result in the removal of the need for competitiveness in British Coal, which would work to the disadvantage of the consumer?
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not believe that those questions have been properly thought through. There are questions about our international obligations to GATT and to the Community. There are also implications for the steel industry and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, there are implications for electricity consumers. It is not in the long-term interests of the British coal industry not to become efficient and competitive.
    Mr. Redmond: If the Secretary of State wishes to be believed at the Dispatch Box, he must honour what he says at the Dispatch Box. During the last Energy Question Time, more than a fortnight ago, he promised to write to me but he has failed to do so. If he makes statements from the Dispatch Box, he should be a man of honour and honour his promises.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have to say that I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the interests of my coal mining constituents would best be served by long-term contracts with the generators, which the British coal industry is well placed to secure and which the generators should welcome, and not by market rigging by Labour politicians posing as experts?
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend. British Coal is in a position to sign long-term contracts with the generators, which will be very much in the interests of British Coal and the electricity consumers.
    Mr. Barron: If the Secretary of State regards protecting the British coal industry and, therefore, the nation from the fluctuation in world prices as rigging the market, will he explain why he has done exactly that by rigging the market for nuclear electricity in this country?
    Mr. Wakeham: The arguments for nuclear electricity were different—[interruption.] Oh, yes. We argued, rightly, that we believed in a diversity of supply and we wanted to ensure that that diversity of supply was available. We believe that British Coal can achieve a significant share of the coal market for generation in the new contracts which begin in 1993, and we believe that it will be able to achieve that at competitive prices.

    Unleaded Petrol
    Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the current level of unleaded petrol sales in the United Kingdom; and what comparable figures he has for EC member states.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Colin Moynihan): Unleaded petrol sales in the United Kingdom currently account for nearly 44 per cent. of all petrol sales. The United Kingdom Petroleum Industry Association estimates that in 1990 the market share of unleaded petrol in other European Community countries was as follows: unified Germany 71 per cent., Denmark 58 per cent., Netherlands 49 per cent., Luxembourg 32 per
    668
    cent., Belgium 27 per cent., Eire 20 per cent., France 14 per cent., Italy 5 per cent., Greece 3 per cent., Spain 1 per cent., Portugal 1 per cent. The comparable United Kingdom figure for this period was 34 per cent.
    Mr. Hague: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures reflect a sharp improvement in this country over the past few years and scope for some of our Community partners to do more to encourage unleaded petrol sales? Does my hon. Friend expect that unleaded petrol sales in Scotland would improve if the petroleum engineering directorate were relocated to Aberdeen?
    Mr. Moynihan: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to announce today that he is appointing Ernst and Young management consultants to undertake an independent study of the case for and against relocating the Department of Energy's petroleum engineering directorate to Aberdeen. Whatever the findings on relocation, there may well be an impact on the level of unleaded petrol sales in Scotland and thus in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Simon HughesAs the Minister's first answer made it clear that a price differential has been a major cause of the substantial increase in sales of unleaded petrol, and as the Secretary of State is on record as saying that the market has a role to play in cutting the use of petrol across the market in the United Kingdom, by what figures does the Department currently estimate that petrol prices will increase over the next few years?
    Mr. Moynihan: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are not in a position to predict what oil prices or, through oil prices, petrol prices will be over the next few years. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, there is no doubt that the duty differential in favour of unleaded petrol has been an important catalyst for the increased take-up of unleaded petrol, but the need for further changes to the duty differential is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
    Mr. Mans: Although those figures are very encouraging, does my hon. Friend agree that an awful lot of older vehicles could be converted to run on unleaded petrol but that people are ignorant of that fact? Will my hon. Friend therefore consult his colleagues at the Department of Transport to see whether it is possible for notices to be sent with car tax reminders, indicating whether certain vehicles could be easily converted to run on unleaded petrol?
    Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend makes a very imaginative proposal. I will certainly pass it on to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. My hon. Friend will know that more than 200,000 free information booklets have already been distributed, which answer questions about unleaded fuel and provide contact numbers for the main car manufacturers. Seven out of 10 cars on the road are capable of using unleaded petrol, but we need to press on and go further.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Having admitted that the lower duty on unleaded petrol has helped to promote its use, has the Minister had any discussions with the Treasury about introducing such a lower level of duty for the cleaner diesel fuels which are now available, especially as BP is one of the pioneers in that respect?
    Mr. Moynihan: The answer is no—not least because diesel prices are determined by the market. I accept that, at present, they are high—only slightly below unleaded petrol prices—but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that is because the demand for gas oil, which is equivalent to diesel, is high at this time of year as it is used for heating and high demand tends to push up prices. However, I expect the differential between unleaded and diesel to revert to the norm in the summer months.

    Coal Imports
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportions of coal consumed in Britain was from (a) imports and (b) domestic production in 1979 and 1991; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wakeham: In 1979, imports accounted for 4 per cent. and domestic production for 96 per cent. of United Kingdom coal consumption. The corresponding figures for 1991 were 17 per cent. for imports and 83 per cent. for domestic production.
    Mr. Hain: Since 1979, when the Government came to power, coal imports have increased from 4 million tonnes to 19 millions tonnes, an increase of 346 per cent., which has had the effect of wiping out the coal fields of south Wales, damaging our balance of payments, costing the taxpayer £8,500 for every one of the tens of thousands of unemployed miners, and making us dreadfully dependent on foreign supplies. Does the Secretary of State appreciate that that is economic lunacy of the highest order, or is he just plain thick?
    Mr. Wakeham: No. The answer is that expensive electricity is very bad for British industry. The reason why coal imports have been increasing has been the failure of British Coal to be competitive enough. That is not through lack of support by this Government, who have put £17 billion into the coal industry since 1979. I am pleased to say that there are now signs—after the improvement in recent years and with further improvements—that British Coal will be able to secure good contracts for the future.
    Mr. Rost: How is British Coal expected to compete in the privatised electricity market when the duopoly is able to close down coal-fired power stations even though they can produce cheaper electricty than the new gas turbine power stations, because the duopoly is able to pass the extra costs to consumers? Should not the regulator ensure that the extra costs for higher cost plant are not passed to consumers? Should not coal-fired power stations, which could be competitive and which the duopoly rejects, be offered for sale so that continuing competition can develop?
    Mr. Wakeham: Some of those questions are for the regulator. I remind my hon. Friend that the regional electricity companies have an obligation to undertake economic purchasing. If, as my hon. Friend suggests, there is cheaper electricity to be obtained from coal-fired power stations than from gas-fired power stations, I would expect them to use the electricity from coal-fired stations, in accordance with their licence obligations.
    Mr. Eadie: Does the Secretary of State realise that his comments have failed to persuade the House that the policy that he and the Government are operating is right?
    670
    It is a gross slander on the miners to talk about the cost of coal and about productivity when miners in Britain are achieving record productivity figures. How can the right hon. Gentleman stand at the Dispatch Box and seek to justify the untrammelled entry of coal imports into Britain, which is flinging thousands of miners out of work and at the same time digging a hole for the economic morass in our balance of payments?
    Mr. Wakeham: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis. The threat to coal jobs has been much more from gas than from imported coal. The only way to deal with that is to make coal a competitive source of fuel and the first choice for the generators. It is possible for British Coal to achieve those contracts and that is what I look forward to seeing.

    Independent Electricity Generation
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the number of new independent electricity generating units since privatisation.
    Mr. Wakeham: The Government welcome the strong growth of competition in generation. The first project to be developed since privatisation, at Roosecote, is already supplying electricity to the grid. Four other independent generating stations are under construction and the Government are aware of about 30 other potential independent projects.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend. I am delighted with the progress that we are making in finding new sources of electricity generation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should welcome the decision by the European Commission to remove its restriction on gas-fired generating stations? Does he agree that gas is better not only because it is transported through its own pipelines and therefore takes transport off the road, but because it is green-clean and thermally more efficient? In my constituency it has stimulated the introduction of three new generating plants, two of them based at oil terminals at Shell haven, where the oil industry welcomes the progress of moves towards gas and is not mounting a rearguard action against it, as the coal industry seems to be doing.
    Mr. Wakeham: I welcome the introduction of gas as a fuel for power generation, but it must remain competitive with coal: that will produce the best prices for electricity consumers.
    Mr. Lofthouse: The Secretary of State will undoubtedly be aware that Mr. Malcolm Edwards told the Select Committee on Energy last week that the cost of gas for generation of electricity would be about 2·7p per kilowatt hour compared with 2·2p for coal. That was similar to the evidence that the Secretary of State gave some weeks ago. To enable the House and the country to clear the matter up, will the Secretary of State tell us the correct figure? Will he consider bringing the regulator's review of purchasing policy forward from 1993?
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been in the House long enough to know that it is not appropriate for me to comment on evidence given to a Select Committee until that Committee has reported. However, I am prepared to confirm that in

    671
    my evidence to the Select Committee I made it clear that the regional electricity companies were obliged to purchase the most economic electricity on the market. If that be coal-fired generation, so much the better.
    Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware of widespread concern in the community that whatever fuel is chosen by the electricity producers, it should be the cleanest fuel of all. Environmental considerations must play a part. If coal is to be the choice, does my right hon. Friend agree that scrubbers are essential at coal-fired power stations and the type of coal put into them must be low in sulphur dioxide emissions?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Gas is environmentally helpful in achieving the Government's target of stabilising carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2005. The Opposition policy of seeking to stabilise emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000, while keeping the coal industry at its existing size, stopping the use of gas and phasing out nuclear electricity, is the mathematics of Bedlam—it just does not add up.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State name to the House any allegedly independent gas-fired generating projects which do not involve investment from regional electricity companies? For example, is it not true that the Roosecote project has received a substantial amount of capital from NORWEB but that the deal has been kept secret? No one knows how big the contribution was and the price paid for the electricity is being kept secret. Should it not be transparent?
    Mr. Wakeham: I believe that contracts between generators and regional electricity companies are commercially confidential, and there is no reason why they should not be—
    Mr. Barron: The regulator must know the difference in price.
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That information must be available to the regulator, and it is. Secondly, the licensing obligations of regional electricity companies apply to power that they buy from their affiliates as well as to power that they buy from other people.

    Energy Efficiency Office
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what the budget for the Energy Efficiency Office will be in 1992–93; and what was the comparable figure for 1979–80.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The budget for the Energy Efficiency Office in 1992–93 will be £59 million, an increase of 40 per cent. on this year's budget. The comparable figure for expenditure in 1979–80 was £2·4 million.
    Mr. Jones: What action is being taken by South Wales Electricity and the other companies on that most important aspect of energy efficiency?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Under the terms of their licences, the newly privatised regional electricity companies must take steps to promote the efficient use of their fuels. In addition, the regulators of both the electricity and gas industries are examining with the industries scope for further funding of energy efficiency measures, funded in
    672
    part under the price formula. Since privatisation there has been a transformation in the attitude and work of those energy companies towards promoting energy efficiency as well as selling their product.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Minister agree that no matter what progress is made in energy efficiency—in Wales or in the west country, for example—it could all come to nothing if the Government press ahead and force British Gas to start up a new company for the transportation of gas through its pipelines? It would mean that British Gas would put a mileage rate on the transportation of gas so that regions such as Wales will suffer from higher gas prices, which will offset anything that we may do to achieve efficiency.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Those are matters for the regulators of the industry concerned, who have an explicit duty to promote competition in the industries and to safeguard the interests of consumers. Before the industries were privatised, there was no comparable safeguard for the consumer. It has come about entirely as a result of privatisation.

    Energy Prices
    Mr. Jessel: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by how much the level of prices for fuel, light and power has changed in real terms since 1986.
    Mr. Moynihan: The cost of fuel, light and power to the domestic sector is estimated to have fallen by 8 per cent. in real terms between 1986 and 1991. For the industrial sector, it is estimated that the cost has fallen by more than 25 per cent. in real terms during the same period.
    Mr. Jessel: Is not that a tremendously impressive achievement? It is no wonder that we receive so few complaining letters about electricity prices these days. Can my hon. Friend say how far that is due to privatisation?
    Mr. Moynihan: I believe that it is due both to privatisation and to the benefits of restructuring, especially in the electricity industry. It is evident that the emergence of competition in both generation and supply has had a significant impact on prices.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Why is it, then, that so many of our constituents are coming to advice surgeries about bills that they cannot afford to pay? Is not it now time that the Minister decided that the standing charges, which are an unacceptable imposition, particularly on the elderly, should be abolished? Why have the Government not done something about that?
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman will be able to tell his constituents, as I do mine, that domestic users and other small users of electricity are protected for the first time, as a result of the Government's initiative, by price controls against unjustified price increases.
    Mr. Rathbone: Can my hon. Friend say what the price increases are likely to be in the forthcoming year?
    Mr. Moynihan: The protection offered by electricity price controls against unjustified increases will limit increases up to April 1992 to the level of inflation as measured from October to October, subject to unforeseen circumstances. It is important that those controls are seen in a three-year context.

    Mineworkers (Redundancy Pay)
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal to discuss redundancy payments for mineworkers.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We meet the chairman of British Coal on a regular basis to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.
    Mr. Haynes: I am not surprised that the Minister has not mentioned redundancy payments for miners when they are closing pits willy-nilly. You know, Mr. Speaker, they would complain like billy-o on the Treasury Bench if we docked their redundancy payments. Yet they are using blackmail on miners to vote to close pits earlier than they year that had been decided on so that they can close the pit down and they have cut the redundancy payments for miners. They should be ashamed of themselves. What are they going to do about it?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, he suggested that redundancy pay for displaced miners was excessively generous. That is a curious message from the Labour party, although it is true that Opposition this year voted against the Coal Industry Bill, which provides for the continuation of those generous payments to redundant miners. Miners all over the country will know that the Labour party voted against those terms.
    Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Due to the unsatisfactory reply from the Minister, I shall apply for an Adjournment debate.

    British Coal (Exchequer Subvention)
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total subvention to British Coal from the Exchequer over the past five years.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The total amount of Government grant that has been made available to British Coal over the past five financial years is £8·5 billion.
    Mr. MarshallDoes not that figure underline the Government's commitment to the coal mining industry? Would my hon. Friend care to hazard a guess about how many fewer jobs there would be in that industry if that money had not been given? Does he agree that that money underlines the huge benefits to the taxpayer that will come from the privatisation of the industry, to which the Labour party is opposed?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right to point out that, in the past five years and beyond, the taxpayer has not been ungenerous in giving money to the coal industry. In return, we expect the industry to fight for its share of the electricity market by improved productivity. I am delighted at the progress that the industry has made with Government assistance.
    Mr. Hardy: The Minister has accepted that investment by the state has assisted miners to achieve records of productivity unmatched by the rest of British industry. However, despite that achievement in the national interest, the Government have sat idly by while the electricity supply industry has disregarded that massive increase in productivity. Not only have the Government disregarded the electricity supply industry's disdain for that achievement, but they have sat idly by and watched
    674
    collieries close which, in the past five years, have taken up a large part of that sum of money about which the Minister boasted just a moment ago.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The provision of £8·5 billion of grant aid hardly amounts to standing idly by. The mining industry knows that its long-term security comes only from selling its product to customers at prices they can afford. If we insisted on electricity generators buying expensive coal, that would be bad news for domestic electricity customers and it would cause job losses in the rest of British industry.

    THORP
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy at current trends, how much plutonium he expects the thermal oxide reprocessing plant to have produced by the year 2000.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: BNFL estimates that, by the year 2000, some 30 tonnes of plutonium should have been recovered during reprocessing in THORP.
    Mr. Cohen: Is not THORP about to become the principal producer of plutonium for proliferators in the world? Will it not produce the equivalent of about a quarter of the nuclear arsenals of both the Soviet Union and the United States at their peak by the year 2000? Is not THORP capable of destroying the world, and should not the Minister show some courage as well as some sense and phase out plutonium production?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The reprocessing does not create plutonium but recovers it so that it can be recycled' as a source of energy. The hon. Gentleman may know that a tonne of plutonium is equivalent, in energy terms, to about 3£5 million tonnes of coal. It therefore makes sense to recover that element for possible future use in civil reactors or, one day, in the fast reactors.

    Pit Closures
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent meetings he has had with the National Union of Mineworkers to discuss the proposed pit closures; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have had no recent meetings with the National Union of Mineworkers to discuss pit closures.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister agree that 90 million tonnes of imported coal last year is equivalent to about 20 pit closures involving 20,000 men? Compared with how the German coal industry is subsidised—its coal is produced at no less than £89 a tonne compared with £42 a tonne for deep-mined coal in Britain—how can we say that the industry is on a level playing field in Europe? What guarantees do we have that some of that imported coal is not part of the German coal laundered in Rotterdam with coal from other countries? Does that mean that we are helping to subsidise the German coal industry while shutting pits in this country and throwing people out of work? Those people then receive the dole, which is taxpayers' money. The whole matter needs to be brought to an end immediately.
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman put his finger on the cause of the problem—the excessive subsidies in

    675
    Germany. I want those subsidies to be phased down by the Community, and I also want to encourage British coal to be exported to Germany if that is a way to deal with the problem.
    Mr. Roger King: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread confusion among Opposition Members—particularly the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), shown by his attitude towards the importation of coal—and the great conflict within the Labour party about how to handle the matter? Will my right hon. Friend comment on the Labour party's idea on the possibility of stuffing the generating board with political satraps to bring salvation to its energy policy?
    Mr. Wakeham: From time to time I read about the views of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, (Mr. Dobson) but I was also interested to read over my cornflakes on Saturday morning the Labour party briefing to the effect that we were not to take the hon. Gentleman too seriously.
    Mr. John Evans: Surely the Secretary of State agrees that it is economic madness to switch electricity generation from coal to gas, close scores of collieries and throw thousands of miners on to the dole? Does not the industry need a long-term agreement to keep collieries like Parkside in my constituency, the very last colliery in north-west England, in existence?
    Mr. Wakeham: We need the lowest possible electricity prices for consumers and British Coal has a part to play in that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be in Britain's best interests to have long-term coal contracts, but those must be negotiated on commercial terms.

    Energy Efficiency Office
    Sir John Hannam: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what the budget for the Energy Efficiency Office will be in 1992–93; and what was the comparable figure for 1979–80.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones).
    Sir John Hannam: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this year more than £1 billion is being spent by the public sector on energy efficiency? Much energy could also be saved by businesses. Has he any new initiatives in the pipeline for energy efficiency in the business sector?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I can confirm the figure given by my hon. Friend. The funding of the Energy Efficiency Office in my Department has risen 10 times since the Government took office in 1979. The energy management assistance scheme, which will come into place on 1 April, will grant-aid energy efficiency projects for smaller businesses—a new initiative to add to the many others that my Department already runs.

    Energy Management
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will outline what initiatives he is taking to encourage responsible energy management among businesses.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We are taking forward three major initiatives: the making a corporate commitment campaign, which is designed to secure board level commitment to energy efficiency; best practice, which is the Department's main programme of energy efficiency information transfer; and the energy management assistance scheme, which I have mentioned and which gives grant aid to the energy efficiency projects of smaller businesses.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which makes most welcome news. What was the budget for 1979–80 and what is the predicted budget for 1992? Do not the figures show that the Government are committed to the scheme?
    Mr Heathcoat-Amory: In real terms, the funding for the Energy Efficiency Office has risen 10 times during the past 11 years.

  THE ARTS

    Arts Sponsorship
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has any plans to visit Barnet to discuss the private sponsorship of the arts.
    The Minister for The Arts (Mr. Tim Renton): I will be visiting Community and Recreational Arts in Barnet in March, where I will have the pleasure of attending the official opening of the Tedder lounge, which has been extended to include a wheelchair accessible art room. I shall be happy to speak about private sponsorship of the arts if asked.
    Mr. Marshall: If asked, would my right hon. Friend be able to confirm that private sponsorship of the arts has generated an additional £46 million on top of the already large amounts of public expenditure? Would he also be able to confirm that the only threat to the continuation of that expenditure is the election of philistines of the left, who are opposed to the scheme and whose tax policies would pulverise the attempts of those who support the arts?
    Mr. Renton: I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the very satisfying factors is that despite the difficult times that some companies are facing, they are continuing with their sponsorship of the arts, often in partnership with my office, through the business sponsorship incentive scheme award. It is sad that the Labour party has already shown indifference to that form of arts funding. If it does not kill off the golden goose, it will certainly let it starve to death through neglect.

    Museum Charges
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Minister for the Arts what recent assessment has been made of the effect on attendance figures of the introduction of admission charges to museums.
    Mr. Renton: Comparisons are hard to make because of the unreliability of the numbers recorded prior to the introduction of charges. However, evidence suggests that,

    677
    after an initial fall-off, admission numbers at those museums which charge have held up well in subsequent years.
    Mr. Flynn: Since the catastrophic drop in attendance at the National Museum of Wales—a reduction which has largely been made up by the efforts of the museum staff —there is still bitter resentment among Welsh people that a barrier prevents them from seeing the treasures of Wales that were purchased and the national museum that was established as an expression of Welsh identity. Those shows of identity were paid for by the pennies of miners and the barrier was imposed by the philistine, alien Government who do not know the difference between a work of art and a tin of baked beans. When will there be an end to the philistine approach of the Government who apply a cornershop philosophy to the arts?
    Mr. Renton: It is extraordinary to describe the Government or Welsh Office as philistine when the Government are currently spending £21 million on the extension and development of the National Museum of Wales in Cardiff. I had great pleasure in seeing I hat extension and I would be surprised if the hon. Gentleman had not visited it and was not looking forward to its opening. The fall in attendance was mentioned in the debate on the Museums and Galleries Bill the other day. Although a fall in numbers occurred in the first year after charges were introduced, that was largely due to the building works, but the figures have increased and Welsh men are looking forward enormously to the addition to their national museum.
    Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if the major galleries of this country are to go on with their extremely enlightened and successful purchasing programme, it is essential that we bring in charging for entry? Does he accept that the general public will not mind in the least paying to see these magnificent treasures? Will he further accept that there is a perfectly satisfactory formula under which all who are exempted from prescription charges are exempted from charges for entry to museums?
    Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend will know that the galleries and museums that charge either do not charge or operate substantial concessions for the elderly, for school children and for educational parties. My hon. Friend puts his finger on a crucial point: the total income of the museums and galleries for which I am responsible, outside their grant in aid, is £48 million—up by £20 million from the figures for three years ago. If Labour came to power, it would remove all that money and thus deprive the public of the pleasure of the special exhibitions that are staged as a result of the charging policy.

    Municipal Theatres
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement of the funding of municipal theatres.
    Mr. Renton: Municipal theatres, which are an essential part of arts provision in this country, are funded and run by local authorities. As receiving theatres they do not attract direct Arts Council funding, but they benefit from the Arts Council's support for touring which enables more distinctive and varied programmes to be mounted.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that it is possible, if arts societies stage productions that the population want to see or hear, for those societies to be self-financing—as the society in Billericay is? The arts society there produces an excellent range of cinema, theatre and music, professional and amateur, and last year made a profit of £30,000. By contrast, in nearby Basildon, whose council levies an extortionate community charge, the municipal theatre receives a subsidy of £1·7 million a year and makes a loss of £500,000, which has to be funded out of the pockets of my constituents?
    Mr. Renton: I hesitate to enter a dispute about the rival merits of these two different establishments. I certainly appreciate the good work done by the establishment in my hon. Friend's constituency which she mentioned first; but I would point out that the Towngate theatre in Basildon also puts on some interesting performances—by Opera 80 and the Second Stride dance company, for instance. I understand that it recently hosted a show by the Chippendales, not a branch of the "Antiques Roadshow" but an American male strip show which played to an all-female audience. That at least shows a certain equality of opportunity.
    Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister widen his reply to include funding of the national companies, and in particular will he explain the remarks that he made to the Royal Society of Arts last week, when he speculated on the Government funding the national companies directly? Is that ending of the arm's-length principle Government policy or is it another example of a Minister, who knows that he has only another five weeks in the job, making a remark entirely of his own without consulting his civil servants, the Arts Council or any of the national companies? Will he make his position clear: are the Government going to end their arm's-length approach?
    Mr. Renton: That question is a long way from municipal theatres. However, if the hon. Gentleman had attended the seminar at which I made my remarks last Monday—I greatly regret that he was not there to hear me talk about delegation to the regional arts boards—he would have known that I made the point that if such delegation is fully successful—if the regional arts boards are progressing well—the question whether the five major national companies should continue to be funded by the Arts Council or be funded directly will arise. I framed my remarks in a hypothetical context following on from delegation to the regional arts boards, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not there to listen and to learn.

    Touring Companies
    Mr. Amos: To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to encourage the increase of touring by arts companies.
    Mr. Renton: Following the record increase in Government funding of the Arts Council for 1992–93, I am delighted that the council has decided to increase its touring budget for England for next year by over 19 per cent. to £9·6 million, and to increase substantially the separate Great Britain touring fund.
    Mr. Amos: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the quality of cultural life in the north-east is second to none?

    679
    Will he join me in congratulating Queen's hall in Hexham on winning so many national awards? Will he give an assurance that he will sustain the generous funding of Northern Arts that he has managed in the past few years?
    Mr. Renton: I am well aware of the good work carried out by the Queen's hall arts centre. Its public sector funding depends on money from Northern Arts, and I am delighted to confirm that, as a result of the record settlement that I was able to negotiate for overheads, Northern Arts will receive a 13·9 per cent increase for 1992–93 amounting to more than £5 million.

    European Arts Festival
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has for the European arts festival; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Renton: To ask the Minister for the Arts, what plans he has for the European arts festival,—[Interruption]
    The European arts festival, which I announced on 9 December will be a rewarding and imaginative way of celebrating our Presidency of the European Community in the second half of the year. Some £6 million is being made available to support a full programme of events across the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Greenway: I thank my right hon. Friend for that doubly impressive answer. Will there be something for everybody, for people of all ages, in the European arts festival? Would not the festival be a good way to allow our citizens to improve their knowledge and understanding of European languages and culture?
    Mr. Renton: Yes. I was so carried away by the wisdom of my hon. Friend's question that I found it necessary to repeat it.
    It is hoped that the European arts festival will reach all parts of the community, schoolchildren included, and will bring a tradition of British art in the European context to all parts of the country, including Ealing, North.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Executive Agencies
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the civil service unions to discuss the operation of executive agencies.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I meet representatives of the civil service unions from time to time to discuss a range of issues. Union members have an important part to play in the continued success of "next steps".
    Mr. Evans: Did the Minister discuss with the unions concerned the maintenance of free collective bargaining and union recognition in the agencies? Will he take this opportunity to give a categorical assurance that none of the agencies will be allowed or encouraged to derecognise any of the civil service trade unions?
    Mr. Renton: Derecognition of the civil service unions is certainly not part of our policy. In the context of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I must ask him to appreciate that one of the important matters now being
    680
    examined by the chief executives of the agencies is the issue of greater pay flexibility and performance pay, so that better results can be achieved, both by individuals and in terms of customer service, from a given amount of pay. That matter was being discussed at the chief executives' conference that I attended in Harrogate on Thursday, and it is a matter of great importance to all those working in the "next steps" agencies.
    Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since these bodies remain within the civil service, some of us feel that executive agencies are neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring? Will he see what can be done to improve parliamentary accountability for the agencies because, in particular since they are responsible to the Public Accounts Committee, Ministers should be prepared to answer questions about them?
    Mr. Renton: I disagree with my hon. Friend about the agencies being neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring. They are an extremely important development for the civil service and for those parts of the civil service that are especially concerned with delivering service to the customer. If my hon. Friend has a chance to visit any of the executive agencies, as I do, he will be very impressed by the way that they are tackling their tasks. My hon. Friend asked about answers to parliamentary questions. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has submitted proposals in that connection which I think are being studied by the appropriate House of Commons Committee.
    Dr. Marek: The Minister will know that for some years London weighting has been frozen because the Minister's policy is to pay just sufficient *to recruit and retain civil servants. Does he intend that policy to be part of the new executive agencies?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is wrong, and I think that he knows it. Although further London spine points have been introduced and the amount of extra pay given to people working in London has therefore increased, there is more flexibility in the system than there used to be. Now, the emphasis is on pay agreements that will meet the specific needs of the civil service and of the executive agencies throughout the country, rather than on maintaining an unnecessarily rigid or uniform structure —a structure which did not necessarily produce the best results in the past.

    Civil Service College
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a progress report on the Civil Service college.
    Mr. Renton: The college is contributing to a better-trained and more professional civil service. It has recently published its prospectus for 1992–93, and I will send my hon. Friend a copy.
    Mr. Dunn: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that one of the tasks of the Civil Service college is to inculcate a sense of responsibility, a sense of loyalty and a sense of commitment to the Government of the day? Will he urge those who run the college to use the example of Mr. Pashley to illustrate the way in which a civil servant ought not to behave? I refer to

    681
    trading in stolen documents with the Labour party—a practice that has not, I believe, yet been condemned by that party.
    Mr. Renton: I appreciate the sentiment that lies behind my hon. Friend's question. The work of the civil service is, of course, dedicated more to the training of senior management and training in the key professional skills such as information technology, audit, purchasing and supply. As for the basic question of loyalty to which my hon. Friend referred, that consideration should be fundamental to the acceptance of a civil service job, and I hope that it will always remain a priority for every civil servant, regardless of which party is in power.
    Mr. Winnick: When the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was Prime Minister, Mr. Bernard Ingham and Mr. Charles Powell exercised far more influence on members of the Cabinet, apart from on the Prime Minister herself. Would it be possible for the Civil Service college to illustrate, by means of that example, what should not happen, and to demonstrate the amount of abuse that took place at that point in our history? Would not that be useful?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman does his best to get everything out of context whenever that is possible. His hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Banks) is one of those Members of Parliament who have contributed regularly to college courses, and I am delighted that he has done so. Perhaps he would like to put his hon. Friend right in regard to the question of bias at the college.
    Sir John Stokes: I admire the work of the Civil Service college. Does its principal keep in touch with the colleges in Her Majesty's forces, which maintain such a high standard in every respect, while also ensuring that intelligence is applied to complex problems?
    Mr. Renton: I know the principal well. She is a woman —and I am very pleased that she is one of the women heading the executive agencies. I am sure that she follows up precisely the kind of matter to which my hon. and loyal Friend has referred, but I shall make certain that that is so, and write to my hon. Friend.

    Appointments
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many senior civil service appointments subject to prime ministerial approval have been made since 1979.
    Mr. Renton: There are currently about 170 posts in grades 1 and 2 of the civil service. All appointments in these top grades have been subject to the consent of the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Banks: Does the Prime Minister see some dangers there? Maintaining the previous Prime Minister's attitude to the selection of senior civil servants—"Is he one of ours?"—will lead to the politicisation of the civil service at the top level, and I believe that that has happened. Would it not be better either to move over to a "spoils" system —which would at least do away with all the hypocrisy, and
    682
    would be more honest and open—or to appoint civil servants via a Select Committee, or through some other all-party approach?
    Mr. Renton: Those comments are unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. I am glad to say that his thoughts are not shared by Opposition Front Benchers. I can only assume that it was from his previous experience as chairman of the Greater London council in 1985–86 that he learnt all about "getting your friends appointed to the key jobs", and that that is why he assumes that the same is happening in the civil service now. It is not; the top people are appointed solely on the basis of their merit and intelligence.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is sad to hear the ex-leader of the Greater London council, who appointed people purely on political merit, suggest that senior civil servants are chosen on anything other than ability? Would it not be a sad day for this country if that attitude of mind took hold? We are well served by our civil servants. Although Governments come and go, governance in the civil service sector of this country continues untainted.
    Mr. Renton: I agree with my hon. Friend. The civil service procedures for the most senior appointments are well established. They have been supported by both sides of the House for many years. They are based on ability to do the job. I do not believe that we should cast aside at all lightly the all-party support for these methods.

    Staff Development
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what opportunities exist for civil servants based in Great Britain to gain experience in duties relating to Northern Ireland as part of staff development programmes.
    Mr. Renton: Staff are regularly seconded to the Northern Ireland Office from other Departments and agencies. In addition, several Departments offer postings to their offices in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Dalyell: May I welcome the presence of the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary when asking a question of which I have given notice, in the hope of a serious reply? What is the House of Commons to make of the reports of serious on-going disagreements between, on the one hand, Mr. Ian Burns and other most senior officials in the Home Office and the Metropolitan police, as represented by Mr. Bill Taylor, and, on the other side of this subject of how to deal with Ireland-originating situations, Mrs. Stella Rimington whom the Government, with a fanfare of trumpets, announced as the head of MI5? Does the Minister agree that answering as he does, in a sense, for the Prime Minister, this is a very serious matter for the House of Commons?
    Mr. Renton: I know that the hon. Gentleman tabled an early-day motion on the subject a short time ago. However, he well realises that these matters of detail are for response by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. If he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to raise the matter in the debate that is to take place later this afternoon.

BCCI
3.30 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the need for urgent action by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry following the settlement proposals for BCCI."
The matter is specific because, as the House knows, the liquidators of BCCI and the representatives of the Sheik of Abu Dhabi last Friday published, at long last, their settlement proposals. The proposals have as their cornerstone a very substantial payment of between $1·7 billion and $2·2 billion by the Sheik of Abu Dhabi. I pay tribute to the generosity and assistance of the sheik in seeking to support the innocent depositors of BCCI. The Government of Abu Dhabi have retained their dignity. Even the advertisement in The Daily Telegraph today is in measured tones. I welcome the proposals, but they are complicated. There is much detail and depositors may have to waive some of their rights.
The matter is important because on 14 January 1992 the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in a 13-minute exchange of faxes, appointed four liquidators on the undertaking that they would hold a creditors' meeting within a certain time. Twenty weeks after the closure of the bank, the creditors have still not been consulted. As was demonstrated last Friday, the liquidators—the £1 million a week men—appear to be out of control. They were more interested in briefing the press than in telling the creditors' association and the staff committee about the proposed deal.
The matter is urgent, because I understand that the liquidators are proposing to go to court imminently to seek to be relieved of their undertaking to hold a creditors'
684
meeting on the ground that such a meeting would be too difficult to arrange. The vast majority of creditors have not been consulted about the proposal. It is perfectly possible, in my view, should they not want to call a meeting, that, via a satellite link-up around the globe in five or six world centres, depositors and creditors could talk to and listen to the liquidators. I understand that this would cost less than a mass meeting in London, which is estimated to cost £750,000.
The creditors must be allowed to discuss the settlement and ask questions of the liquidators. They need to know when the first payments can be made. Local authorities, and others, need the money now. We need to know why proof of debt forms have still not been sent out by the liquidators and, thus, why no money has been paid under the statutory scheme.
Under the liquidators' proposals they will merely be sent a form for depositors to state whether they approve of the deal. They will not know exactly who they are not going to be allowed to sue. That is not good enough. During the negotiations there was a need for secrecy but no longer. We need a full debate in the House to allow the Secretary of State to set out what proposals he has to deal with this unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely
"the need for urgent action by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry following the settlement proposals for BCCI."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20, I have to announce my decision without giving my reasons to the House. I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has said about the matter, but I regret that his application does not meet the criteria of the Standing Order and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
3.36 pm
Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your advice? You will recall that on 27 January I asked the Secretary of State a question about the disabled in the coal mining industry. He ignored and disbelieved the figures which I quoted but which I had obtained from a Government agency. He stated that he would write to me, but he has not done so. If Ministers make misleading statements from the Dispatch Box, what recourse does a Back Bencher have?
Mr. Speaker: I understand that there has been a misunderstanding, but we must not have another debate on the subject now.
The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): When the hon. Gentleman asked his question earlier this afternoon, I had no idea to what he was referring. I have since checked the Hansard report of the previous Energy questions, and I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that the information that he requires will be sent to him today. There was some delay in my Department in getting the information, and I apologise to him for that.
Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will have noticed from today's Financial Times, the Army is to shed 3,500 service personnel. As you know, this causes many problems with regard to affordable housing and relocation of those who are being discharged. I understand that the Secretary of State is to give a press conference at 3.30 pm. I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, can use your good offices to bring the subject before the House so that we can debate it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that hold that press conferences—if given—should preferably be given on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Alun Michael: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that points of order were raised on Friday when a Conservative Member objected to the Shops (Amendment) Bill under which there would be a White Paper and a detailed Bill to overcome the Government's intolerable laziness in condoning law breaking on this subject. We called for the Government to find time to consider the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell)—
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me? There was an exchange about this on Friday which went on for a long time and which, in my judgment, was somewhat out of order.
Mr. Michael: The point of order for you, Sir, is whether you can guide us. Having had a vote of 222 to 4 in favour of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend, how can Ministers be dragged into allowing us to debate and vote on the issue?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not give procedural advice on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Derek Enright: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can advise me. At the weekend a group of constituents came to see me because they were incensed by a statement made by the
686
Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department which implied that the West Yorkshire police were incompetent. How can I raise this matter and get the Secretary of State or someone else to apologise for the disgraceful slur on the West Yorkshire police, who are gallant and efficient gentlemen?
Mr. Speaker: I am sure they are. The hon. Gentleman has not been here as long as some other hon. Members have. I can give him advice on such matters of procedure privately, if he comes to see me one evening after 10 pm.
Mr. Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you advise me? It is obvious that the Government have not made a request to you today to make a statement on the meeting of Environment Ministers and European and United States leaders in Estoril at the weekend on the important issue of banning chlorofluorocarbons and protecting the ozone layer I understand that today the Department of the Environment is either issuing a press release or holding a press conference on the issue. Has the Department requested to make a statement, if not today at least tomorrow, on that important issue?
Mr. Speaker: It is an important issue. I have had no request today for a statement.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible to refer to the death in the Netherlands of Mrs. Kate ter Horst? She was a very brave person during the battle for Arnhem in September 1944. Would you consider writing a letter—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may not be interested. At the cost of her life, in September 1944 she allowed her home to be used by British troops.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should table an early-day motion on the matter, which would achieve wide support from hon. Members of all parties. It is not really a matter for me.
Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the weekend, there was a report that an employee in the private office of the Secretary of State for Employment was phoning industrialists touting for quotes to be used against Labour. It is clearly a deplorable practice to use ministerial telephones in such a way.
Mr. Speaker: If that is true, it is not a matter for me. I am not a member of the Government, and I do not know who is telephoned at weekends. I can say that I was not telephoned at the weekend.
Mr. Cohen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The quotes were to be used by a Minister in the House. Is that not tantamount to misleading the House? Is that not an appalling practice and a matter for you—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Peter Hardy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I tried to catch your eye at Question Time because of a matter which has been drawn to my attention and which seems to be extremely serious. I understand that in at least one of the executive agencies, the Benefits Agency, staff are about to be required to wear uniforms. Can the House directly challenge or approve such a development in an agency? There may be serious

687
implications. If such a practice is established in an agency, it may be only a matter of time before staff in Government Departments have to wear uniform. Shall we see shoulder flashes bearing the name of the Department concerned? Would you approve of such a development, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: There is an old Chinese proverb—"In vain is the net laid in front of the bird."
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that you are in the tricky position of not being able to communicate with the two political parties, or with any of the other Rag, Tag and Bobtails, and in view of the fact that you have to live a relatively lonely life, may I ask whether you have been tipped off about the election? The Press Gallery is abuzz. There have been leaks from Ministers—not from civil servants—that the whole thing is fixed for a Cabinet meeting on the Thursday following the Budget, for an announcement to be made that day, for the Finance Bill to be wound up in two days and for this Parliament to come to an end on 16 March. Everything has been sorted out by the Government. Have you been tipped off? We have to pick up the information from the press. If the press knows, it is high time that the Government had the guts to tell us the information from the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my intelligence is good, and I have been tipped off that there is to be an election in the near future.
Mr. Terry Lewis: On a genuine point of order concerning the protection of Back Benchers, Mr. Speaker. No doubt you, Sir, will be aware that the Table Office is refusing to accept hon. Members' questions referring to health authority matters in the regions. I accept that, up to a point, there are good reasons for that. I also accept the advice of the Table Clerks that I should write to the chairmen of regional health authorities and that I have now done. But surely Ministers responsible for divulging to Back Benchers information on the health service should be aware that delays are being built in at source—in the regional health authority areas—and that hon. Members are not being given the information about the health service that they seek on behalf of their constituents.
I suspect that this is another of those conspiracies whereby those on the Treasury Bench are trying to suppress bad news in the run-up to the general election. Should not you, Sir, protect Back Benchers' interests in this matter?
Mr. Speaker: I have not had the matter brought to my attention, but I will look into it.
Mr. Winnick: Further to my earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. On reflection, I should perhaps have raised the matter on another day, and I take your point about tabling an early-day motion. I think that there will be general agreement in the House that Kate ter Horst was an
688
exceptionally brave person who gave aid to dying and wounded soldiers. The purpose of my point of order, Sir, was simply to ask whether it would be possible for you to write to her husband, who was also injured in the road accident, to express our sympathy and to let him know that we have not forgotten what his wife did in 1944.
Mr. Speaker: I could do that only with the permission of the House, but as Arnhem is linked with my own borough of Croydon, I would certainly consider writing a private letter on this matter.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Further to the important point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), Mr. Speaker. I fully understand and accept that you will not have been told by the Government the date of the general election, but I am sure that you will agree that the traditional right of hon. Members in connection with what is probably the most important day in the parliamentary year—Budget day—to have a full four-day debate on the Budget is extremely important. Can you confirm that, if any attempt were made by the Executive to curtail debate on the Budget to fewer than four days—a four-day debate would be in accordance with the precedent established as far back as any hon. Member can remember—it would be a serious infringement of hon. Members' democratic rights?
Mr. Speaker: That is an absolutely hypothetical question because there are other dates mentioned.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will have to take it by way of balance.
Mr. Bottomley: If we are regularly to be faced—as we have been this afternoon—with a succession of points of order exclusively from Labour Members attempting to continue until as to near 4 o'clock as they can, would it be possible for the Labour Chief Whip to organise a raffle so that only one or two of them can raise points of order while the rest of us get on with the business for which we are here?
Mr. Speaker: I think that we should get on. The trouble is that, as the House knows, if we do not have a private notice question or statement to take us to 3.50 pm, when the television cameras go off, we tend to have points of order instead.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Registration (Land and Deeds) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  Question agreed to.

Terrorism
3.48 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1992 be approved.
It is clear from the recent exchanges that some Opposition Members are keen to have a general election. It is equally clear that they are not keen to debate the order because they are highly embarrassed about the line that they are going to be invited to take later by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
The prevention of terrorism Act is an exceptional measure. It is justified only by the wholly exceptional threat that this country faces from terrorism. It is absolutely right that each year Parliament should consider whether the Act need continue in force. Today I am once again asking the House to approve the Act's continuance in force because it remains an essential part of our defences against terrorism.
Those defences cannot be lowered while the terrorist threat remains high. Let us be quite clear from the beginning of this afternoon's debate exactly what that threat has led to. There was no let-up in the terrorist campaign last year. In Northern Ireland, 94 people were slaughtered and more than 900 were injured as a result of republican and loyalist terrorism. Last year I reported that in 1990 there had been more terrorist incidents on mainland Great Britain than at any time since 1975. I regret that I have to report the same again this year.
In 1991 terrorists struck on the mainland at a variety of targets—military, political and economic—and used a variety of means. Three people died, including two terrorists, and 39 were injured. The House will recall some of those incidents: the explosion at Victoria station last February in which one man died and several children were injured; the mortar bomb attack on Downing street in the same month; and the large number of incendiary devices that were planted in shops and on trains.
So we should be under no doubt today about what it is that we face. It is a ruthless campaign of murder and destruction here on the mainland and in Northern Ireland. It is a campaign which is conducted regardless of the risk to innocent people. It is a campaign conducted by terrorists fanatically committed to their own misguided causes.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Baker: I will give way in a moment.
In the debate last year, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that
"The Act creates the illusion of a campaign against terrorism."—[Official Report, 4 March 1991; Vol. 187, c. 32.]
I put it to the House that the Government's campaign is a very real one and that the powers of the Act form an essential part of it. The House will recall the recent incident in Coalisland where four men, including Kevin Barry O'Donnell, died. Here was a man stopped in north London with Kalashnikovs in the boot of the car he was driving. He was acquitted of possession of firearms with intent to endanger life, but I was satisfied that he had been involved in terrorism and that here was a very dangerous man from whom people needed to be protected. So I
690
exercised my power to exclude him from Great Britain. Following his expulsion and his recent death, the IRA boasted that O'Donnell had been a member of its terrorist organisation since 1988 and had been active in operations against military targets throughout Britain. I have no doubt that my decision to exclude him was the right one, but without this Act I could not have done so.
Our response to the terrorist campaign is not, of course, confined to this Act. It is much more than that. At the front line here in Great Britain are the police who are pitting themselves—often at great personal risk—against the terrorists. The House will not expect me to go into details about what this effort involves. Suffice it to say that very substantial resources of manpower and equipment are needed and I will ensure that the police get the resources, the manpower and the equipment that are required. I have seen calls for an agency to fight terrorism, but I want to make it absolutely clear I that we have an effective national organisation. I can assure the House that the central co-ordination of anti-terrorist activity across the country, on the whole, has been achieved. The House will no doubt recall the arrangements for this which I announced last year.
Mr. David Winnick: All hon. Members are appalled by the continued slaughter in Northern Ireland and the way in which people have been murdered. I will not dignify the murderers by using the term paramilitaries: they are out-and-out terrorists whether they are members of the Provisional IRA or killers on the other side.
What purpose is served by the smear stories over the weekend—whether or not the Home Secretary is in any way responsible for them—which seem to suggest, and more so in this immediate pre-election period, that Labour is soft on terrorism? Is it not useful for the House and the country that we are united against terrorism and we condemn it at every opportunity? If we have differences—obviously there are differences—over this measure, what purpose is served, except to give aid and comfort to the terrorist, to pretend that the Opposition are soft on terrorism?
Mr. Baker: I shall refer to that matter later, but there was national consensus on terrorism and on the Act until 1983. The Act was put on the statute book by a Labour Government and it was operated by Labour Ministers who sat in the same Cabinet as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. That was the national consensus that existed. That is what I am asking the House to restore tonight—a national consensus. National consensus can be restored only by the Opposition voting for the order.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the Home Secretary address the question which I think that he heard me put to his colleague, the Minister for the Civil Service? What is the House of Commons to make, in relation to counterterrorism activities on the mainland—we cannot know the full truth of the matter—of what purports to be a row between Mr. Ian Burns and other senior officials in the Department, supported by Mr. Bill Taylor and senior officials of the Metropolitan police, against attempts by Mrs. Stella Rimington to enlarge the role of MI5 in that situation? Does not that raise very serious questions for civil liberties in this country?
Mr. Baker: There is no row at all. I do not propose to depart from the long-standing practice of Governments of both parties not to comment on operational matters relating to the security service, but I am quite certain that Mrs. Rimington is the best person for the job, and she has my complete confidence in the charge of the Security Service. Naturally, we are continuing to ensure that the arrangements for countering the terrorist threat are as effective as possible. That is what the Government have always done and that is what we will continue to do.
Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Home Secretary said that he thought that Mrs. Stella Rimington was the best person for the job. Will he make it clear whether he meant the best person for the job as head of the Security Service or the best person for the job, in answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), in taking over counter-terrorism?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not raise a point of order and then put a question to the Home Secretary; that is not fair.
Mr. Baker: I expressed my confidence in Mrs. Rimington as the head of the security services.
No one can delude himself into believing that we will always succeed in catching all the terrorists—that will never be possible—but I do know that the effort is substantial, is sustained and is highly professional, and I invite the House to join me in thanking and congratulating all those engaged in it. Could I remind the House of some of their successes? Recent arrests have disrupted terrorist activities on the mainland and resulted in charges and the recovery of bomb-making equipment and weapons. The courage and vigilance of a police officer led to the discovery of bomb-making equipment in a garage in north London. Just recently, a bomb was successfully defused just 100 yds from this Chamber, in Parliament street. Photos and videos of wanted terrorists have been issued.
Another part of our campaign is the ban on direct broadcasts of representatives of proscribed organisations or those speaking in support of such organisations. I appreciate that that is not part of the order, but it is one of the weapons that we use to deal with terrorism. The Labour party is pledged to lifting that ban. It is a highly irresponsible policy. Such broadcasts can be deeply offensive to viewers and listeners, especially for those who are related to the victims of violence. Furthermore, terrorists and their supporters have in the past taken advantage of those appearances to deliver indirect threats to the public. Apologists for murder should not be given a platform to air their defence of evil.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Baker: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Let me now refer to the prevention of terrorism Act itself. That provides essential powers to counter the terrorist threat. Without those powers, the police would be severely hampered in doing their job. In urging the House to support me in seeking the continuance of the Act for another year, I am pleased to have the backing of Lord Colville of Culross, who carried out the independent
692
review of the operation of the Act during 1991. I take this opportunity to express thanks, on behalf if the House, to Lord Colville for his report.
I should like to remind the House of the powers of the Act, why we need them and why it is absolute nonsense to say that they create an
"illusion of a campaign against terrorism."
The first power is the power to proscribe in Great Britain organisations that are concerned in terrorism or with promoting or encouraging terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. At present the IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army are proscribed. Without the Act, those organisations would be free to meet openly in Britain, recruit new members and raise funds as openly as other political parties. They could hold rallies and march through our streets. I believe that would be unacceptable, as I hope the House will agree.
In the past Opposition Members have expressed their doubts about the power of exclusion.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: Before the Home Secretary leaves that part of the Bill, does he recall that a year ago we on the Opposition Benches said that we would gladly welcome the extension of the tougher measures laid down in the emergency provisions Act to England and Wales? Tougher measures would make it more difficult to raise funds for terrorist causes. Has the Home Secretary yet thought about whether he will accept the Opposition's suggestion that we should be tougher?
Mr. Baker: In view of the hon. Gentleman's question. I shall deal with terrorist finances now. The Government were the first in the world to introduce legislative measures against terrorist finances. Those measures have given the police an additional and invaluable investigative tool, which has enabled them to obtain information on not only the funds but the movements and activities of terrorists. Lord Colville repeated his criticisms of the Act in this year's review, but I believe that the existing provisions are broadly right. We have reviewed them carefully during the past year. We have examined the provisions of the 1989 Act, as we undertook to do, and we have identified some improvements. Those improvements now have the approval of the Association of Chief Police Officers and we shall introduce them at an early opportunity.
Mr. Hattersley: Could I have a straight answer to the simplest of questions? I reminded the Home Secretary that a year ago we asked for the tougher powers that already existed in Northern Ireland legislation to deal with funds that go to terrorist organisations. Is he prepared to move forward to tougher powers or is he not?
Mr. Baker: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to what I said or to the reply that I gave a year ago. I dealt with the powers of the emergency provisions Act last year. They have been operating for only a short time in Northern Ireland. We are reviewing them. We think it unlikely that those powers will operate effectively in the United Kingdom. However, we have some improvements and we shall introduce them. I hope that I shall have the support of the right hon. Gentleman in that. We shall also introduce changes in the general legislation on money laundering and drug trafficking, because the interaction with that legislation is also important. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that this year we have already found that those powers prove effective. As I said, I am broadly content with their operation at present.
Mr. David Trimble: Perhaps I did not hear the Home Secretary aright. I understood him to say a moment ago that the additional powers in the emergency provisions Act to deal with terrorist finances were "unlikely to operate effectively in the United Kingdom". Does he wish to reconsider what he said? Was he saying that the powers in the Act are unlikely to operate effectively in Northern Ireland? If so, why are they there and why is not he considering amending them?
Mr. Baker: I meant Great Britain—on the mainland, as it were. The powers are operating effectively in Northern Ireland in rather different circumstances.
Sir John Wheeler: On the important point about the seizure of assets, will my right hon. Friend agree that the issue is more complicated than it seems if one considers it only from the fairly narrow straitjacket of the prevention of terrorism Acts in England and Wales? Does he agree that a wider extension of criminal justice legislation in England and Wales is necessary to enable the proceeds of serious crime to he seized, whatever the cause of the crime? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the difficulty is distinguishing between a supposedly terrorist activity and a straightforward criminal activity and understanding the intermesh between the two?
Mr. Baker: That is the very point that I made a moment ago. There is an interaction between the existing legislation on money laundering and drug trafficking and the prevention of terrorism Acts. We have identified certain improvements in the provisions of the prevention of terrorism Act and we have also identified changes which we want in the general legislation. Both will be introduced immediately after the general election.
On the power of exclusion—the point at which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook interrupted me—the Act permits a person to be excluded from all or part of the United Kingdom. The purpose is to limit the areas where terrorists may carry out their activities. As I said last year, ideally it will be possible to charge such people and to bring them before the courts. In practice, however, that cannot always be done, as our information comes from sources that we cannot disclose without risking people's lives. The power of exclusion is a valuable one in limiting terrorists' spheres of operation. To remove it would be to remove an important part of our ability to protect the public, as I have illustrated in citing the example of O'Donnell.
I want to make it clear that decisions to exclude are not made lightly—I deal with each one—and the person excluded also has the right to make representations to an independent adviser. Lord Colville in his review of the Act reports that he cannot find anything to criticise in the way that decisions were reached. He further notes that the exercise of the power has been modest in 1991 and that the balance imparted by the advisers has shown its worth.
Now I come to the powers of arrest, examination and detention. The Act empowers the police to examine people at ports and airports to determine whether they may be involved in terrorism; to arrest and detain on reasonable suspicion of involvement in terrorism; and to detain without charge for an initial period of 48 hours and for a further period of a maximum of five days on the authority of the Secretary of State. All those cases are referred to me. None of those powers would exist but for the Act.
694
Judging by past performance, we will shortly hear from Labour Members that those powers are oppressive and unnecessary. I do not agree. Successive Home Secretaries since 1974 have not agreed. Only certain Opposition Members—including, I regret to say, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook—now hold to that view. Those who do so simply misunderstand the Act. They fail to grasp the nature of terrorism and fail therefore to see what needs to be done.
Terrorism is an insidious threat. Terrorists have a ruthless commitment to their cause and a total disregard for the lives or safety of innocent people. We are dealing with fanatics who stop at nothing. We must respond to them with appropriate measures if we are to fulfil our obligations to the people of this country, who are entitled to be protected from men and women of that sort. I am convinced that those powers of arrest, examination and detention are essential parts of our battery of measures.
Let me anticipate one line of argument. I expect that it will be said that, because relatively few people are charged following detention, these powers are not needed. But that argument serves only to illustrate the misunderstanding of the situation. What these powers do, among other things, is to provide a sizeable deterrent to the movement of terrorists and of their materials. I am entirely satisfied from what I know that these powers do deter. They make life more difficult for terrorists. I am not prepared to remove deterrents from these people, and I do not think that Opposition Members should do so either.
I think that it is also relevant to remind the House that careful consideration is given to all applications for extensions of detention. Lord Colville acknowledges that diligence in his review and also notes that lengths of further detention were, in his words, "astutely fitted" to the stage which the police had reached in their investigations. I can therefore assure the House not only that are those powers necessary, but that they are used with all due care and attention to the rights of those detained.
May I turn now to the position of the Labour party and its attitude to the prevention of terrorism Act. It was a Labour Government who put the Act on the statute book in 1974, in the wake of a series of severe bombings. The powers of the Act were implemented by two Labour Home Secretaries, Roy Jenkins and the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). They were also exercised by Labour Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and Scotland. In 1983, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook decided to change Labour's policy and to vote against re-enactment of this Act. That was the end of the bipartisan approach. That has been Labour's policy for the past eight years.
The right hon. Gentleman has been loudly condemned by his former colleagues and none with more feeling than the distinguished former Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, who said of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook in the debate in 1983:
"He is lucky that it becomes increasingly unlikely that he will ever become Home Secretary. If he did, he would be racked by a conflict between his genuine concern for public safety and the foolish commitments that are part of the games into which he has entered in opposition".—[0fficial Report, 7 March 1983; Vol. 38, c. 576.]
What an indictment of the right hon. Gentleman that those words are as true today as they were nine years ago.
The criticism of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook —he is smirking—by his own party members does not stop

695
there. The former Northern Ireland Secretary, Roy Mason, speaking in the House of Lords—[Interruption.]Labour Members are sneering at his name, but he was a member of the Cabinet, of which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was also a member, which fulfilled this Act. He said:
"To defeat the terrorists there is a price to pay. There is the inconvenience, irritation, annoyance with police and Special Branch Officers, and the curtailment of our total freedom and civil liberties. But to combat evil men we must maintain the full legal armoury that Parliament has decreed should be available, and that is what I urge my party and this House to do"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 February 1988; Vol. 493, c. 573.]
With all the irresponsibility that comes from absence of experience and high office, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook thinks that he knows better than his former colleagues who had to bear those grave and serious responsibilities.
The right hon. Gentleman should note that if, by using the Act, a Home Secretary had excluded only one terrorist who would otherwise have been engaged in acts of murder in this country, the Act would have been worth while. I should have thought the example of the O'Donnell case, which I cited earlier, would give even him pause to think.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Terry Lewis rose—
Mr. Baker: I shall not give way as I am dealing with the views of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.
Last year, the right hon. Gentleman, in the conclusion to his speech, recommended that there should be inter-party talks and I dare say that we shall have that stale, meaningless camouflage trotted out again today. It is pathetic that the Labour party is going to call for a committee to fight terrorism. One does not fight terrorism with agendas. One does not reduce terrorist activity with minutes. One does not deal with terrorists by composite resolutions. One does not do it by talking tough and acting soft. What the public want is the prevention of terrorism, not a convention of terrorism. While all that talk goes on, what will happen to the 91 people who are excluded under the Act at the moment? Presumably, they will all be allowed in.
The policy that is now strung round the neck of the Labour party on terrorism is the particular invention of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. He persuaded his party to change its course and policy back in 1983. He knows that police forces want the Act retained with all its powers. The chief police officers of our country made that clear in their evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs and various other senior police officers have also made that clear in recent days. Yet the right hon. Gentleman persists in wanting to weaken the powers that exist. I would expect the Leader of the Opposition to take a personal interest in this policy, as he aspires to a post in which he would have responsibility for national security. He should decide the Labour party's policy and take that power away from the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. The policy of the Labour party is hugely unpopular and it is irresponsible.
Over the years the right hon. Gentleman has demeaned himself by trying to find weasel words such as "inter-party talks" and "searching for a national consensus". I tell him
696
what the common purpose is. The common pupose is to fight terrorism with all the means at our disposal and with all the powers within this Act. That is what this country wants. That is what the country will get from this Government.
4.13 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: There was a moment 12 or 13 minutes into the right hon. Gentleman's speech when I thought that, for once, he was going to behave like a Home Secretary. That hope was dashed in the final five minutes of party conference sub-rhetoric.
I have to tell the Home Secretary straight away, although I wish to approach the subject with a more reasoned tone than he adopted, that we do not propose to take any lessons in dealing with terrorism from a Government who gave safe passage out of the country to the murderers of WPC Fletcher in order to avoid trouble with the Libyan Government. Nor do we propose to take any lessons on terrorism from a Home Secretary who presided over that matter when the two men most wanted for terrorism escaped from Brixton prison. He has not yet told the House how involved he was in the special branch farce leading to their escape.
The whole issue needs to be discussed in a far calmer way than the Home Secretary seems capable of these days. He behaved today as we have come to expect of him. He discussed the battle against terrorism in the language of an eve-of-poll rally and his last speech from the Dispatch Box has confirmed the reputation that he has established during years in this House—the cheapest Home Secretary this century.
I do not propose to reply in kind but to tell the Home Secretary that the record of the past 13 years shows that the Tory Government have been no more successful in their battle against terrorism than in their fight against crime. The shouting that we have heard today was intended to obscure failure. In government, the Labour party will fight terrorism with no less passion than the Government have shown but with more practical determination. Consequently, we shall have more practical success. I therefore propose to set out the practical changes that are needed.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hattersley: No.
I repeat the view that I expressed a year ago—indeed, it was less than a year ago because, for reasons that we can only guess, this debate has been brought forward: the fight against terrorism would be best conducted with all-party agreement about methods and objectives. The idea that all-party agreement requires committees seems to have been developed by the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), yesterday.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls rose—
Mr. Kenneth Hind rose—
Mr. Hattersley: If the Home Secretary is taking his lead from the Minister of State, no wonder he gets into so much trouble so often. Last week and again today, the Secretary of State rejected the idea of all-party agreement or an attempt at consensus because he is clearly looking for

697
single-party advantage. I must make it clear to him that, once the election is over, we shall renew the offer. We realise that all-party agreement is necessary if terrorism is to be defeated.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way, or is he frightened?
Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman terrifies me. That is why I am not giving way.
We realise that all-party agreement cannot be obtained by one side of the House—the Government—taking arbitrary decisions and expecting the other side of the House—the Opposition—to fall into line. If the Government want a common view on the subject, they must discuss what that common view should be. That will be our intention after the general election.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hattersley: No. I must make some progress.
There is already complete agreement between the parties on three parts of the Act. Parts I and III of the Act should not cause contention between us. None of us likes proscribing political organisations, yet all of us agree that, in the present circumstances, proscription is undoubtedly necessary. The IRA has no legitimate existence in a democratic society and we wholly endorse the part of the Act that makes it clear that it has no legal or legitimate role.
We also agree that is essential to prohibit the raising or provision of funds to finance terrorism. In our view, parts I and III of the Act must remain. Indeed, I repeat the view that I expressed last year—tougher powers and harsher penalties should be imposed on those who assist in the raising of funds for terrorism or who provide funds for terrorists.
Last year, I asked the Home Secretary whether he would consider operating in England and Wales the special powers available under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. I believe that they should be extended to England and Wales, and I regret that the Home Secretary has not had the resolution to make that extension, which we would certainly have supported.
Part IV of the Act relates to arrest and detention, and requires more detailed examination. The subject needs to be examined against three principles. The first is the necessity to have within the criminal justice system special procedures that deal explicitly with the threat of terrorism. The second obligation is to accept that the special procedures must be consistent with the rule of law. The third obligation is to ensure that the special procedures are effective and obtain the results claimed of them.
Every authority—the Law Society, the Bar and the police—now says that one of the major obstacles in the fight against terrorism is the difficulty of obtaining convictions in terrorist trials, a subject with which the Home Secretary might have dealt when he considered the O'Donnell case. The Home Secretary was explicit in his self-congratulation—one of his great talents on having made an exclusion order against O'Donnell after he had been acquitted. How much better it would have been if O'Donnell had been convicted in this country.
Mr. Hind rose—
Mr. Hattersley: The Law Society, the Bar and the police all specify that a major problem that must be overcome is the difficulty of obtaining convictions in terrorist cases. They unanimously agree that part IV of the prevention of terrorism Act does not assist in that process.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Hattersley: I will give way, first, to the hon. Gentleman who is hailing me.
Mr. Nicholls: Before the right hon. Gentleman indulges in behaviour of that sort, he should look at some of the other Labour Front-Bench spokesmen.
The right hon. Gentleman's desire to see IRA terrorists convicted would carry a little more conviction if, every time one were convicted, one of his hon. Friends did not campaign to secure the terrorist's release.
Mr. Hattersley: For a number of reasons, that is one of the most disgraceful comments that I have ever heard in the House. I do not say that in defence of my hon. Friends, who can defend themselves, but on behalf of those men and women who were wrongfully convicted and were allowed out of prison only because of the campaigns of my right hon. and hon. Friends. For the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) to make that charge is not simply an attack on Labour Members, but a suggestion that those men and women who were imprisoned for long periods and then released should not have been released. That is a disgraceful thing for him to say. I shall now give way to a more reasonable Member.
Mr. Alex Carlile: I share the right hon. Gentleman's aspiration to achieve convictions in terrorist cases where guilt can be established by proper and civilised standards. However, I hope that he is not suggesting that we should reduce the standards of proof applied in the criminal courts of this country or the rules of evidence in terrorist cases. Does he not agree that, if the choice is between a potentially unfair conviction and an unfair exclusion order that leaves the subject at liberty, one has to choose the exclusion order every time?
Mr. Hattersley: Of course, I am not arguing for a reduction in the rules of evidence or the standards of procedure. Had I not given way to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he would have discovered that I am arguing for something different, perhaps quite the opposite.
Every authority—the Law Society, the Bar and the police—makes exactly the same point: part IV of the PTA does not assist in the process of obtaining convictions. The civil liberties arguments about how sections of that part work are overwhelming, but so is the practical argument that, if we are to improve the prospects of terrorists being convicted in British courts, it is essential to make some changes to that part.
I accept that a period of extended detention, even before charge, may be necessary; but the question is: how is that extension to be approved and how is the suspect to be treated during the period of the detention? That becomes particularly important when we recall that the suspect is arrested on reasonable suspicion alone; and doubly important when we realise that last year 153 persons—an extraordinary figure—were detained, yet only four of them were charged under the PTA.
In last year's report Lord Colville, to whom I offer my congratulations as the Home Secretary offered his, dealt at

699
length with extended detentions—extended up to the limit of seven days, extended not by judicial decision but by ministerial fiat. I do not doubt for a moment that the Home Secretary looked with great care and in person at each one of these orders, yet—this ought to concern a democratic House of Commons—is it right that a period of imprisonment can in effect be imposed by a Minister of the Crown, for that is what this provision amounts to?
I agree entirely with Lord Colville's general conclusion on the subject. He said last year:
"It is now perhaps irresistible that some new tribunal be set up to oversee these powers. It could draw on Scottish and Channel Island methodology."
He called for a "bold new initiative". This was not said by some Back-Bench Members of the Labour party about whom the Home Secretary has nightmares, nor by some radical in a civil rights organisation: it was said by the noble peer invited by the Home Secretary to conduct an inquiry into his own procedures. And the noble peer called for a bold new initiative on the way in which detention orders are extended. I make it clear today that we will provide—
Ms. Clare Short: Would my right hon. Friend like to add that this noble peer is also a former Tory Home Office Minister, yet he is making these criticisms of the Act?
Mr. Hattersley: All these things add up to a formidable biography which should encourage the Home Secretary to take the noble Lord's words seriously, to weigh them genuinely and to react to them sensibly.
The Home Secretary knows that by referring to the Scottish and Channel Island methodology Lord Colville was invoking a system that involves an independent—indeed, a quasi-judicial—authority to approve extended detentions. That is why the Scots, unlike the English, have not been arraigned before the European Court for the way in which they extend detention from 48 hours to seven days. It is why the Scots, unlike the English, are not in breach of article 5 of the convention on human rights.
It is true to say that Lord Colville does not believe that the judiciary should approve extended detentions, since he said that that is not consistent with our legal traditions. That is why he talks about a new tribunal, but I make no apology for saying that I believe that the tribunal should be judicial—ideally, a judge sitting in chambers so that he can approve the detention without any risk of leakage of security information. As the Home Secretary knows, that was the view of the previous Home Secretary, too. He discussed this reform with the judges who were unwilling, or felt themselves unable, to co-operate in that scheme. I have no doubt that, if pressed by a determined Government, they will accept the scheme, so that this breach of the European convention, this damage to the reputation of our legal system and this deterrent to obtaining convictions, will thus be removed.
Mr. Hind: Lord Colville clearly supports the idea of detention orders and believes that they are necessary. Does the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Hattersley: Of course I do, which is why I said so five minutes ago. If the hon. Gentleman likes, I can repeat what I said. I accept that in special circumstances in the fight against terrorism extended detention may be
700
necessary, but I believe, with Lord Colville and unlike the Home Secretary, that there should be judicial review before there is an extension from 48 hours to seven days. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now concentrate so that he will not have to ask me to repeat what I have said.
This leaves the question of how we treat the suspect while he is in detention or the subject of extended detention. I take at its face value the assertion of previous Home Secretaries that the object of detention is not to trawl for information—it is not a haphazard intelligence-gathering exercise. It is a genuine attempt, after detaining a man or woman on suspicion, to prevent an offence from being committed, or to prosecute and convict the man or woman for an offence that has been committed. That requires common sense as well as respect for the rights of the suspect during the process of interrogation.
The suspects of whom we speak are not protected by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. However, that is the protection, the safeguard, which the Home Secretary insists on claiming would protect them and prevent a recurrence of the miscarriages of justice which have sent so many innocent men and women to prison in the past 20 years.
If the Maguires, the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six were charged again today, they would not be charged under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, with all the safeguards that that involves, but under the PTA without any of those safeguards. It was making exactly that point that led the new chairman of the Criminal Bar Association to say on television last week that it was no wonder the courts would not convict in terrorist cases, when the normal safeguards of interrogation were not available during the period between arrest and trial.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Perhaps I could help the right hon. Gentleman to make himself clear. He says that if the Birmingham Six were charged today they would be charged not under PACE but under the PTA. Charging is quite different from the arrest or holding of people in custody, which is done under the PTA. But the charge would be what it was—murder—and the criminal law would be used, not PACE.
Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and he makes my point with a precision that I wish I had used. They would have been detained under the PTA. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing up the argument that I was trying to address. As they would have been detained under the PTA, they would not have enjoyed any of the protection that would have been available to them under PACE. [Interruption.] If the Home Secretary wishes to argue with that contention, he will have to do so against all authority because that is undoubtedly the case. It is precisely because of that point that the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association said on television that it was not surprising that courts would not convict when detention did not carry with it safeguards governing rules of evidence that are common in the country. That is a tragically dangerous state of affairs and steps must be taken to remedy it.
I understand that it was in order to defeat that difficulty that the Home Secretary ordered the pilot scheme by which interviews conducted with PTA detainees in Liverpool and London are now being taped. I am surprised that the Home Secretary is arguing the point. I

701
have twice discussed the issue at length with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. He made it plain to me that he does not think that there should be any legislative change until the results of the pilot scheme are available. However, he puts the case for universal recording with such clarity that he needs a wider audience. I think that the Home Secretary has a copy of the letter that the commissioner sent to me. That is surprising, but I do not complain about it. As the Home Secretary will know from his oversight of my private correspondence the commissioner said:
"There is a strong argument that because interviews with all other suspects are recorded, the courts, juries and the public will see this as normal and accepted practice."
The commissioner then commented on how some lawyers would behave and went on to state:
"it is all very well saying that the law exempts such cases, but it is the effect on the jury that must be of concern."
I have made it plain, and I am happy to repeat it if the Home Secretary wants me to, that the commissioner went on to argue the opposite case and gave his view that no changes should be made until the results of the pilot scheme were announced. I could not have put the commissioner's view more clearly.
It is also suggested that some of the problem lies in Northern Ireland, and that the Home Secretary would act to provide PACE-style safeguards if he did not feel that that would prove detrimental to the position there. I hope that the Minister of State will deal with that point when he winds up the debate. We should not forget that, last year, Lord Colville told us that some members of the Northern Ireland judiciary were now pressing for the recording of interviews with suspects, and pressing for that to be done quickly. Let me make it clear that we shall introduce as many PACE safeguards as possible, and that the taping of interviews will be one of them. It is right in principle and necessary in practice, if convictions are to be obtained.
The third contentious area is, of course, part II, which deals with exclusion orders. Such orders have been described—not least by Sir Cyril Phillips, another of the distinguished gentlemen invited by the Home Secretary to conduct a review of the Act—as "internal exile". Sir Cyril, the first examiner of the Act, said that they should be abandoned, as their advantages were
"difficult to demonstrate in a convincing way."
In 1987 Lord Colville—I shall not give details of his impeccable pedigree—said that he believed that outright abolition of exclusion orders was the proper course. A year later, he said:
"I renew my recommendation that Part Two of the Act should not be renewed or replaced in the new Bill."
Twice, the Home Secretary rejected the recommendation of his own adjudicator. In 1987, Lord Colville accepted —as was required of him—that the last word rested with the Home Secretary. This year, he has observed—rather gloomily, some would say—that, while the rules governing exclusion orders have been meticulously observed—and I do not doubt that—where renewal was concerned,
"It is not for me to argue otherwise."
We shall accept Lord Colville's advice. We believe that exclusion orders are wrong in principle, and counterproductive in practice. It must surely be offensive to parts of the United Kingdom, such as Northern Ireland, to be treated like a dumping ground for terrorists from the mainland, and that certainly alienates law-abiding citizens who are caught unjustly by the provisions.
702
It is not only those who are excluded who are inconvenienced, temporarily imprisoned and, by implication, mortally insulted. Only 11 new exclusion orders were made last year—that is shown in table 9 of the statistics—but 10 times as many people were detained at ports and told that they were being considered for exclusion orders. I can think of nothing more likely to alienate the law-abiding Northern Ireland citizen from the process of law in this country than being treated in such a way.
It is, overwhelmingly, the question of exclusion orders that provides the illusion of activity; yet it may well be that, in the case that the Home Secretary chose to cite, the exclusion order did no more than transfer danger from one part of the United Kingdom to another—and, indeed, intensify the danger when the excluded man was returned to his colleagues, comrades and fellow conspirators. I want such people to be convicted, and they will not be convicted unless the prevention of terrorism Act is changed in such a way that the courts will respond to it in the manner that I believe even the Home Secretary hopes that they will.
In the time available to me, I have made two positive suggestions for change. I conclude as I began, by saying that those changes will come about; but I still believe that much would be gained in the fight against terrorism if they were agreed and supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Only the terrorist can secure anything approaching benefit from the kind of display that we saw from the Home Secretary, and from the suggestion that we are not resolute in our determination to beat terrorism. Although we may disagree about the ways in which it can be achieved, our common purpose is to drive the terrorist out of the United Kingdom once and for all.
Mr. Sayeed: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hattersley: No; I am finishing my speech now.
No one who has heard what the Labour party has to say on this subject could possibly interpret our view in the way in which the Home Secretary has chosen to interpret it today. The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, continue to do so between now and polling day, but that does not diminish us; it diminishes him. We shall go on saying what is right and necessary and when we are elected in six weeks' time we shall put that into operation.
4.39 pm
Sir John Wheeler: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He is, if I may put it in my own words, a very distinguished parliamentary relic. What he has said about the measure is of very great importance. In the few moments that I have, I intend to touch on some of those issues. I am bound to say, however, that the right hon. Gentleman's speech lacked any potential for exciting intestinal commotions, due to its curious construction and the way in which he sat on the hedge when it came to some of these very complicated issues.
The right hon. Gentleman's reference in his opening remarks to the Libyan embassy incident of many years ago was, frankly, both shameful and unfortunate. His attempt to link my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary with the escape from Brixton prison was unworthy of him. I am sorry that he chose to introduce those remarks into the debate when there were serious questions to be considered, which he subsequently went on to discuss.

703
The difficulty for the House is that all of us on both sides, regardless of party, are united in the belief that we should prefer to do without this Act altogether. It is an exceptional Act to deal with the exceptional activity of terrorism. The very nature of the terrorist act requires measures to be available to those who have to fight terrorism in a practical way. The justification for these measures must be whether the police and the law enforcement agencies in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom think that the Act and its measures are necessary and desirable. My advice is that they do. They have said so to me on a number of occasions. As long as the police and the intelligence agencies make their case —that they require the provisions of this Act—it behoves the House to give them the support that they deserve.
Mr. Hind: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that we expect that the Labour party will vote against the order sends entirely the wrong message to those who are actively involved in terrorism, both on the mainland in the United Kingdom and in Northern Ireland and elsewhere—that in some way we are divided over this vital matter which affects the protection of our community not only in Britain but in Northern Ireland itself? Does my hon. Friend feel that this is a shame and that it should be rectified, and that on this occasion the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and his supporters should think again?
Sir John Wheeler: My hon. Friend is right to make that point. If the suggestion is that we should repeal the Act and replace it with a committee of the House, which seems to be the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, it would appear that, somehow or another, the institution of Parliament is not united behind the police in giving them what they say they require in order to maintain their prosecution of terrorism.
Mr. Hattersley: I must let the hon. Gentleman into a secret. The point that he makes about a committee of the House is a simple absurdity. From time to time Ministers of the Crown, even as illustrious as the Secretary of State for the Home Department, ask their opposite numbers to discuss with them matters that they believe to be in the national interest. I am happy for the Home Secretary to make public every occasion that he has made that request to me. What I am saying is that this is one of the occasions when a similar technique should be operated. The idea of a committee is an invention of the Minister of State and by definition, therefore, is trivial.
Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes his position clear. If, as I understand it, he implies that there should be an occasional meeting of right hon. Members who are members of Her Majesty's Privy Council to discuss the operation of the Act, or how it should be amended, or what further additions should be made to it, I have to point out to him that that is what happens today and that it has prevailed for many years.
Mr. Hattersley: Oh, no, it has not.
Sir John Wheeler: It is perfectly possible for Privy Councillors to have discussions of the kind that he suggests without there being a vote against the Act, or a
704
repeal of the Act, because there would flow from such discussions any changes that were thought to be desirable. As I have already said, however, the substantive reason for retaining the Act on the statute book is that the police and the law enforcement agencies believe it to be essential. Are we to go against the overwhelming weight of professional advice when the incidence of terrorism prevails in the United Kingdom as well as in Northern Ireland?
Sir Anthony Durant: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Sir John Wheeler: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to finish this point.
Statistical information relating to the operation of the Act provides evidence that we are also dealing with a rising tide of international terrorism, which is also caught and covered by the provisions of the Act.
Sir Anthony Durant: Does not my hon. Friend find it surprising that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) did not answer the Home Secretary's question about Lord Mason and Lord Jenkins, both of whom are distinguished members of his party, who support the Act?
Sir John Wheeler: My hon. Friend is right. Two distinguished Privy Councillors have expressed a view. Whether there would be any further purpose, therefore, in a wider gathering of Privy Councillors to cogitate on the progress of the Act seems to me to be doubtful. It sounds to me very much like a case of avoiding the principle of the issue. There are some in the Labour party who are resolutely opposed to the Act and who intend to vote against its continuance. I understand the difficulty that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook faces in that context.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the exclusion orders. The statistics show that there have been few such orders. They can be subject to independent review by the three adjudicators, the so-called wise men. Provision has been made for that. Adjudicators are thought to be desirable. They are used only in extreme cases and remain a valuable tool.
The right hon. Gentleman also touched on the tape recording of interviews and, allied to that, the video recording of interviews.
Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir John Wheeler: Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to develop this point, and then I shall give way.
Of course, the tape recording of interviews is a thoroughly desirable objective, with which I have considerable sympathy, as the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis set out in his letter to the right hon. Gentleman and as he has said to me in conversation. The difficulty, however, if there are tape recordings or video recordings of interviews with terrorist suspects, is whether they subsequently become available to the courts and thus come under public scrutiny and put in jeopardy the lives of people who are fighting terrorism, or the lives of would-be informants, or the lives of the individuals themselves. The behaviour of suspects during interviews and the statements that suspects may make in private to the police and other officers are often significant and helpful in the combating of terrorism. That is the danger—terrorism is exceptional and cannot be treated in the same way as fraud, auto-crime or burglary.
Ms. Short: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to the question of exclusion orders? It seems that the logic of exclusion orders is to remove from Britain people who are thought to be dangerous and who might be involved in killing people for political purposes and to send them to Northern Ireland where the network of those who kill for political purposes is more powerful. Those people are, therefore, more likely to kill, so the logic is that life in Northern Ireland is less important and less valuable than life in Britain. That is outrageous. Our laws should seek to convict those believed to be involved in terrorism rather than to dump them in Northern Ireland.
Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Lady because she raises issues to which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred. As she must know, herein lies the difficulty of obtaining convictions for criminal offences committed by persons who are called terrorists—there is no such thing as a crime of terrorism. A person must be arraigned before a jury in England or Wales and charged with a criminal offence. Evidence must be obtained and presented to the jury, which must be able, without any qualification, to convict on that evidence.
As the hon. Lady will know, it is very difficult to obtain that information in the case of terrorists. One reason why it is difficult is that some information that comes into the possession of the police and others cannot be made public in the court room without putting in jeopardy other anti-terrorist operations. These are the difficulties which the House, the police and the judicial system suffer. In Northern Ireland one-judge Diplock courts must operate because of the threat that terrorists make to would-be jurors. We regret that, but we must face reality.
The hon. Lady also said that it was wrong for people excluded from England, Wales and Scotland to be returned to Northern Ireland. But if they hail from Northern Ireland they must go back to the Province if that is where their home is. She then said that such people could be a further threat to the citizens of Northern Ireland. Some hon. Members may make the case—and I have heard some do so to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—for selective internment so that such people do not pose a threat to the citizens of Northern Ireland. I shall not make that case—I leave it to others who may choose to do so—but that is the implication of the hon. Lady's intervention.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: Does not it strengthen my hon. Friend's argument to recall that, from time to time, the IRA has taken on the additional dimension of a mainland campaign and that exclusion orders can therefore be seen as a specific weapon to combat that dimension of IRA activity?
Sir John Wheeler: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know that terrorists have operated on the continent of Europe and the issues that we face are very complicated.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook considered the report by Lord Colville of Culross. I have also read that report and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that it is a thorough review and that we should be grateful to Lord Colville for the independence and objectivity of mind that he brought to it.
The problem is that in a democracy, while we may review the issue, that review does not necessarily produce the evidence for abandoning the provisions of the Act. I
706
continue to support the Act's substantial provisions, including that to proscribe terrorist organisations. It would be inconceivable for persons in England to parade through the streets seeking to raise funds for or to promote a terrorist cause in the aftermath of some terrible incident that had been seen on the nation's television screens and for there to be no way of proscribing that activity. There would be considerable outrage among people, so it is essential that the proscribing provision should remain part of the Act.
The power to arrest and to detain people for up to 48 hours and for extensions thereof under the authority of the Secretary of State is also essential. Examination of the statistics shows that the Secretary of State's authorisation is sparingly given in a limited number of cases, but the fact that it exists and that officials must convince the Secretary of State of the necessity to allow an extension is a reasonable balance of rights, and it is vital that the power remains in the Act.
Another essential power is that of controlling the movements of passengers into and out of the United Kingdom. In the coming years, the issue of the removal of internal frontiers within the Community will make that provision all the more important. Police agencies advise that without that power to control the movement of certain parties into and out of the United Kingdom they would be in serious jeopardy. We must continue to review matters in the light of developments within the Community.
The Bill remains an important part—although not the whole—of our fight against terrorism, whether it originates within the United Kingdom or externally. Of the 121 detentions in 1991, 79 per cent. were in connection with Northern Irish terrorism, but it is significant that 32 detentions in 1991 were in connection with international terrorism, a problem which is increasing within the European Community and the world in general. On that basis alone, it is essential that the provision to control movement into and out of the United Kingdom is available to the police and other authorities to enable them to continue the fight for liberty and democracy on behalf of the overwhelming majority of ordinary people in this country.
4.57 pm
Ms. Clare Short: I feel enormous disrespect for the Home Secretary's attempt today to use the grave and terrible problem of violence in Northern Ireland for cheap party-political purposes. How low will the Government stoop? The issue of violence in Northern Ireland is of enormous importance and is one of the gravest with which the House must deal. We are talking about life or death for large and, sadly, at the moment increasing numbers of people.
One would expect the House to rise to the seriousness of the challenge and to discuss the problem with great sincerity and thoroughness. However, the Home Secretary gave the lead and, in their interventions, members of the Tory party tried merely to play games because they think that they can score points which will help them in the forthcoming general election.
As has been mentioned, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 was introduced by a Labour Government in the immediate aftermath of the Birmingham pub bombings when there was an atomsphere of enormous anger—even

707
hysteria—in the country and in the House. There was also enormous fear at the the Home Office that the House would push through the reintroduction of capital punishment.
At that time I was working in the Home Office as a private secretary to one of its Ministers of State. Roy Jenkins' fear was very great and the Prevention of Terrorism Act was cobbled together very rapidly. I sat in the Box and listened on the night it was debated. Roy Jenkins had asked Brian Walden—a former Labour Member of Parliament for Birmingham, Ladywood who has admitted to me that he can always argue any case—to speak against the reintroduction of capital punishment. He made a brilliant speech in the context of a powerful and overwhelming fear in the Home Office.
Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an ex-civil servant, who is now a Member of the House, to talk about what went on—which presumably includes advice to Ministers—during the time when she was a civil servant? I have never heard anything like that in my life.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It is not a matter for the Chair. It is the responsibility of the hon. Lady.
Ms. Short: That is absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker: it is my responsibility. As I believe that the matter is of such importance and that it is a matter of life or death for people in Northern Ireland, it is important to share that experience with the House. It may elevate the tone of the debate and enable serious discussion about the merits or demerits of the Act. There is nothing improper and there is nothing that the public should not know. We have even been told this weekend that the Prime Minister may suddenly be in favour of a freedom of information Act. If we had such an Act, everyone in the world would be able to see the documentation to which I am referring.
I have described the mood and the fear. The Bill was put together very rapidly. I discussed whether it would have any merit with the man who put it together. He agreed that its main purpose was to prevent the restoration of capital punishment. Thank heavens that that was done otherwise the six men who spent all those years in prison for the Birmingham pub bombing would be dead instead of having been released after suffering that long deprivation of liberty. The people who were convicted of the Guildford bombings would be dead if the Tory party had had its way that night. The poor, wretched man whom the previous Tory Home Secretary so badly failed to defend and who was falsely convicted of the murder of a young girl would also be dead. I have described the purpose of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which prevented something much worse that night.
It is the duty of any serious people who sit in the House to look at the Act's record to see whether it achieves anything and whether it prevents terrorism. Have we reached the point at which calling the legislation the "Prevention of Terrorism" Act means that it can never be scrutinised? As it has its purpose in its title, does that mean that anyone who says that the Act may not be effective or that it may need changing will instantly be accused of being soft on terrorism? That is what is going on in the House today and it is beneath contempt.
Mr. Barry Porter: I agree entirely with the hon. Lady that this matter should be debated rationally. I point out to her that if the purpose of the Act was to avoid the reintroduction of capital punishment, it could have been repealed quickly once the hoo-hah had died down; it was not.
After the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Maguires, matters have changed. I am especially concerned about the way in which the Act deals with people who are in detention, which could be improved in practice. There is nothing wrong with discussing that; indeed, it is entirely right that we should discuss that. However, if the Labour party insists on voting against the Act tonight, people over there will not see it like that. They will see it as a sign of division and weakness in the House. I will discuss the Act with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) or with any Labour Members as long as they say that they agree that the purpose of the Act is to defeat terrorism. The Act is one part of the armoury, so let us keep it. However, it can and should be improved.
Ms. Short: I give the hon. Gentleman credit for being big enough to say—which is more than any other Conservative Members have—that the Act could be improved in the provisions dealing with the way in which people are detained, which led to the mistreatment of the Birmingham Six. We should learn from that and modify the powers of detention. However, the hon. Gentleman then went on to play the Government's game.
All hon. Members know that the Labour party wants to prevent and end violence in Northern Ireland as much as any Conservative Member does. Any serious politician knows that to be the truth. Yet what are Tory Members doing today? They are taunting us and trying to pretend that Labour is soft on terrorism. If anything is sending a confused message to Northern Ireland it is that silly, crass party political game which the Tory party is playing today. It is not any argument that Labour is putting forward.
Our party introduced the Act, so we feel responsible for it. We have looked at its record and we know that vast numbers of people have been detained under it, but then never charged. We, especially those of us who, like me, are of Irish origin and are in contact with people of Irish origin in this country, know that the 8 million people of Irish descent in Britain are angry with, alienated by and fearful of the Act. They are fearful that completely innocent people will be stopped and detained.
Anyone who is serious about bringing terrorism to an end knows that we must foster a great sense of trust in the security services and belief in the justice of the criminal justice system so that people will pass on information and have confidence in the system. Mao said that terrorists were the fish who swim in the sea of the public's attitudes and he spoke about the public's alienation from the system. It is overwhelmingly the case that people of Irish origin in Britain hate violence in Northern Ireland. They feel it more deeply than most English people do because they are aware of the involvement and history of their own people in that struggle. I feel it deeply myself. Most hon. Members know that my father came from Northern Ireland. It is an issue of great concern to us.
There is no doubt that the Act alienates people who hate terrorism and who hate the IRA from our criminal justice system generally and from the police force. They feel that they are in danger of being wrongly detained

709
when they visit Ireland. The Act has had an effect opposite to the effect that the title claims. It helps to create an atmosphere of alienation from a sense of confidence in the security services in Britain. Terrorist organisations want to engender such an atmosphere. That is our main and overwhelming criticism of the Act, and it is a serious criticism. I have described the true feeling among the Irish community and I wish that the Tory party would take that seriously.
The level of support in Northern Ireland for the men of violence is declining rapidly. Hon. Members may remember that the IRA went out of existence in the 1960s when it fizzled out after the border campaign. There was no IRA in Northern Ireland. We want to learn from that and to achieve that again. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is here today, knows that many of us have respect for his approach to questions in Northern Ireland. The way to achieve our objective is for people in Northern Ireland and Irish people in Britain to know that Britain behaves justly in Northern Ireland and that it is against all discrimination, that the criminal justice system is fair, that people will be treated properly, that change can be achieved democratically, and that violence is out of order and should never be supported or applauded.
We can make greater progress. My own party's approach, both generally in its policy for Northern Ireland of working for the reunification of Ireland, but with the consent of the majority of people in the country, and specifically in advocating the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and of retaining only the powers necessary effectively to catch terrorists, will speed the day when violence will end in Northern Ireland. The Tory party's attitude today is deeply shameful. Playing games with the question shows that it has no standards at all in this pre-election period.
5.6 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said that the IRA went out of existence. We are not dealing now with the Official IRA; we are dealing with the Provisional IRA. The Provisional IRA has never been out of existence since it began. We are dealing with a different organisation altogether and with something which has been spawned in the recent violence and was helped forward by certain parties in the Irish Republic. We are dealing with a campaign of violence which was never paralleled in Northern Ireland by the stickies, as the Official WA is called. The House should be clear about what we are up against.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that the only way to defeat terrorism is by all-party agreement in the House. I challenge that. I sat in the House when the legislation went through. I have been in the House for 22 years and there has been a wide consensus between Labour and Conservative Governments about how they should deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland. Have they defeated terrorism in Northern Ireland? There has been agreement in the House, but it has not defeated terrorism in Northern Ireland. We should not be looking at the sad and tragic state of Ulster today if terrorism had been defeated because of consensus in the House.
There is only one thing that will defeat terrorism. The House does not like to hear it and never did like to hear it.
710
Terrorism will be defeated not by consensus or agreement in this House but when the ruling Government of the time put it down with courage and resolution. Terrorism can be destroyed only when those who bear responsibility make the necessary effort and ask the House for the necessary powers to defeat it.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and others have argued that there is great difficulty in getting terrorist convictions in the courts. If that is so, what happens when one lets a person like O'Donnell out? I do not criticise the jury in the O'Donnell trial; no doubt they were honest people trying to reach an honest decision. There were a lot of pressures, arising from the cases of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, at the time when the jury was trying to reach a decision. With all the eloquence of Irish blarney, O'Donnell completely bluffed that jury. He talked about his belief in God. He talked about his family and said that he was brought up to oppose violence.
I have some knowledge of Irish republicanism and of the way in which Irish republicans act. They can bluff, and that jury was bluffed. Many of them said, "This is a decent fellow who has got into difficulties. We must decide in his favour."
What is one to do with an O'Donnell—or with a multitude of O'Donnells—if one cannot get a conviction in a court of law? What can one do, other than use the exclusion order? The only option is to return such people. That is the argument that the Opposition must face. I do not like Northern Ireland being a dumping ground for terrorists, but I would rather limit the terrorists to certain places. I should have thought that, after what happened in London, O'Donnell's effectiveness in England would be over, and that he would probably have come back to Northern Ireland anyway. The point is that he was arrested in Northern Ireland and the police could not get evidence to charge him and put him to a court hearing. We know what happened thereafter.
Mr. Martin Flannery: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and pay tribute to him, because he profoundly believes what he says. Many of us believe differently, however, and if there is one thing about the prevention of terrorism Act that stands out a mile it is that it does not prevent terrorism. In fact, terrorism is worse now than it has practically ever been. I was here on the night when the bombs went off. There was no bluffing about what happened to the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, the Maguires and others. Not only does the Act not prevent terrorism; it does terrible things to people and thus encourages terrorism.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not think that the Act is responsible for what happens in the courts after a terrorist is charged. That is a matter for the courts. There can be miscarriages of justice in the best possible society. That happens, as we saw recently in another case that had nothing to do with terrorism. My point is that if one argues, first, that it is difficult to get a terrorist conviction in court and, secondly, that one cannot do anything with the people when they are let out, internment is the only option. That is the only way to take them out of society.
The Home Secretary seemed to think that the fact that those who support terrorism have been banned from speaking on radio or television had been helpful. On our television and radio, that ban has become a farce, because the media use actors to play the Gerry Adamses of this

711
world. Broadcasters say, "You cannot hear these people because of legislation," but then get an actor to repeat what they have said. That is the height of folly. Moreover, when an election comes, the ban is dropped and these people are suddenly respectable citizens who can fight the election and get whatever coverage the media will give them. That is a travesty and an insult to those dedicated to fighting and defeating terrorism.
We have heard it said that it would be outrageous if marches could be organised after an atrocity—that ordinary people would be outraged. At present, however, Sinn Fein, which is not banned, can organise such marches. That is what we are up against. Even in Glasgow, a march was organised contrary to the wishes of many people in the city. It went ahead in spite of efforts to prevent it and people were, indeed, outraged. I believe—and I remind the Home Secretary that I raised this matter with him last year—that if one is going to ban the IRA, one should ban Sinn Fein, because it is part of the IRA, and the police say that it is part of the IRA.
The leaders of the republicans defend violence. Someone whose relations have been murdered by the IRA may find himself sitting in a council chamber while IRA men posing as Sinn Fein members oppose the council's decision to pass a resolution of condolence. Why should people be forced into such circumstances?
Mr. Terry Dicks: Would the hon. Gentleman be surprised to learn that, for the past four years, my political opponent in the forthcoming election has been organising a platform of Sinn Fein speakers to make a case on the escalating violence in Northern Ireland, because, he says, they have been denied their right to speak on the radio in Northern Ireland?
Rev. Ian Paisley: People who say that should look to the south of Ireland. It was Conor Cruise O'Brien who first introduced the restrictions against the IRA in the south of Ireland. Those restrictions came not from this Government or from this side of the water but from the south of Ireland.
The Government must grasp the nettle. We cannot have IRA men, making the very same statements that IRA men would, wearing the respectable robe of Sinn Fein, as it were. Even in Dublin, the last Ardeis of the IRA was banned from the Mansion house. When asked why, the people said, "Because they support violence." Sinn Fein must be dealt with.
It would be sad if we sent to the people of Northern Ireland—who do not know the ins and outs of what we are discussing, but who know that a prevention of terrorism Act is being discussed—the wrong message. It would be a tragedy if they got the message that the House was divided rather than united on this issue. I know the different arguments, and people are entitled to their views, but we must consider the way in which these matters are perceived in our country, which has its back to the wall.
5.18 pm
Mr. David Trimble: The Home Secretary referred to his broadcasting ban, which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) described as a farce. It is a farce because, often, what happens in practice is that someone else says the words of the banned spokesman
712
while the pictures of the banned spokesman are seen. That is sometimes done so skilfully that it is almost impossible to tell whether one is dealing with the actual person who is speaking. In that way, the ban has been rendered utterly ineffective. Sometimes, people who should be covered by the ban can get round it by making comments that are regarded as not falling within the ban. As the hon. Member for Antrim, North said, that is different from the practice in the Republic of Ireland which, in that respect, is much superior to the practice in the United Kindom.
The terms of the ban in the Republic are the same as in the United Kingdom. In other words, the direction given to the broadcasting authorities in the United Kingdom is in the same words as the legislation in the Irish Republic. The difference arises because a Home Office official provided the broadcasting authorities with guidance in a letter which created two loopholes. Exactly the same wording is interpreted differently in the Republic of Ireland. As the hon. Member for Antrim, North said, the practice in the Republic is superior. To bring the practice in the United Kingdom into line with the practice in the Republic, the guidance provided by the Home Office official—presumably with ministerial support—should be withdrawn. The ban should be operated in exactly the same way in the United Kingdom as it is operated in the Republic.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that another practical effect of the broadcasting ban is that statements can be made by proscribed organisations without any challenge? That prevents the dialogue of debate whereby the ethics and politics of those who support violence can be rebutted in public by those who are opposed to that means of achieving political objectives. That is a much more serious effect of the ban than the facade of caricatures.
Mr. Trimble: I am sorry to have to disagree about that. I have heard it argued that the ban prevents the spokesmen and apologists for the terrorists from being subjected to vigorous cross-examination. There was no evidence of that before the ban. Broadcasters and journalists were singularly lacking in that regard and we know the reason for that: they were scared about what would happen. If the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is suggesting that other political representatives who compete for support with the terrorists would be more vigorous in their attacks on them, that might be a side effect and benefit. However, that is a different matter.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) explained the Labour party's position in respect of the legislation. Although I may be wrong, he seemed to suggest that Labour supported the prevention of terrorism legislation with just three qualifications. He said that Labour supported parts I and III and the principle of part IV; but that he was worried about the safeguards on periods of detention. He said that he was worried about what we might call the Brogan point which relates to how extension is to be authorised. The only other point that he criticised was that in respect of exclusion orders.
If the reservations of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook with regard to the prevention of terrorism Act are limited to those points, which are comparatively minor points in respect of the legislation as a whole, I would have some sympathy with two of his three points. However, I

713
will have no difficulty in supporting the order if there is a Division. I hope that that lead will be given if there is a Division because we would give the wrong message to the country and to the terrorists if there is a Division on the issue in the House and it was revealed that there was substantial opposition to the fight against terrorism.
I support the legislation. Like other hon. Members, I congratulate Lord Colville on his report which is particularly good. However, a general three-hour debate in the House is not an adequate response to the report. I hope that there will be other ways in which parliamentary supervision of the legislation can be enhanced rather than us simply having this brief annual debate. This debate is not an adequate response, safeguard or oversight of such legislation and I hope that we can develop our procedures.
I want to draw attention to the passage in Lord Colville's report that deals with allegations of assault during detention. Of course the police are not all angels and occasionally mistakes are made and officers may not behave as they should. One must admit that occasionally ill treatment has occurred. However, the record shows that such lapses are extremely rare. On the other hand, there are many complaints and the number of complaints is increasing. However, those complaints are very rarely substantiated. The reason for that is that the complaints are made largely to waste police time; to tie up as many police officers as possible in investigating complaints; to inhibit police officers in carrying out their duties. The police know that if they carry out their duties comprehensively or with any enthusiasm or application, complaints will be made. Complaints are made also to muddy the waters by giving a false impression of the way in which the police forces operate.
In his report Lord Colville gives careful consideration to that matter. He shows that documentary evidence to rebut accusations of ill treatment is or could easily be available and could be produced in court if cases of people complaining of ill treatment were fought. I echo Lord Colville's criticism when he says that there appears to be a policy of settling cases when people have brought civil actions against police authorities. That is a wholly bad practice and I hope that it is discontinued.
I hope that a message from the Government will go out to the relevant departments that, when people bring actions against the police alleging ill treatment while in detention, those cases will be fought in open court and the evidence will be produced so that the cases can be resolved properly. The present situation in which complainants are bought off by paying them damages, often in completely unmeritorious cases, does not work and it creates an impression of guilt. As Lord Colville states in his report in his reference to a meeting of the United Nations committee against torture, that committee was given a false impression. Dubious bodies like the Committee on the Administration of Justice in Northern Ireland can use such material to blacken the security forces. Where actions are brought by people who have been interrogated and allege ill treatment, it is important that such cases are fought in open court so that the truth can be established instead of people being allowed to blacken the security forces.
I said earlier that I have some reservations about the legislation. As hon. Members are probably aware, our reservations relate particularly to exclusion orders.I am quite sure that exclusion orders, as they operate under the
714
legislation, are wrong in principle. They send the wrong message. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Ls present today—
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been here throughout the debate.
Mr. Trimble: The Secretary of State said recently in Newcastle upon Tyne:
"The strongest message that we can send from this part of the United Kingdom to our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland is that we are in it together, that we shall stand together to defeat terrorism, and nothing will divide us"—
unless, of course, we happen to find a terrorist in England who comes from Northern Ireland because we will not then stand together. The terrorist will be dumped back with us in Northern Ireland. In practice, exclusion orders undermine what would be the admirable sentiment behind the Secretary of State's words. In this respect, it does not matter so much what one says; what one does is what matters and that disproves the sentiment that was uttered.
Reference has been made to exclusion orders as a form of internal exile. That is not accurate. Under exclusion orders, a person is sent back to the area from which he came. We might consider a real form of internal exile. When the Italians deal with organisations like the Mafia, they have powers of internal exile. People are not exiled to their homes, but elsewhere, perhaps hundreds of miles away from their homes to a place where they are cut off from the organisations of which they are a part and they are kept under police supervision. Ministers might like to consider that form of internal exile. It would be preferable to the so-called internal exile that operates at the moment.
The matter of exclusion orders brings us to the O'Donnell case. The Home Secretary congratulated himself on deporting that gentleman to Northern Ireland after he had been acquitted. We now know, of course, that Mr. O'Donnell became or was a leading member of the east Tyrone brigade of the IRA and was later very active in the killings and bombings that took place in that area. Reference to the O'Donnell case brings up some significant points that should be made.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that the Opposition wanted not exclusion but terrorists to be convicted. I think that I am right in saying that Mr. O'Donnell exercised his so-called right to silence throughout the time he was in custody, remained silent when being questioned, gave the police no indication of what line of defence he would take until the case came up for trial, and then sprang his defence which the jury unfortunately believed. Would the jury have believed that defence had the facts with regard to the accused's behaviour while in custody been available to them?
Only a few years ago, the Government introduced modifications to the so-called right to silence with regard to Northern Ireland. Those modifications, as the Government know, were quite slight. They have not had a dramatic impact; they are modest but useful improvements in the law. If those modest but useful improvements had been available in the O'Donnell case, the jury might have convicted. That case draws attention to the need to bring the law in Great Britain into line with the law in Northern Ireland on that point.

715
Another aspect in which that should be done—it is highlighted on pages 15 to 16 of the report—is what Lord Colville calls the "legislative shambles" of the measures dealing with terrorist finances. As Lord Colville says:
"There is much need for a comprehensive round of reciprocal powers and duties. The 'legislative shambles' was only enhanced by the EPA's 1991."
He goes on to state:
"It may be that these provisions should then be combined with the financial parts of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and its Northern Irish equivalent: there is still nothing of that sort available in Scotland."
In so far as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook argued for uniform provisions throughout the United Kingdom, I fully agree with him. I was surprised that the Home Secretary suggested that the provisions would not work in Great Britain. I should be very interested if any reason can be given showing why they would not work.
Comprehensive uniform provision for the whole United Kingdom should not be limited simply to terrorist finances but should cover the whole range of anti-terrorist legislation. As has been said before, there is a clear need for a single United Kingdom-wide anti-terrorist Act which covers the whole range, rather than some powers being available in Northern Ireland, some powers available in Great Britain and not an exact match between the two. One aspect in which the mismatch is obvious concerns the lists of proscribed organisations. Only two are proscribed in Great Britain, but eight are proscribed in Northern Ireland. That is crazy and it underlines the need for comprehensive United Kingdom-wide legislation. Lord Colville refers to another need. Page 2 of his report states:
"At present it is unclear what will happen after next January. It is no good relegating this issue…I find it extremely disturbing that there is so much uncertainty on the ground. Nobody now supposes that terrorists will book themselves on to obvious flights; for the Northern Irish from the Island to GB Ports; for the international from far afield to major international airports. Who thinks they are so naive? Experience shows the reverse.
I remain of the opinion that the idea of 'designation' of air and seaports, founded solely on a sufficient traffic within the Common Travel Area, is misconceived…What will happen next year about frontier controls in Great Britain depends entirely on the extent of a police presence if Customs and Immigration withdraw, in part at least. Parliament might also wish to contemplate the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, on which I have commented before."
Lord Colville is referring to what will happen in the context of what we call 1992 and the European Community—what will happen to the powers with regard to movement into the United Kingdom as a whole.
Many of the prevention of terrorism provisions deal with the movement of people between Northern Ireland or the island of Ireland and Great Britain. We need more comprehensive provisions dealing with movement into and out of the United Kingdom as a whole. We must have provisions that operate not just at airports and ports on either side of the Irish sea but at airports and ports facing the continent. Lord Colville suggests that, on occasions, instead of moving directly from the island of Ireland to Great Britain, terrorists move indirectly through continental staging posts and thus are not caught by the legislation. We need more comprehensive provisions that will work despite what the European Community does on movement within the EC as a result of 1992. We might also, as Lord Colville says,
716
"contemplate the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic".
That border remains, as many security force personnel have said, a resource for terrorists, and the sooner that it is subject to detailed control, the better.
5.35 pm
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I hate the party game. I resent the idea that everything said by the Opposition is wrong, bad, unworthy and so on and that everything said by one's own party is right and virtuous. I always look for the good points in the Labour party's policy, realising that Labour Members sometimes—in my opinion, anyway—get it right and sometimes have constructive points to make about legislation. However, on this issue, there is absolutely no excuse at all for their policy. It is absolutely contemptible.
Labour Members are assisting the enemies of this country under the guise of the protection of civil liberties, but they know that the people whom they are assisting come from a minority of people within the United Kingdom who are engaged in violence against the majority because they cannot get their own way through the ballot box. So they have chosen to set aside the ballot box and ordinary civilised methods of persuasion and use violence instead. Labour Members know very well that it is out of the appeasement of Irish republicanism, which has infiltrated their own ranks, that they do not support restrictions on terrorists.
If Labour Members cannot see the connection between those two points—they are continually suggesting that there is no connection— they must be fools. However, Labour Members' attitude to this subject is one in respect of which they cannot be accused of folly, because they are not fools. They know very well what they are doing. They know the effect that it has on the country, especially on our enemies—on Irish republicans who take to violence. They know that it is interpreted as encouragement, not opposition. Because they appease the men of violence, they share the same objective—a united Ireland which would involve the overcoming of British people in Northern Ireland.
Opposition Front-Bench Members are very sensitive about this matter. Individually, they are decent and honourable people. That is why they are so sensitive about it. They know very well that their motive is unworthy. The motive of the Labour party and its policy is unworthy. It is directed against the interests of the people of this country generally; it is directed against the British nation. Yet Labour Members pursue it. Why is that? It is for unworthy motives.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) protests that the reason why Labour Members will not support the very legislation that they themselves brought in is some defect which has suddenly appeared and which is contrary to civil liberties in this country. We must examine their specific points of complaint. For example, who has the right to agree and authorise an extended period of interview of suspects? I can see that there is a strong argument in principle for saying that that right should be conferred on some sort of judicial authority. That point is certainly debatable and arguable. But it is no justification for voting against the very measure that is directed against terrorism in Britain.

717
That argument is spurious; it is bogus; it is unworthy of the intelligence of Members of Parliament who make it; it is petty. Yet that is how Labour Members argue.
Mr. Robin Corbett: What about Colville's recommendations?
Mr. Stanbrook: The name Colville has just been mentioned. Of course, Colville is in favour of the continuation of the order in principle and in general. He suggests intelligent, sensible and reasonable modifications. It would certainly be open to the Labour party to propose such modifications. The time to do so is when the principle of the Bill has been accepted. That is the same principle that we apply to all legislation. We debate the principle on Second Reading. If there is a point, an amendment or an improvement to be made or if some particular part of the Bill is unacceptable we debate it in Standing Committee. Individual Members and parties have their opportunity to vote against it. That is not what the Labour party is doing on this occasion. The Labour party is voting against the whole of the special legislation directed against terrorism.
I do not know why I should bother about the Labour party's position, because, after all, it is a point against the Labour party in the minds of the general public. The public cannot understand why the attitude of the Labour party is so feeble and spineless and why it is apparently willing to appease the enemies of this country and the violence that they bring upon us all.
Of course, terrorism is not merely one problem for Britain. It is an evil; it is a wicked thing, the greatest of all crimes; it is murder and creating mayhem for no other reason than a desire to achieve some political objective or change in policy. That is the terrorist's justification for the wanton violence which kills innocent men, women and children not only in Northern Ireland but on the mainland.
Therefore, we are justified in bringing all our resources to bear on the problem of terrorism. So far, we have not done so. However, I say that knowing that in recent years and certainly recent months additional resources have been made available to deal with the problem. I believe that recent measures will be effective in due course. The measures that have been taken cannot necessarily be revealed, but can it be denied that the prevention of terrorism Acts are one of the legislative weapons that must be used in the battle? There are many others.
I support a measure that has always been rejected when I have put it to the Government. I believe that once a terrorist is convicted the appropriate punishment for him is imprisonment for the duration. It should not be a limited term—five or 10 years or whatever—so that he may go back out on the streets and commit his offences again. I am sure that the proportion of recidivists in the terrorist population is higher than among ordinary criminals. Such a measure seems only common sense if we are to tighten up our anti-terrorist laws. Let the terrorist who has been convicted of terrorism stay in prison until all terrorism comes to an end. I can think of no more effective way of ensuring that it does.
One must also accept that there is much support for the political objective of the terrorists in the island of Ireland. Unfortunately, that is why there is no consensus between the two sides of the House about the ways in which to tackle terrorism. There is so much support that devices such as this legislation might not be effective. Political
718
measures have to be taken. Otherwise, the problem might remain with us. There will always be people who contend for a united Ireland.
The Republic of Ireland makes claim in its constitution to sovereignty over Northern Ireland. We are all exercised at present by another section of its constitution which seems equally foolish and in need of revision. If the Irish Republic wanted to contribute towards peace, stability and reconciliation in Northern Ireland it would renounce the clause of its constitution which claims sovereignty over Northern Ireland. It gives spurious legitimacy to the men of violence. After all, what are those men doing? They are simply trying to achieve by force what cannot be achieved by the ballot box and democratic means.
The supreme court of the Republic of Ireland said in a recent judgment that the IRA was responding to a constitutional imperative. The Irish Republic has given support to the men of violence in Northern Ireland in that way. Of course, the people of the Irish Republic are all decent, honourable men. They do not intend these things to happen. But they do happen, and the support that the Republic gives is valuable to the violent republican movement.
Mr. Flannery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Stanbrook: I will give way later.
We must seek a political solution. We must surely start by saying that the people in Northern Ireland who do not want to be British are entitled to go and live elsewhere. If, in the border areas, there is a sufficient majority, why should not we redraw the border so that those people who desire to be within the sovereignty of the Irish Republic are in that sovereignty? Why should not we provide generous rehabilitation grants for people who find themselves on the wrong side of the redrawn border? We must think about political solutions to problems that manifest themselves in terrorism at a price to not only Ireland but the areas covered by the Act.
It is appalling that the Labour party has made no sensible, civilised contribution to the argument. I should be glad to see the Labour party voted down in every constituency in the general election because it appeases terrorist violence.
5.47 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: I start by reinforcing the appreciation expressed of the excellent work that Viscount Colville's has done yet again. Whether we agree with his conclusions or not, we find the information that he provides helpful and his conclusions persuasive.
I have spoken on several of these occasions. They are always occasions for regret on two grounds. The first is the necessity to discuss terrorism yet again, which continues to cause death and misery. The second is that, unfortunately, party political differences are a familiar feature of these debates. That has occurred now for several years. Perhaps I should make it clear now that I support the order and I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for it if there is a Division later.
When we talk about terrorists, we always try, rightly in my view, to discuss their crimes as if they were ordinary crimes committed by ordinary criminals. For they are ordinary crimes. Terrorists do not deserve the distinction of being treated by the courts as criminals in any way other than the ordinary. Murder is murder, for whatever reason

719
it is committed. When we examine how we deal with criminals, it is right that we should consider as such the form of the ordinary crime that they commit.
The House knows that I have had a reasonable amount of experience in the past 20 years of dealing with what one might call ordinary criminals. It is my experience, and that of other legal practitioners, that the usual criminal—even if he is a murderer or an armed robber—does not look beyond the moment when the crime has been completed and he has made his escape. He does not imagine that he will be caught or convicted. Appeals could not be further from his mind.
The psychology of the terrorist is different, and it is right that we should take that into account when determining what special measures outside the court system are necessary to deal with terrorism. The terrorist is trained to assume that he may be caught, and that when caught he will be questioned at great length and will be subjected to the rigorous questioning which is right and proper in respect of all serious crimes. The terrorist is trained to deal with the trial which may take place, with the tactics of defence, and, in some cases, he may well be trained to deal with the consequences, in a number of different forms, of conviction. We must bear those matters in mind in weighing the balance and considering whether it is necessary to retain the provisions for yet another year.
Also, we should all recognise that the Government have a difficult task. We have already heard from hon. Members, good democrats on both sides of the argument, who believe in the essentials of justice and security. These are surely our shared aims in this debate. There are some good democrats in the House who believe—as some Conservative Members believe—that internment would be a fair and just way to deal with the problem. I happen to disagree with that, but it is a respectably held view. There are good democrats in the House who believe that the principle of special and specific prevention of terrorism legislation is contrary to the principles of democracy which we try to uphold in the House. That poses a serious dilemma for the Government, and one must be reasonably sympathetic towards the ordeal of solving it.
Of course, we must all share the aspiration of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that it should become easier to convict terrorists in our courts. However, I would ask him how we are going to make it easier to convict terrorists without diluting the standard of proof which we adopt or reducing the quality of evidence which is acceptable in our courts.
Mr. Hattersley: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Carlile: I shall give way when I have finished this point. I remind the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that, whatever happens during interrogation when someone is detained under the prevention of terrorism Act, evidence obtained as a result is most unlikely, in modern times, to be admitted in a subsequent criminal trial. Judges are unlikely to admit evidence which does not comply in quality with the standards of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Under section 78 of that Act, the judge has residual discretion—which is usually
720
exercised in such circumstances—to exclude the evidence. I share the aspiration of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, but he has not told us how he will achieve it.
Mr. Hattersley: The hon. and learned Gentleman has answered his own question. I was repeating the argument made by the chairman of the Bar Council—it was also argued in the letter from the commissioner—that there would not be sufficient convictions unless jurors and courts were convinced that the available evidence had been properly obtained. The point that the hon. and learned Gentleman has just made is the one that I want to be reinforced.
Mr. Carlile: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. However, it follows from his argument, and from the point that I sought to make, that many terrorists will pass unconvicted and uncharged because of the quality of the preparation of their crimes. They are often arrested under the prevention of terrorism provisions when, at worst, they have been involved in inchoate crimes and it is impossible to pin any specific offence on them. Unfortunately, the law is inadequate to deal with that sort of problem.
It is encouraging that there has been less use of exclusion orders as far as Northern Ireland is concerned. It is a matter of real concern that there appears to be an increase in international terrorism, which is reflected in the increase in exclusion orders relating to international terrorism. I hope that the Government will continue to tackle that problem through international co-operation, which remains extremely important in driving such terrorism away from our shores at least. We have a legitimate interest in driving it elsewhere. We hope that others who co-operate with us in the international effort will ensure that it is driven into those places from which it cannot escape to perpetrate its dreadful activities.
The issue before the House is how, when balancing difficult conflicting interests, and bearing in mind the concern that we all have for justice and security, do we produce a practical solution which meets the twin requirements of public safety and public confidence overlaid, as ever, with the need for justice and security? There may be better ways to supervise detention orders. I think that putting them before judges sitting in chambers is the wrong way to deal with it and I am sympathetic with the judges on this issue. I understand that judges who had to deal with applications for internment orders, when they were in force, found that the type of evidence that they were asked to consider was difficult to deal with, not because the allegations made were unjustified but because they were unused to dealing with that type of evidence. Better protection is provided if one controls the circumstances of questioning and if outside, independent review is available on application, as is currently the case.
I do not share the fear that the tape recording of interviews during detention necessarily represents a danger. If tape recordings could be used as evidence for one side or the other in any criminal proceedings which subsequently ensued, that danger might arise. However, the Government would be entirely justified in introducing standard tape recording for all interviews of the type that we are discussing, and in introducing statutory rules so that those interviews could never be used as evidence in ensuing criminal proceedings. That would not mean that evidence obtained as a result of them could not be used, as it is already. However, it would be in the public interest

721
that those interviews should be excluded from the court: otherwise, there could be a danger that they might be used by members of the public who were listening to the evidence in the court.
I know that a number of other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall not take up any more time. We hope that next year, the year after or soon after we will be able to say that prevention of terrorism provisions are no longer needed. It has not happened yet. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook knows that I have a great regard for him, but I fear that we heard him make a speech that he did not want to make. If a Labour Government were elected, they would have considerable difficulty with this matter. Indeed, I suspect that they would feel compelled to change their view.
5.58 pm
Sir Giles Shaw: I regret that this is the first time that I have participated in the debate on the renewal of the powers in the Act. I am grateful to follow the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). who, with his ever-present legal knowledge, has dissected some of the problems occasioned by bringing terrorist crimes to court. I shall consider the issues from a broader platform without, I hope, straying out of order.
I accept that the PTA was introduced in a rush and was designed as an anti-IRA measure. It defined terrorism almost exclusively as the particular problems caused by that organisation in the United Kingdom. The Act was introduced to deal with such problems. It contains powers, which are broadly acceptable, to detain, to proscribe certain organisations, to exclude, and to control movements; and, as a consequence of all that, it aims to deter.
In the application of each of those elements of the Act there have been difficulties. It is not unreasonable for the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) to say that the Act suppresses more than it prevents and that perhaps, from time to time, it has not suppressed terrorism either. However, the degree and temperature of suppression have altered from time to time.
The issue today is different. Terrorism has become an international cancer and has required and obtained co-operative efforts on the part of police forces through international joint detection. Terrorism requires large amounts of finance and covert activity by those prepared to connive with its objectives. Terrorism hides behind the cloak of pseudo-political respectability and, it has been said that it pursues aims that cannot necessarily be achieved by the political means available at any time.
It is its political objectives which make terrorism different from the ordinary range of crime, which was considered by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery in his discussion of applications of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
The political credibility, or otherwise, of terrorism has undergone a significant change in recent years. The threat posed by so-called middle eastern terrorism has been reduced considerably. Certainly, the threat to capture hostages has receded during the past 12 months, not always for political reasons although political machinations were involved. The tide of the terrorism in the middle east has ebbed and it is no longer the necessary card to play. The threat from continental terrorist groups, be they the Red Brigade, the Red Hand or ETA, has also ebbed.
722
That may not be the result of legislation such as this, but that threat has ebbed. The crucial factor has been the withdrawal of public support and the reduction in the numbers of those willing to connive with the terrorists, hide them, finance them and supply the weapons of destruction so essential to them. Public opinion in most of the world has moved against such vicious activity.
The debate does not deal with matters such as internment, nor should it. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is, as ever, in his place. We have to consider how far we can go with the orthodox route of bringing terrorists to justice before considering the unorthodox. I doubt whether the terrorist movement can be wholly subservient to the rule of law, but we have always regarded the rule of law as an essential weapon with which to bring the terrorist to book.
If the terrorist is professional, proficient and trained in his particular vicious form of behaviour, he has already moved way beyond the ordinary legal system. We already have the Diplock courts in the Province, which demonstrate that the terrorist is treated as a special case when tried there. That is why we are now discussing the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act in relation to terrorists who seek to enter the United Kingdom and those who are found here.
We have been extremely concerned in this debate about the minutiae relating to the application of the principles enshrined in the Act in terms of so-called forensic evidence produced for a jury in a British mainland court. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that it would be extremely difficult to obtain a conviction under the full panoply of PACE if the terrorist were in the dock. He is probably right. Convictions against various groups who were brought to court in previous years—in the Birmingham case, the Guildford case and, to a large extent, the Maguire case—have been found to be without adequate foundation. How can we say that the rule of law has been effective even when it has been applied here and in circumstances less pressurised than those that exist today?
My right hon. Friend should be aware, however, that there is no question about the necessity for the PTA. We must ensure that we can use every weapon in the panoply of weapons against the insidious crime of terrorism. Such legislation must be in place and, if necessary, renewed year by year.
The climate of opinion is now looking beyond the PTA and even beyond the courts—it has become proactive rather than reactive. If detention were introduced in the Province for a time, I do not believe that that would produce the same violent reaction in the United States as it did many years ago. I do not believe that it would result in the same sharp rise in contributions to Noraid, and I do not believe that its introduction would have quite the same impact across the border in the Republic.
There has been a massive change in public opinion in the Republic about the IRA. How good it was that it could not hold its Ard Fheis in what it traditionally regarded as its rightful venue. How good it is that the general performance of Sinn Fein in the Republic has commanded less than 2 per cent. of the popular vote at general elections. Public support for the IRA has gone right down, and there is a greater realisation that to deal with the cancer that is embodied north and south of the border may require a different attitude to the niceties of the rule of law.

723
The climate of opinion is such that a more positive attitude towards detention would be perfectly acceptable. Such thinking certainly did not exist a few years ago.
I remind the House that terrorism today is an international problem. It is a cancer in many countries, and in each it depends upon public support of one kind or another. That support in terms of access to funds, training and weaponry has waned greatly. It may well be time for a brave new initiative on this matter.
6.9 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: I accept the sincerity with which all hon. Members who have spoken have approached the problem of terrorism in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom generally. However, we differ on how the problem should be approached.
The re-examination of the Act must be done in several contexts. First, we must assess the balance between the deprivation of basic rights within the law and the need to prevent further terrorism. Secondly, there must be a balance between the effect on the judiciary and the effect on the body politic. If a law is so draconian in its nature and application that it drives a population away from supporting that law, or from supporting the agencies that implement the law, a negative situation results.
I assume that the purpose of this debate is to assess all the contributions made with respect to the maximum of justice and the safeguarding of the rights of the individual before the law, paying constant attention to the need for political progress and dialogue. That is why it is a great pity that an opportunity has not been taken to look seriously at what the effect has been in the lifetime of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 and examine those parts of it that statistics and comments clearly show are not doing the job for which the Act was intended.
I was not a Member of Parliament when the legislation was enacted. However, irrespective of the fact that some hon. Members warned about the possible consequences, it is important that the Act is examined to avoid the alienation that might take place, and to avoid the unnecessary withdrawal of human rights in a situation where terrorism has become endemic, as it has for the past two decades.
I represent a community which has suffered most both from Provisional IRA and loyalist terrorism. We have been the recipients of both sides of the sword. We are constantly visited by the terror of the Provisional IRA and the paramilitaries. We are also visited, willy nilly, by the consequences of the PTA in our homes and our communities. The enforcement of the Act deprives us of the protection that people normally have for their homes and their families.
The Act is a broad weapon and is not selective in any way. If a housing estate in my home town is cordoned off and searched from beginning to end, that must mean that the vast majority of the people living there are innocent. Yet they suffer alongside those who are guilty. Many people will accept that up to a point, but, beyond that point, the support is lost and thus the thrust of what the Act is intended to achieve is also lost.
I wish to illustrate the problems of searching housing estates. Individual members of a family are retained in one corner of the room of their house and are not allowed to
724
accompany the security forces in the examination of the house. In most cases that does not involve helping them to open or close cupboard doors or look into drawers. It sometimes involves considerable destruction. Some would argue that that is necessary destruction, but sometimes floorboards are pulled up. People are naturally suspicious if they are not allowed to accompany those pursuing that search because it is not unknown—I cannot give statistics —for stuff to be planted in certain places. There is, therefore, a built-in query about the need to be present when searches are taking place. Searches often take place as a result of a tip-off, many of which have proved to be malicious rather than designed to catch terrorists in the act.
One of the great difficulties with proscription is that it is totally selective. My understanding of the attitude of the security forces in Northern Ireland is that they could well do without proscription. It has been applied to the IRA, yet other organisations have acknowledged murders, extortion and all the other attributes of terrorism. Those organisations include the Ulster Volunteer Force, its pseudonym the UDA, the Protestant Action Force and several other organisations.
Proscription has a peculiar effect on the psyche of some of our people. They feel that not only does it not help the security forces, because the name of an organisation is simply changed, or, when it is executing terrorist violence, it simply uses another nomenclature to perpetrate its violence, but because it sometimes glorifies the organisation that has been proscribed. It draws in young people who see being a member of that organisation as some sort of thrill or illegality, long before they are sucked into the real violence for which they are then trained and asked to perpetrate. Therefore, that element of proscription has no meaning within the terms of combating terrorism.
Exclusion orders have also been mentioned.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House, but he seems to say that the Ulster Volunteer Force is not proscribed. It is proscribed under this legislation.
Mr. McGrady: Yes, it is one of the three proscribed organisations in Northern Ireland. But many others by other names are executing violence on a daily basis. They are not proscribed and the security forces see no need for it.
Much debate has taken place this evening about the consequences of the exclusion orders. They have been referred to several times as some sort of internal exile. I do not know what that phrase means, but it is contradictory in terms of uniformity of rights of the citizens of the United Kingdom if people can be deported from one part to another, irrespective of what that part is. In reality, it is considered not as an internal exile but, rather, an exercise of racism. One of the major features of the exclusion orders is to give a sense of racism in the application of the PTA, which seems to be anti-Irish. It does not matter whether someone is British Northern Irish or Irish Northern Irish—they are Northern Irish, therefore Irish, and the Act will apply against them.
The statistics of people who have been detained and not excluded show that another effect is to put a black mark against them. I have known cases in my constituency involving firms with contracts in England. They have lost those contracts and their work force in England as a result

725
of being detained, despite the fact that they were found to be innocent. They were detained on somebody's whim without reference to a court of law. That is wrong in principle and legally. It is self-defeating because it gives ammunition to the men of violence to heighten tensions and to draw into their ranks recruits from those who have suffered from such detention.
The Home Secretary referred to the broadcasting ban. I opposed it bitterly when it was introduced in the House and it has become a total charade in Northern Ireland. I do not know whether it applies as much on television here, but it is farcical to see the Protestants or the IRA making unchallenged statements through an actor's voice, with printed subtitles, when the interviewer or a member of the political community in Northern Ireland cannot challenge them. We are at the coal face of the struggle against terrorism, both physical and political. I want to be able to use a platform, whether of the media or any other form, to argue the toss and put my case against the terrorists. I want to illustrate the evil, illogicality and fallacy of the position and policies of those trying to indoctrinate communities. The ban is preventing me from doing so. It is time my colleagues and I had our hands untied from behind our backs in terms of the political dialogue, never mind the fight against violence in the streets.
The powers of arrest and continuing detention over a number of days are symptoms of over-reaction. The aftermath is many disgruntled innocent people—and their dissatisfaction spreads among friends, families and communities—who see themselves being targeted because they are Irish and come from Northern Ireland. In a sense, it is a mini-internment.
It has been argued that the corollary of not having convictions in court must be internment. The argument is then carefully qualified by the statement that, of course, one is talking about selective internment, but all internment is selective and always has been. Someone, somewhere, says that Joe Bloggs should be interned, because of certain information. The person being interned is not aware of the charge and has no right of redress to correct the information on the record.
There is much incorrect information on people's records. Many people lose their jobs due to telephone calls to security forces alleging their involvement in terrorism. They find themselves out of a job the next day with no way of getting the job back. They have no way of knowing what they are charged with or of denying the alleged offence.
There has been a missed opportunity this afternoon. The Act was a political response to a specific occasion at a particular time in history. In the intervening years it has not received the attention and detailed examination that it required so that we could extract the bad parts and leave the acceptable parts. The Act should have been improved and changed in the light of experience, in terms of both security and policies. The Act drives people way from public support. It makes no contribution to the fight in which we are all engaged, from whichever source it conies. It is a great pity that the opportunity has not been taken today or on previous occasions to redraft those parts of the Act which have proved to be counter-productive in the fight against terrorism.
6.24 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: A sense of déjà vu descends over the seasoned debaters of the merits or otherwise of the prevention of terrorism Act. We have been through such debates before, but this time there seems to be greater confrontation and controversy than before. For my part, I do not doubt the sincerity of Labour Members' opposition to terrorism and their determination to fight it. However, I believe that they are profoundly mistaken in their line of reasoning. Here lies the acceptable and right debate.
I wholeheartedly support the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act as long as the exceptional circumstances in Northern Ireland continue and it is necessary to have such a measure.
Three issues in Lord Colville's report deserve attention. The first relates to a number of references to international terrorism. On page 5, under the heading, "Extensions of detention", he writes:
"In England and Wales three sets of applications concerning international terrorism were dealt with by the Home Office".
Perhaps understandably, we tend to preoccupy ourselves with Irish terrorism and overlook the international dimension. Will the Minister give details about the international aspects of terrorism referred to in the report?
The second point concerns the most disturbing feature of the report: the section on terrorist finances. Last year Lord Colville referred to a "legislative shambles". This year he stated on page 15:
"The 'legislative shambles' was only enhanced by the EPA 1991 … I would be failing in my duty if I did not record the pessimism of police forces in all three United Kingdom jurisdictions about the usefulness of the PTA powers in relation to terrorists funds."
This section clearly demands attention.
The third issue about which I am concerned relates to the 10 pages of comments Lord Colville gives to allegations of assaults in police custody. These make disturbing reading. On out-of-court settlements of claims Lord Colville states on page 19:
"there is … danger that hundreds of thousands of pounds overall will be paid out without any of the actions being tried."
That undermines confidence in the RUC. He continues:
"if the police are settling these cases, they are admitting ill-treatment of detainees".
This section also deserves close attention.
I believe that there has been a dimension missing from today's debate, without which our efforts to combat terrorism are weakened: the missing dimension is absence of unequivocal support from the Government of the Republic of Ireland. Without the wholehearted cooperation of the Republic, Irish terrorism is unlikely to be defeated, and that wholehearted support simply is not there.
For too long and on too many occasions, the Republic has provided a safe haven for IRA gunmen and bombers who are on the run. Its refusals to extradite have been scandalous. The Republic remains a secure operational base for the IRA. Articles 2 and 3 of the constitution of the Republic of Ireland, with their claim for Northern Ireland territory, are an intolerable affront to the United Kingdom. That scenario makes me, for one, deeply cynical of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
The question of internment is back on the agenda. The arguments against internment are well known and include

727
the fact that it is counter productive and creates an adverse reaction. It is ineffective unless implemented on both sides of the border. It also poses the question whether we have the intelligence to pick up the right people.
On the other hand, there is an argument for internment, although I am not necessarily stating that it should be implemented. At times of heightened terrorism there is an argument for selective, short-term internment. Internment destroys the command structures, the means of communication and the logistical planning of terrorist organisations as key people are lifted. It makes life very hard for the terrorist.
I welcome the renewal of the measure, which I believe forms a central part of our battle against terrorism.
6.28 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: When the Home Secretary courteously gave way to me, he said that there had been no row between senior officials of the Home Office, led by Mr. Ian Burns, and the Metropolitan police, led by Assistant Commissioner Bill Taylor, on the one hand, and Mrs. Stella Rimington, on the other. Whether it was a row or a difference of opinion, there have certainly been consistent reports about a difference of opinion. This is a serious matter that deserves to be raised in the House.
We hear that security chiefs in MI5 are pressing Ministers to let them take over key functions in terrorist and criminal intelligence gathering from the police. The move, purportedly led by Stella Rimington, MI5's director-general designate, has provoked, if not a bitter row in Whitehall, at least a controversy over inter-service demarcation, and it has serious implications for civil liberties.
A formal inter-departmental review of MI5's post-cold war role was launched in Whitehall late last year under the chairmanship of the Home Office deputy secretary, Ian Burns. I understand that Mrs. Rimington has raised this matter with the Minister. Before anyone criticises those of us who mention her name, let it never be forgotten that, to my astonishment and that of some of my colleagues, it was the Government—no one else—who launched Mrs. Rimington with a fanfare of trumpets—
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dalyell: No; the hon. Gentleman has just come in.
I understand that Mr. Burns has held a series of meetings attended by Mrs. Rimington and other MI5 officers; by representatives of the Ministry of Defence and the joint intelligence committee which briefs the Prime Minister on intelligence matters; and by Assistant Commissioner Bill Taylor of the Metropolitan police, who is chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers.
I understand that Mrs. Rimington and her colleagues are seeking to take the lead in mainland operations against the Provisional IRA which are now directed by the Met's special branch and anti-terrorist squad. I understand also that senior police officers believe that those demands may be the thin end of the wedge and could lead to MI5's involvement in other areas managed by the police and Customs, such as organised crime and drug trafficking.
All this has brought to a head the long-standing rivalry between the police and MI5, with senior police officers
728
openly voicing reservations about MI5's operational competence and its lack of accountability. I am prepared to give the Home Office the name of one senior policeman who has expressed great concern about this to me.
A final decision about demarcation between the police and the security services will be taken by an ad hoc ministerial committee, including the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence. The concerns of senior police officers have been heightened by a general feeling that the future structure of the police may be on the agenda after the general election. Ministers have voiced a need to do something about rising crime and the loss of confidence in the police caused by recent miscarriages of justice.
Next month the new national crime intelligence service will begin work. Aided by a huge criminal intelligence super-computer, the service is supposed to serve various police forces and to enable the national co-ordination of information, especially on drugs and organised crime. Its constitution specifically precludes an operational policing role. If MI5 is allowed to wrest the lead in IRA terrorist work from the police, it will have full access to the computer.
Who will control the computer? A senior officer is quoted as saying:
"The outcome, if MI5 gets its way, could be the creation of a sort of FBI, but by the back door. If they get terrorism, drugs will be next."
Specialist police units engaged in anti-terrorist intelligence fiercely resent the attempted intrusion. They believe that they are the intended victims of a Whitehall operation brought about by the end of the Soviet threat and by the obvious need for a new role for MI5. That is what the problem is mostly about.
Another police officer has been quoted as saying:
"These people are often brilliant as analysts. But it is questionable whether they would do the job as the public want it to be done␣"
I want it to be done—so do many of my colleagues—by a Home Office which is accountable to Parliament. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) will be the Home Secretary, but whoever is Home Secretary it is much better that the job be done by the Home Office than by those who are not accountable.
I raised the matter in this debate because it is so difficult to raise the activities of this vast organisation while remaining in order. I will keep to the undertaking that I gave to sit down at 6.35 pm. I do not raise this subject in a curmudgeonly way; I raise it in a deadly serious manner in the hope of some kind of serious answer—because Parliament deserves an answer.
6.35 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: These annual debates are always interesting and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, it is interesting that this one has been brought forward. We welcome the chance that it offers us to discuss the prevention of terrorism. The Labour party detests, despises and hates terrorists and terrorism. We say that on every occasion we can. I am one of the few Members to have addressed a meeting in New York state which was picketed by Noraid, which was seemingly outraged that I should have the temerity to discuss democracy and how much it involves despising and hating people who use the bullet and the bomb for political gain.

729
This is a serious occasion because, on it, the Government traditionally ask us to suspend all the usual rules of political discourse. They ask us to suspend critical judgment on the workings of an important piece of legislation. But it is the role of Her Majesty's Opposition to scrutinise every piece of legislation that comes before this House.
It is just not good enough. My old friend the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) spoke, in one of his typical phrases, of hiding under the cloak of pseudo-political respectability. He used that phrase in a different context; I would use it to describe the dangers of the Government hiding under the cloak of respectability their ineffectiveness when dealing with terrorism.
As the Opposition, we have to look at the facts. We have to examine the success of the prevention of terrorism Act as used against terrorists and terrorism. Given the tragedies in the lives of men and women here and abroad caused by terrorism, we cannot afford to be complacent. Listening to the Home Secretary today, one would not have thought that nearly 100 men and women died by the hand of terrorists in our country last year, or that 1,000 people were badly injured by them.
Mr. Dicksrose—
Mr. Sheerman: I will not give way.
It is no part of the job of Her Majesty's Opposition to remain silent when the Home Secretary says nothing, as he did not today, about the Government's appalling inactivity and failure to shed new light on the problem of terrorism and how to combat it.
During the three years that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook and I have been dealing with these matters, we have strongly appealed to the Home Secretary to the effect that the effort against terrorism has not been good enough—that we want it improved and that the PTA gets in the way of that effective struggle. The Minister of State sought to pour ridicule on the idea of all the parties coming together and saying, "How can we defeat terrorism?". We made such an offer last year and the year before, but the Minister thought that it would be ridiculous to have a committee discussing terrorism. Getting round a table to discuss a more effective way to stop death, misery and bloodshed seems a good starting point in the war against terrorism.
I do not wish to underline what the terrorists have done in too dramatic a way, but there have been 1,000 serious injuries and 100 people have died in our country in the past year. There was a rocket attack on No. 10 Downing street, and a bomb was found and, luckily, defused a few steps from the Palace of Westminster. We ask for a more effective effort against terrorism, and we have asked the Home Secretary to meet us round a table to discuss how that can be done.
The Opposition have not engaged in empty rhetoric. We have a number of proposals but, like any group sitting at a table, we do not expect to have all of them accepted. Our proposals could be effective, useful and helpful. We want to see a national police intelligence unit with an operational arm. I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who resists unaccountable intelligence services, but I would like to see that new force taking a new direction. Some people might
730
call it an FBI. So be it. We need an effective national presence that could better deal with terrorism nationally and internationally.
I agree with hon. Members who have spoken about the changing nature of Europe and its borders and who have expressed the fear that, because of that, terrorism will grow strongly in some parts of the European Community. That means that there must be better co-ordination.
We defend many elements of the PTA because they are useful, but other elements are unacceptable and we want the Government to give way on those. Our offer this year about talks is even better than the one that we made last year because we know that within a few weeks we shall be in government. When Conservative Members are on this side of the Chamber, we shall invite them to join in talks because we do not want to hide behind the PTA. We want to be honest.
Sometimes hon. Members on one side of the Chamber think that they are fully aware of the opinions of those on the other side and will, therefore, disagree with them. However, when one listens carefully one finds that that is not always the case. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made some telling points about the myth of unity and the message that it sends to the terrorists. We are close to an election and it is easy to make cheap party political points and to say that the Opposition are soft on terrorism. That is what people call a cheap shot, and the hon. Member for Antrim, North spotted it straight off. He avoided it and put his finger precisely on the issue when he said that all the so-called unity on the PTA has not stopped terrorism in his constituency, in his part of the United Kingdom.
The Opposition will not be muzzled because the national interest and the interests of the people are too important. The only group of people who have not risen to the occasion and whose speeches have not been thoughtful, searching and honest about the problem of terrorism are those in the small group of party political hacks led by the Home Secretary.
Mr. Dicks: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it right for the hon. Gentleman to make such hypocritical points when on Friday, in my constituency, he shared the police station with a known IRA supporter?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that I cannot deal with that. It is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Sheerman: To deal with that we would need men in white coats.
Conservative Members do not like our truthful message. We deserve more from the Home Secretary and the Government than the cheap political trick that they have tried to play. The British people are not daft. They can see through a Government who are desperate because their law and order policies have failed. Crime has doubled since they came to office, and their measures against terrorism are not working. The British people will not be fooled, and in a few weeks they will elect a Government who will deal effectively with terrorism.
6.46 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): The political and intellectual content of the speech by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) could be boiled down into about one minute 30 seconds. It is a pity

731
that at the beginning of the debate 19 minutes were wasted on entirely bogus points of order. That meant that a number of hon. Members could not be called to speak. I regret that procedural methods were used to make it impossible for my hon. Friends to be called. I am extremely pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), have been in the Chamber for most of the debate. That shows the importance that they attach to the issue.
Most people who listened to the formidable speech by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have noted that he completely and utterly destroyed Labour's case for a "Let's solve the terrorist problem by remitting it all to a committee" approach. It is clear to me and to the country that only a small number of people support the abolition of the prevention of terrorism legislation. Opinion poll after opinion poll has shown that no more than three people in every 100 who responded support Labour's policy to get rid of the PTA. The overwhelming majority of British people support the Act. I am extremely grateful for the indication of support from the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who spoke for the Ulster Unionists, and for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who spoke for the Democratic Unionist party. I am also grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) for his support for the renewal of the provision.
Opposition Members who vote against the renewal of the Act will fly in the face of the general opinion of moderate, sensible people of all political parties in Britain. It will also give enormous help and sustenance to the terrorists. I hope that I quote correctly the hon. Member for Antrim, North who said that if the legislation was not renewed the wrong signal would be received throughout the United Kingdom, western Europe and the international network of terrorism, both Arab and Irish, that the House was not serious about the prevention of terrorism. Such a single, simple message would be extremely destructive.
Mr. Dalyellrose—
Mr. Patten: I shall not give way.
Before I respond to the two Opposition suggestions, I must read into the record, as if I were a Democrat or Republican Senator speaking in the United States Senate, the second half of the letter from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir Peter Imbert, which was partially quoted by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who spoke about what Sir Peter said about tape recording. The commissioner said:
"The contrary view, which reflects the present position, is that the risk to life, and loss of intelligence, is so great that it would be a serious impediment to our efforts against terrorism. I am aware that this is particularly the case in Northern Ireland, and I believe that there is, understandably, very firm opposition there, on these grounds, to tape recording."
The last paragraph of the letter states:
"As mentioned above, the pilot scheme with the tape recording of summaries of PTA interviews continues, and I look forward to reaching a stage where conclusions can be drawn from this. Until we have reached that position and are
732
more certain of the implications I believe it would not be right to pursue legislative changes. I would add that before any such change is comtemplated we should also ensure that the present judicial safeguards relating to the disclosure of intelligence information are made more robust."
Let me now turn to what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook described as two major suggestions.
Mr. Hattersley: There were four.
Mr. Patten: I am quoting the right hon. Gentleman's words. He must read what he said in Hansard tomorrow.
The first, and major, suggestion was the setting up of a tribunal to review extensions of detention. There is a difficulty with that proposal. If we establish a tribunal—or any kind of judicial supervision of applications for extensions of detention—its conclusions will often be based on strong intelligence that the person concerned is actually involved in terrorism. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will know that that is the case, and that such intelligence often exists.
That means that the sensitivity of the information will often be such that, if the case went to a tribunal and was considered by a judge or a group of judges, neither the detained person nor his legal advisers could be given any details of that case. If we acceded to the Opposition's suggestions, there would be no proper means of representation. The judge, or the chairman of the tribunal, would effectively be sitting in an executive position, just as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary does at present: he would, de facto, be like my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Hattersley: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Patten: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not; if I give way, I shall not have time to answer the points that have been made.
The present system does not preclude judicial control. I think that the right hon. Gentleman missed that point. A person who is arrested under the Act has access to a solicitor, and can challenge the lawfulness of the arrest or detention by means of, for example, the remedy of habeas corpus. I should also point out that there is no quasi-judicial system in Scotland for the consideration of extensions of detention north of the border. Such extensions are considered in exactly the same way as they are throughout the rest of the United Kingdom: there is no special arrangement for Scotland.
The second major point concerned the abolition of exclusion orders. I do not think that that proposal gained much support, except from Labour Members. I know that, in his 1987 review, Lord Colville opposed such orders, and we have, of course, examined what he has said. He has suggested an alternative, to which we paid close attention: he suggested that surveillance operations could be mounted on people who would otherwise be excluded.
Currently, 91 people are excluded under exclusion orders. If Lord Colville's proposal were adopted, it would require a massive surveillance operation involving considerable use—and, in my view, misuse—of police and intelligence work that could be better turned to dealing with real terrorism on the ground. That is why we are entirely committed to fighting terrorism in the most practical way possible, and why we have not acceded to either Lord Colville's suggestions or those of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery made that point very powerfully—not in his speech, which, as

733
always, will repay reading, but earlier, in an intervention on the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. He said that, if it was a case of balancing the lowering of standards of proof in courts of British law against exclusion orders, he would come down in favour of exclusion orders every time. I think that most of us who want to see the innocent declared innocent and the guilty declared guilty would agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman.
I was much taken with what the hon. Member for Upper Bann said about the messages that would be sent from the House of Commons in the event of a substantial vote against the Act. He is quite right: people would simply say, "They are not serious." That theme of seriousness was followed by all Conservative Members who spoke.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler)—who was heard with the respect with which we always listen to his speeches—began by making it clear that it would be wrong to make available, through open court or open tribunal, information that would help terrorists. He also pointed out the extreme importance of the prevention of terrorism Act to our efforts to deal with international terrorism unconnected with Ireland. That was reflected in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter); I shall write to him about the details of the point that he raised.
I do not know whether the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) was one of the last that we shall hear from him, but, my word, it was a good one. As for my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), I can only say that I welcomed his support, and his thoughtful and thought-provoking speech about setting Irish terrorism, and the problems of the security services in this country, against the changing and multiplying, ameoba-like nature of international terrorism. My hon. Friend put his finger right on the point.
The prevention of terrorism Act is the only mechanism the House of Commons has with which to enable immigration procedures to deal with potential threats of international terrorism. Apart from anything else, the Act is needed to protect the three quarters of a million Irish citizens who are living on this side of the water—within the United Kingdom itself. I believe that Labour's commitment to combating terrorism would be much better reflected in support for the Act than in suggestions of ways in which to undermine it, but such suggestions are all that we have heard from Labour Members this afternoon.
Comfortable condemnation from the Opposition Benches is not an adequate substitute for such support. Labour must weave words, of course, but it must also will the means for our security forces to deal with terrorism. To ignore the Act would be to leave a vacuum for terrorists to exploit. We must have a policy in place to deal with terrorism.
Terrorists skulk behind innocent civilians: they always have done so. The terrorist language is the language of coercion. Hon. Members representing both sides of the divide in the Province know that all too well, and I respect them and their communities for the way in which they have handled the problem. The House of Commons does not like coercion; it stands as a place of democracy. We must proceed by open debate. The terrorists are not prepared to debate, because they know that, if they did, they would lose the debate overwhelmingly. That is why they respond with the gun—with coercion in place of persuasion.
734
Because we are a democratic society, we believe in a response that is subject to debate and to ratification by this freely elected House and regular review.
Since the Labour party dropped its support for the prevention of terrorism Act in 1983, it has spent nine wasted years, uttered thousands of words and produced not a policy but a policy vacuum within which terrorism can flourish. We spurn the Opposition's words. I commend the order to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 115.

Division No. 91]

[7.00 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Aitken, Jonathan

Cormack, Patrick

Alexander, Richard

Couchman, James

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

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

Amess, David

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Amos, Alan

Day, Stephen

Arbuthnot, James

Devlin, Tim

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Dicks, Terry

Aspinwall, Jack

Dorrell, Stephen

Atkinson, David

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Dover, Den

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Dunn, Bob

Baldry, Tony

Durant, Sir Anthony

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Eggar, Tim

Batiste, Spencer

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Evennett, David

Beith, A. J.

Fallon, Michael

Bellotti, David

Farr, Sir John

Bendall, Vivian

Fearn, Ronald

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Benyon, W.

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Fishburn, John Dudley

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Fookes, Dame Janet

Body, Sir Richard

Forman, Nigel

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Boswell, Tim

Forth, Eric

Bottomley, Peter

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

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

Fox, Sir Marcus

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Franks, Cecil

Bowis, John

Freeman, Roger

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

French, Douglas

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Fry, Peter

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Gale, Roger

Brazier, Julian

Gardiner, Sir George

Bright, Graham

Gill, Christopher

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

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

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Browne, John (Winchester)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Gorst, John

Buck, Sir Antony

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Budgen, Nicholas

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Burns, Simon

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Grist, Ian

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Ground, Patrick

Carrington, Matthew

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Carttiss, Michael

Hague, William

Cartwright, John

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

Cash, William

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Hampson, Dr Keith

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hanley, Jeremy

Chapman, Sydney

Hannam, Sir John

Chope, Christopher

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

Churchill, Mr

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

Harris, David

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hawkins, Christopher

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Hayes, Jerry

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

735

Hayward, Robert

Page, Richard

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Paice, James

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Hill, James

Patnick, Irvine

Hind, Kenneth

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Hordern, Sir Peter

Pawsey, James

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

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Portillo, Michael

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Powell, William (Corby)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Price, Sir David

Hunter, Andrew

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Rathbone, Tim

Irvine, Michael

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Irving, Sir Charles

Rhodes James, Sir Robert

Jack, Michael

Riddick, Graham

Jessel, Toby

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Roe, Mrs Marion

Kennedy, Charles

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Key, Robert

Rossi, Sir Hugh

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Rost, Peter

Knapman, Roger

Rowe, Andrew

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Knox, David

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Latham, Michael

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Shelton, Sir William

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Shersby, Michael

Lord, Michael

Sims, Roger

Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

McCrea, Rev William

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

McCrindle, Sir Robert

Soames, Hon Nicholas

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Speller, Tony

Maclennan, Robert

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Squire, Robin

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Stanbrook, Ivor

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Maginnis, Ken

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Major, Rt Hon John

Steen, Anthony

Malins, Humfrey

Stern, Michael

Mans, Keith

Stevens, Lewis

Maples, John

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Marland, Paul

Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Stokes, Sir John

Maude, Hon Francis

Summerson, Hugo

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Mitchell, Sir David

Temple-Morris, Peter

Moate, Roger

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Moore, Rt Hon John

Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Morrison, Sir Charles

Thorne, Neil

Moss, Malcolm

Thornton, Malcolm

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Tracey, Richard

Nelson, Anthony

Tredinnick, David

Neubert, Sir Michael

Trimble, David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Trippier, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Twinn, Dr Ian

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Norris, Steve

Walden, George

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Wallace, James

736

Waller, Gary

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Walters, Sir Dennis

Winterton, Nicholas

Warren, Kenneth

Wolfson, Mark

Watts, John

Wood, Timothy

Wells, Bowen

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Wheeler, Sir John

Yeo, Tim

Whitney, Ray

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Widdecombe, Ann

Wiggin, Jerry

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wilkinson, John

Mr. David Lightbown and

Wilshire, David

Mr. John M. Taylor.

NOES

Allen, Graham

Illsley, Eric

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Ashton, Joe

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Lamond, James

Barron, Kevin

Lewis, Terry

Battle, John

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

McCartney, Ian

Benton, Joseph

McGrady, Eddie

Bidwell, Sydney

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Blair, Tony

McLeish, Henry

Boateng, Paul

McNamara, Kevin

Boyes, Roland

Madden, Max

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Meacher, Michael

Caborn, Richard

Michael, Alun

Callaghan, Jim

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Canavan, Dennis

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Mullin, Chris

Cohen, Harry

Murphy, Paul

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Nellist, Dave

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

O'Brien, William

Corbett, Robin

O'Hara, Edward

Corbyn, Jeremy

Patchett, Terry

Cousins, Jim

Pendry, Tom

Crowther, Stan

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Cryer, Bob

Prescott, John

Dalyell, Tarn

Quin, Ms Joyce

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

Radice, Giles

Dixon, Don

Randall, Stuart

Dobson, Frank

Redmond, Martin

Doran, Frank

Rogers, Allan

Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

Rooney, Terence

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Ruddock, Joan

Eadie, Alexander

Sedgemore, Brian

Enright, Derek

Sheerman, Barry

Fatchett, Derek

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

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

Short, Clare

Fisher, Mark

Skinner, Dennis

Flannery, Martin

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Foster, Derek

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

Gordon, Mildred

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

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Soley, Clive

Grocott, Bruce

Stott, Roger

Hain, Peter

Vaz, Keith

Hardy, Peter

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Haynes, Frank

Winnick, David

Henderson, Doug

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Hinchliffe, David

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Tellers for the Noes:

Hoyle, Doug

Mr. Jack Thompson and

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Mrs. Llin Golding.

Hume, John

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.

London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, etc.) Bill (By Order)
Order for Third Reading read.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): May I assist the House by saying that the Chair will put separately the Questions on the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, etc.) Bill and the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, etc.) (No. 2) Bill to keep us in good order, but that it will be in order if hon. Members wish to relate their remarks on the No. 2 Bill to the Third Reading of the first Bill. It will also be common sense as the Bills are closely inter-related.
Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to be helpful and to seek your guidance. I have a blocking motion on two of the private Bills. Following late representations from various people I now seek leave to withdraw the motions and to allow the two Bills to have a Second Reading if that is possible.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is helpful rather at the last minute, but what he said has been noted.
7.14 pm
Mr. Neil Thorne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The purpose of the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, etc.) Bill which, for the convenience of the House, I shall refer to as the No. I Bill, is to permit the building of an extension of the docklands light railway from the Isle of Dogs under the River Thames to Lewisham via Greenwich. The extension will run from a relocated Mudchute station under the River Thames as far as Greenwich British Rail station. It will be elevated through the Deptford creek area and then continue at ground level and in cutting along the valley of the Ravensbourne river to Lewisham British Rail station.
The proposed stations for the extension will be at Mudchute and Island Gardens where the existing stations will be relocated; Cutty Sark, Greenwich where there will be an interchange facility with British Rail mainline services; Deptford bridge, Elverson road and Lewisham where, again, there will be an interchange with British Rail mainline services.
Both Bills are promoted by London Regional Transport. The No. 1 Bill was deposited in November 1990 and the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, etc.) (No. 2) Bill in November 1991. The powers of London Regional Transport are set out in the London Regional Transport Act 1984, section 2 of which states:
"It shall be the general duty of London Regional Transport, in accordance with principles from time to time approved by the Secretary of State and in conjunction with the Railways Board, to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services for Greater London."
The Act also confers the power to promote Bills.
Improving public transport accessibility is an essential requirement of the redevelopment process which is now well in hand in docklands. The initial railway legislation, authorised by the London Docklands Railway Acts 1984 and 1985, empowered London Regional Transport to construct the first stage of the docklands light railway from Tower Gateway to the Isle of Dogs and Stratford. London
738
Regional Transport then obtained powers in the London Docklands (City Extension) Act 1986 to extend the railway from Gateway to Bank.
Further extension was put in hand by the London Docklands Railway (Beckton) Act 1989 which authorised the extension of the railway from Poplar and Beckton and, most recently, the London Docklands Railway Act 1989 authorised further works at North Quay in response to the continuing expansion of the docklands light railway network, emphasising its central role in the continuing development of the docklands area.
The two Bills will authorise the next step in the development process which will help equip London for its role as a major world city. The development of docklands is a remarkable phenomenon. After years of stagnation and decline, the designation of the Isle of Dogs as an enterprise zone, the establishment of the London Docklands development corporation, the continuation and further expansion of the docklands light railway and a programme of road improvements have transformed docklands.
However, the transformation is not yet complete. In 1988, London Transport and the London Docklands, development corporation carried out a study of the public transport needs of the docklands area entitled "A Transport Strategy for Docklands". It identified a number of rail projects needed to support the development.
The extension of the docklands light railway to Lewisham was one of the schemes proposed by the study. The Lewisham extension seeks to fill as yet unmet needs in the transport network of docklands, Greenwich and Lewisham. Its primary role is to link the large residential areas south of the Thames to the growing development areas to the north and it will also provide alternative access to the City from the Greenwich and Lewisham areas and provide a direct link to Greenwich and Lewisham town centres from the north, greatly assisting in the improvement and development of the local community.
The area to the south of the river Thames has long suffered from being relatively inaccessible because of the barrier effect of the river. The development of many new employment opportunities in the docklands area will cause a further imbalance unless good river crossing links are provided.
The No. 1 Bill received an unopposed Second Reading in the House on 2 May. It was reported from the Opposed Private Bill Committee on 17 December and was considered, unopposed, on 15 January.
I do not intend to describe the Bill clause by clause, although the House may wish to be made aware of certain features. Although the Bills are promoted by London Regional Transport, it is intended that the construction and operation of the railway will be undertaken by the private sector. Although private sector involvement in the development of the docklands railway is well established, this is the first occasion on which the private sector will retain ownership of the works and will maintain a commercial interest in the operation of the railway after its construction.
The operator will operate the railway by means of a concession arrangement. Clause 33 of the No. 1 Bill provides the necessary mechanism for the Secretary of State to transfer from LRT to a concessionaire the functions to enable it to construct or operate, or to construct and operate, the railway extension. Such funding has the advantages of easing the burden on the public

739
purse at a time when there are many competing demands for new transport projects, and of giving the benefits from the involvement of private sector enterprise and expertise.
The need to deposit the No. 2 Bill has arisen because, since the deposit of the No. 1 Bill, clause 33 has been found to be inadequate inasmuch as it would not authorise the Secretary of State to provide for the transfer of functions to cease to have effect after a specified period or, in specified circumstances, to secure the transfer of functions back to LRT if the person to whom the railway was transferred failed to operate the railway efficiently and safely, or otherwise failed to discharge his functions properly. The No. 2 Bill addresses that aspect of the proposed arrangements and is commended to the House. Hon. Members may also wish to be aware that the No. 1 Bill is deposited with the backing of the London Docklands development corporation, together with that of the London boroughs affected.
When the No. 1 Bill was in Committee, the Government announced that they had it in mind to direct the corporation to transfer ownership of the whole of docklands railway to the LDDC. Before making such a direction, the Government consulted LRT, the local authorities through whose areas the railway runs and the boroughs of Lewisham and Greenwich through which the railway for which authorisation is sought in the principal Bill would run. The Government have not announced a decision following that consultation.
If the transfer takes place, LRT proposes that promotion of the Bill should be transferred to Docklands Light Railway Ltd, the operators of the docklands railway. Such a transfer will probably take place after the No. 1 Bill has gone to another place and until then LRT will continue with the promotion of both Bills.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Who is paying for the promotion of the Bill? Is it LRT? If it is, is it not a bit bad that halfway through the railway could be transferred to the LDDC while the cost of the Bill would fall on LRT? The fare payers of London would end up paying for it.
Mr. Thorne: The hon. Gentleman need not worry too much because I am sure that a suitable accounting procedure will be discovered for working out the costs and that that will be taken into account.
I emphasise that the decision to transfer the docklands light railway to LDDC has no bearing on the merits of the scheme. The extension will greatly improve the access to and from large parts of docklands for the benefit of residential and commercial regeneration throughout the area. I am sure that hon. Members whose constituencies will be served by the railway are well aware of the potential benefits. I believe that it is in everyone's interests for the No. 1 Bill to be given its Third Reading and for the No. 2 Bill to be given its Second Reading so that the considerable benefits will not be missed.
My hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) and for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples), who are not able to take part in the debate because of their ministerial office, have asked me to make clear their enthusiasm for the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) will make her views known in due course.
7.24 pm
Ms. Mildred Gordon: I shall need to speak a little longer than I usually do to put the case for my constituents. I hope that you will bear with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I have a raging sore throat and I do not know how long my voice will last. I excuse my anti-social behaviour in spreading germs around the Chamber. My constituents are so concerned about the Bill, which they consider to be the last straw, that I feel that their point of view must be put here.
We feel that the Bill is premature. The present railway does not run properly. When it was introduced, my constituents were told that there would be a light railway which would be quiet and which would give them transport, and they welcomed it. Over four years, the railway has deteriorated so considerably that life has become a nightmare for all the people living along the railway—so much so that they have formed an organisation called Residents Against Noise and Pollution. Some 2,000 of them have signed a petition asking that something be done about the noise. The residents say:
"The noise from the DLR is increasingly affecting the lives of residents along the line. Their health, as well as their daytime performance and behaviour, is deeply affected through lack of sleep and constant noise aggression."
When the residents heard that the DLR would be handed over to the London Docklands development corporation, they approached Eric Sorensen and expressed their problems and worries. His answer was in part sympathetic, but it ended:
"Perhaps I should end with something of a warning. The noise of this railway is partly inherent to its design, construction and the type of vehicle. You will appreciate that it would be extremely expensive to put this right and it would not be easy to find the right balance between the interests of running the railway and local residents."
In other words, if it costs too much, local residents will just have to suffer. Tough luck!
People in Lewisham and Greenwich, who are probably looking forward to improved transport facilities as we did on the Isle of Dogs, should seriously consider what has happened and how the railway has deteriorated. They should also consider whether they want to support this form of transport or some other. We believe that the extension of the Jubilee line would be one solution. The East London line, which already goes across the river, could also be extended and the definite problems of south London in not having direct railway access to north London could be solved in a better way.
The Residents Against Noise and Pollution organisation says that the new sections of the railway are very noisy. The tracks are completely open from rail track level with no noise control. The interface of tracks and wheels is steel to steel.
"Being designed as a light railway system, the wheels are not of heavy steel and are much noisier than heavy steel gauge systems."
The system, although designed as a light railway, is now required to function as a major system with longer trains and more frequent services. It was designed for 1,500 passengers a day. It is planned, with the extension and with the two and three-unit trains, to carry 10 times as many passengers as planned—15,000. Clearly the railway will deteriorate much further. In four years of operation, the railway has deteriorated from being one that did not disturb people too much to one that is extremely noisy.

741
What will happen when it has to take a huge extra load? The metal wears out very quickly, consequently increasing noise. At a recent meeting in my constituency, officials from the docklands light railway told me, "It is bound to have worn down. After all, it has been in operation for four years." They have not yet found a quiet way of regrinding, and the regrinding will take place in two years out of every four. It is a nightmare for people living in the area.
The brakes are very noisy. Trains stop in between stations very often, so residents are submitted to brake noise not only at stations but elsewhere along the track, and at any time. The stations are basic in design and completely open and therefore any noise of trains stopping and starting spreads through the surrounding area.
Station announcements are by the tannoy system. Since its opening four years ago, the system has not yet been controlled. Announcements can still be heard in premises up to 200 yards from the station. At night, empty trains are relocated for the next day's service, so residents are subject to noise day and night. Maintenance takes place during the night, with the noise of steel grinding, ballast being shovelled, men shouting and so on. No measures seem to have been adopted to reduce noise from night works.
There is reverberation on surrounding buildings. The DLR travels through densely populated areas and very close to dwellings and high buildings. As the tracks are elevated and completely open, the noise spreads through the populated area and reverberates between the buildings, thus giving one the feeling of being in an echo chamber. The railway passes only a few metres away from many homes. At the DLR's opening, the noise problems were localised, but now they have become generalised all along the line.
I shall not continue with the list because I do not want to bore the House, but hon. Members will no doubt realise from what I have said that noise is a real problem which is getting worse and making life a misery for people all along the line. The answer from the LDDC is that it would cost too much to remedy the problem and that it is inherent in the design of the railway, and that nothing can be done. People in Lewisham and Greenwich and their representatives should he very wary about what they are getting: it may not be as welcome in a couple of years' time as it is, in theory, now.
I want to explain—I think it needs explaining—why people in my constituency feel that everything about the extension is negative. They do not want a railway that goes to Lewisham. All that the extension to Lewisham will mean is that the trains that they now catch to Island Gardens—and on which they can get a seat at present—will come from Lewisham full of people from Greenwich, Lewisham and as far away as Kent en route to the Bank. They will not even get a seat. They will have to suffer all the disruption of extra building and all the noise of an overused railway carrying 10 times as many people as it was originally planned to carry.
In 1971 the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), then Secretary of State for the Environment, flew over the area in a helicopter, and in 1979 the present Secretary of State did the same. They saw the river and saw disused docks on both sides and considered it one area —docklands. In fact, the river has always been a divide between north and south London. Any Londoner will tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that people north of the river hardly ever go south of the river. They would
742
probably drive round Paris with more equanimity than they would try to negotiate the badly signposted area south of the river. My constituents may use the foot tunnel to cross to Greenwich, which is very beautiful, but if they want to go shopping, they go to the street markets in Roman road, Crisp street and Stratford. For their entertainment, they go to the west end—up west, as east enders call it. They have nothing to gain from an extension of the railway to Greenwich. It will bring them nothing but hardship.
My constituents are also worried that the railway is to be handed over to the London Docklands development corporation. Clearly, London Transport has made a mess of the thing. It is probably well known everywhere that the trains often break down and that one may start a journey with a child or wheelchair only to find on the way back that the lifts are not working. There are no toilets, so people coming to the arena concerts pee in people's gardens and all over the place.
People have lost their contracts and lost days at work because of the malfunctioning of the railway. The more it malfunctions, the more trains are manned by drivers instead of being operated by the computer system; and the more open it is to human error, the less safe it is. The DLR is a four-year-old baby with teething problems, and to think of extending it before those teething problems are sorted out—if, indeed, they ever can be—is ludicrous.
The record of the LDDC in responding to local people's problems is pretty bad. Take the question of television. Thousands of people in my constituency have had no television reception for years because the LDDC, being able to give planning permission in the enterprise zone and having dictatorial powers, gave planning permission for Canary wharf within about two weeks. It took less time to get planning permission for that huge developement—the largest in Europe—than it takes to get permission to put a sign outside a fish and chip shop elsewhere. No one went into the ramifications—into the effect that it would have on local people.
It is said that television reception from the BBC's Crystal Palace mast to a swathe of homes in Poplar, Limehouse, docklands, Lea Bridge road, Walthamstow, Bow, Chingford, Enfield, Waltham Cross, Greenwich, Catford and Lewisham has been interfered with. I have been working for years now to get the BBC to put a new transmitter and also to get the money for aerials. People who had indoor aerials or aerials on their roofs that functioned very well find that they no longer function. The BBC has said that people must have a good-quality wide band or group E aerial and that set-top aerials are not recommended. Yet when I went to the LDDC—which, after all, is responsible, having given planning permission without investigation—all that it would give was £50,000 towards aerials. That is a drop in the bucket.
Many people still have no replacement aerials. One constituent who had the money to spare spent £225 on a new aerial and paid her licence fee, but her television is still not working very well. Pensioners—the people who need television most—cannot afford it. People are very worried about what will happen if the LDDC takes over the railway system, given that they found it so unresponsive to public concerns over television aerials.
The LDDC is supposed to consult the Dockland Forum—a body made up of a large number of community groups in docklands. Yet this year it has withdrawn the funding from the Dockland Forum so it will probably go

743
out of existence. So much for the LDDC carrying out its statutory obligation to consult. We do not feel that things will go well if the DLR is transferred to them.
My constituents have put up with the noise, dust and dirt from work on the existing railway for years. Now they are asked to put up with it for another three years. One of the parks that will be affected, Millwall park, still has debris from the original railway; Mowlams has not yet removed it. The changing rooms, showers and so on have never been put back into action. People are understandably cynical about promises to carry out repairs and restoration given what has happened in the past.
Our opposition is not root-and-branch opposition to the extension of public transport south of the river, but we do not accept that the DLR is the correct means of transport to adopt or that the Bill is the correct vehicle to enable it to be extended. We do not accept that railways should be privatised by private Bills. That has happened too often. Some of my constituents worked in Tilbury and saw the Tilbury docks privatised by private Bill. I suppose that British Rail could privatise itself in the same way, but it does not seem to me a fair or correct system.
The Bill presupposes a tripartite structure. It gives parliamentary authority and outline planning permission for the construction of the works specified and the deposited plans within the lines of deviation. The railway will not be built or run by the promoters.
The second part of the structure is the agreement which has not yet been published. That is called the concession agreement. It will enable the unnamed purchaser of the railway to design it, build it, operate it and make a profit from it. The third part is the No. 2 Bill to enable the powers of the promoter to be transferred to the concessionary company.
The concession agreement will not be laid before Parliament. We do not know what is going to happen. That is one of my main objections to the Bill. All the important details will be covered by the concession agreement. We do not know what the design will be and we do not know what the concession agreement will say about safety issues. We do not know what it will require in terms of fare structures, and we do not know what service will be required of the operator of the railway. We simply know what London Regional Transport says its position is, or was, in relation to the negotiations on the concession agreement.
There is nothing to stop the promoter from conceding points to the concession company and surrendering important points on those issues later. Parliament is being asked to approve a blank cheque.
The Bill went through Committee on the understanding that the promoter was London Regional Transport. We now know that the docklands light railway will be operated by the LDDC. However, we do not know what the LDDC will require and what commitments made by London Regional Transport will be picked up by the LDDC. As I have said, the record of the LDDC among my constituents is not good. It is over-bureaucratic and unresponsive to the needs of local people. It is not consulting properly.
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is making an important point. The railway is effectively being privatised by a private Bill. Will my hon. Friend consider the procedure
744
because clearly that action is an important political step by the Government who are privatising the railway and handing it over to the LDDC? Is that the right method? Will she comment on the process of the Bill being presented by London Regional Transport and then the LDDC taking over the railway? The LDDC will be accountable to no one with regard to its running of the railway. Any future plans that the LDDC may have for the railway might be outside the rest of the rail and tube network.
Ms. Gordon: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is pernicious and creeping development that things are being privatised by private Bills. It is absurd to hand the railway over to the LDDC, which is supposed to be wound up in a few years' time and which has no knowledge or experience of transport. We have no idea what will happen or what the final result will be. We have no control over what is happening and, as I said before, Parliament is being asked to sign a blank cheque.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Before my hon. Friend proceeds with her speech, in which she is providing invaluable information to the House, will she elaborate on the question of consultation? I had not realised that there was an element of privatisation involved in the issue. Are my hon. Friend's constituents and other people aware of that?
Ms. Gordon: There have been meetings, but the question of privatisation has not been raised. People were more worried about the loss of amenities, the noise, dirt and what would happen to the park. They were concerned more about the noise of the existing railway and whether that would be worse. They were also worried about the LDDC controlling the line.
Hon. Members may not be aware that a further 1,000 of my constituents, as with RANAP—Residents Against Noise and Pollution—have organised themselves into SPLASH—the South Poplar and Limehouse Association for Safe Housing. They are suing LDDC because their lives have been blighted. They are surrounded by dirt, dust, noise and pile driving. They cannot cross the roads and local businesses are failing. I entered a local pub the other night and it was empty. The owners can no longer prepare food because the dust in the kitchen is uncontrollable. There are dust storms in summer and mud in the winter.
I have been told by people at the local medical centre that it treats more than two and a half times the number of asthma cases that it would expect. In addition, the nurse at the centre now devotes all her time to treating asthma patients and, in particular, children. Those cases are extremely difficult to manage. They cannot be managed with the usual inhalers. The nurse has told me that some asthmatic children wear masks in the local school. That is shocking.
Our community is expected to put up with all that. The developments have been carried out, but the needs of the community have not been considered. Canary wharf was planned when it was clear that the required infrastructure was not in place. Everything has been piled on at once and people are screaming for help.
A simple amendment to the Bill could impose a stringent requirement, but London Regional Transport has refused to concede it. The Bill allows the railway to deviate upwards to whatever extent is found necessary or

745
convenient except where it is constructed in a tunnel. "Constructed in tunnel" is defined in clause 2 as excluding any cut-and-cover tunnel. Where the railway line passes through Millwall park there is a cut-and-cover tunnel. The Bill as drafted will allow the eventual contractor of the works to build the railway line at ground level despite the numerous and voluble statements by London Regional Transport that it intends that the railway should be in a cut-and-cover tunnel. If that is the intention, and if LRT is not going to allow the eventual contractor to construct that part of the line in some other fashion if it is cheaper, why cannot LRT hind the construction company to build it in a cut-and-cover tunnel through a clause in the Bill?
We are not convinced that the promoters' statements will be adhered to. We do not know the identity of the concession company that will eventually build the railway line.
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is making the serious point on behalf of her constituents that the line should be in a cut-and-cover tunnel rather than on the surface which would cause a lot of problems. Is not the arrangement whereby LRT presents a Bill which is then taken over the LDDC appalling? London Regional Transport will have no responsibility other than to present the first half of the Bill. It will set out the cheapest proposals that it can get away with. It will not accept clauses that care for the environment for which my hon. Friend and her constituents are arguing. At the end of the day, LRT will have no responsibility. Halfway through, the LDDC will take over. Is that not one reason why the environment is so neglected and why the procedure whereby control will pass from one organisation to another should not he allowed?
Ms. Gordon: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. He is absolutely correct.
The company that will build the railway will do so for profit—for private gain—not for public good. That will be the driving motive, and that is what we have been suffering from all along since the setting up of the LDDC and the unleashing of market forces.
Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the safeguards that she is seeking were in the Bill as a legal requirement, and that if her constituents did not have to depend on a generalised statement from administrators from time to time, she would be in a much better position to assure her constituents that the problems that they face would be diminished and removed once the Bill was passed? What my hon. Friend is seeking is a better Bill with adequate safeguards written on the face of it. General support for railways is shared by my hon. Friend and myself, but we cannot pass Bills that do not provide proper safeguards.
Ms. Gordon: Together with local residents, representatives of community groups and local councils, I have met London Transport representatives, the promoters and the Minister of Transport twice. He kindly viewed the area. I have said that the bottom line is that, if we have a guarantee in the Bill that it would be a cut-and-cover tunnel and that some money will be put up for a community trust to compensate the community for the serious loss of facilities and for the noise, dust and tensions and so on that will continue in the area which has had just about enough already, we would then reconsider our
746
attitude to the Bill, but nothing of the sort has been forthcoming. We have not been told to get lost—everybody has been very polite—but the final effect is, "Get lost."
We do not know what concession company will eventually build the railway. However, we know that the only limitation on what it can do will be imposed by the LDDC. We have absolutely no faith in the LDDC imposing satisfactory constraints. Its track record on planning decisions such as Canary wharf, the television issue that I mentioned and many other matters which I do not have time to mention gives little cause for confidence that the interests of local people will be taken into account or regarded in any way. It has been said that the LDDC has concentrated on regenerating the land, but the community has suffered and has not been regenerated—rather the opposite; its quality of life has deteriorated. The former chairman of SPLASH said that he never would have believed that his quality of life could deteriorate so far so fast. That says it all.
If it is cheaper to build the tunnel at ground level, one can fairly anticipate that that is what the company will do. If it is cheaper to build an ugly railway at a lower price, why not? The concession company is doing it only to make money. The LDDC is only encouraging it to build the railway because it wants to get people on and off the island and to Bank, not because it has the interest of islanders at heart.
We are told that all safety issues will be dealt with in the concession agreement. That procedure is wrong. We have not been told what the concession agreement will say about safety—it has not yet been drafted. We are told that the contents of the proposed concession agreement are commercially sensitive—that is the answer we always receive when we try to get at the real facts—and cannot be released, anyway.
Mr. Cryer: Is my hon. Friend saying that the safety aspect of the railway is not yet clarified and that, when approaches are made about such safety issues being negotiated in the concession agreement, people are fobbed off by the claim that the matter is commercial-in-confidence? I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that that is unacceptable because, by and large, railway safety standards are extremeley high. One would expect the highest possible safety standards to be put down on paper and made plain for all to see—perhaps as a schedule to the Bill—so that people know perfectly well what standards will be required from the concessionaires on this important subject.
Ms. Gordon: We know that the railways inspector places some constraints on the operation of railways, following the King's Cross disaster, but those conditions are more rigorous in the case of underground stations. In particular, underground stations must be manned at all times. The station plan for Island Gardens shows that it will be placed in a deep cutting, with a railway line emerging from the cut-and-cover tunnel on one side and disappearing into a tunnel on the other side. Only the station itself will not be underground.
There was a plan to make the new Island Gardens station the deepest cutting on the line, but there was a refusal to roof it over. The reason is that an underground station must be staffed. If the station is not roofed over, staffing costs will be saved. We know that that decision, for

747
instance, is generated not by safety considerations but purely by cost. Safety, particularly in Island Gardens, is a major issue. The station will be in the middle of a park. The railway does not run after 9 o'clock at night, but I presume that it eventually will. In winter it gets dark much earlier. That is a potential risk for women, and in the present climate, unfortunately, for Asians, particularly late at night.
Although we have asked the promoters to make the station an underground station with staff present, we get nowhere; they absolutely refuse. The present Island Gardens station is used—it is by the road—but the new Island Gardens station, which will be located in the middle of the park, will not be much used after dark. People, especially women and members of ethnic minorities, will be afraid to use it. That is another factor that we are not pleased with.
Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend recall that the very arguments that she is now advancing were raised during the passage of the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill and the London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill? Both bodies seek, and in the case of British Railways, I regret to say, have obtained, authority to substitute ticket machines for people. People can give help and guidance, assist mothers with young children, and assist disabled people rather more effectively than a ticket machine can. When people are in peril late at night, either because of racist attacks or because of attacks on women, the most vulnerable among our community, they will find no help because there are no staff at such stations. My hon. Friend is right to pursue the matter. I am astounded that any organisation should resist such claims today.
Ms. Gordon: I agree with my hon. Friend. The fact that they are replacing a usable station with what will be an unusable station in the middle of a park after dark is cause for concern, and it need not be if the promoters put a roof over it and spend money to have some railway staff present, but they will not do that because it is all on the cheap. The interests of the community come last. It is really a business railway to carry people in business hours; it is not to serve the community. That is the whole point.
Construction practice requirements will also be in the concession agreement. The local authority has limited powers to deal with noise and pollution infringements, but the precise standards which are acceptable will be contained in the concession agreement. Again, we have London Transport's views on what those levels should be, but they will still be subject to negotiation with the company that eventually constructs the railway. London Transport says that it will impose the same requirements on noise pollution that were imposed when the railway was first built. That has led to numerous complaints, with thousands of people demonstrating that the standards were not acceptable and that they are deteriorating very rapidly, even with the present figures relating to use of the railway, let alone the 10-fold increase in usage. The Bill could require acceptable standards out in the open now, but the promoters will not write in the standards. Once again, that makes us cynical and we feel that we cannot be certain about what is likely to happen.
Mr. Cohen: Does my hon. Friend think that the line will be for business men and civil servants or a cattle truck for
748
the typists and everyone else? Obviously the Government are into two-tier railway and tube systems. Which will this line turn out to be?
Ms. Gordon: I suspect that the business men will still roll up in their Rolls-Royces, if they can get round the traffic. The railway may well be a cattle truck line. That remains to be seen and depends on the amount of use of the railway and the frequency of the trains.
The noise levels generated by the railway in operation will also be the subject of negotiation on the concession agreement. The existing railway is noisy and disturbs the residents who live close to the line, so my constituents and I believe that the Bill should specify acceptable noise levels. The fact that the Bill does not deal with all the points that I have raised, which are essential to the community, makes it impossible for us to support it.
My constituents who have complained about the noise have found out that it has been possible to adapt the track so that the trains glide through Canary wharf silently. Full remedial action has been taken using Koln eggs and perhaps other equipment about which I do not know too much. One of the petitioners against the Bill, whose house faces a section of the railway which is extremely noisy, has been told that it is technically impossible to install the same equipment at the extension section near his house. Yet where it is necessary for business in Canary wharf, the trains glide through. When they go through the residential areas they clatter, bang and screech and people have to live with it.
Enforcement of the construction requirements and noise limits will be up to the promoters—the LDDC. Only they will have the power to enforce the contract which the operator of the railway enters into.
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend said that the promoters of the Bill were the LDDC. In fact the promoters are London Regional Transport. So who will enforce the contract? Will it be the LDDC? Or will the LDDC say that it is the responsibility of LRT? Or will LRT say, 'No, it is the responsibility of the LDDC"? The procedure is a mess. We need to be clear about who will have responsibility for the contractors. The sponsor should tell us that.
Ms. Gordon: The promoters are the LDDC because we are told that the railway will be transferred to the LDDC. The Government were unhappy about the way in which London Transport ran the railway—or failed to run it properly. Their solution is to hand it over to the LDDC. That will be a case of out of the frying pan into the fire.
We have no faith that the LDDC will enforce the contract that the operator of the railway enters into.
Mr. Cohen: We must clarify this point. Who will issue the contract in the first place? As the Bill is an LRT Bill, will LRT give out the contract in the first place? If so, and if LDDC takes over subsequently, surely LRT will not have powers to enforce the safety arrangements. Is there not a possibility of a muddle in this respect?
Ms. Gordon: There is a great possibility of a muddle. It will depend on how quickly the railway is handed over to the LDDC and whether it is handed over. As the Minister has told me that it will be handed over, I assume that that is right. So we have to assume, perhaps wrongly, that the LDDC with the local authority will have whatever limited powers are made available for controlling noise pollution.

749
The position is unclear and obviously unsatisfactory. The stations have not yet been designed. Again, that will be left to the concession company. We are in the dark about so much. Millwall park, where the works site will be, is valuable to local people. They do not want an ugly station built in the middle of it. I must describe the area to the House. There is little green space for the whole dense area. Some of it is near the Thames. Millwall park is much beloved and much used. A large part of it—about a third —will be used as a works site. There will be a great wall around the site and noise, dirt and dust will probably fly over the walls. So a good bit of the park that is left will not be usable either.
A small part of the park will be taken away permanently. The piece of land that has been offered to replace it is not satisfactory to my constituents. They do not feel that it is sufficient compensation. My constituents will lose the use of the park, the football pitches and various other facilities at the park for three whole years. In my opinion, they will also lose the use of Island Gardens. Apart from a little pocket handkerchief further up the Isle of Dogs, Island Gardens is the only nice bit of riverfront that ordinary people can look at. Perhaps people in luxury flats and those with an office in Canary wharf can see the river, but Island Gardens is the only place that ordinary residents can enjoy.
Barges to take away the spoil from the tunnel will start at Island Gardens. An eight-foot fence will have to be put up. The beauty of Island Gardens is that one can see Greenwich from there. One can see the Wren complex and all the other beautiful buildings of Greenwich. It is a lovely view. Residents will not be able to enjoy that for three years.
The conveyor belt to take away the spoil will be very long. It will be high in the air—high enough for a double decker bus to go under it. It will go right across into the park at Island Gardens to the river bank where the spoil will be taken away. Even if the conveyor belt is covered as promised, it will be noisy, dusty and dirty and it may operate 24 hours a day. It will pass by George Green school and the community sports grounds, with tennis courts and football pitches used by the school and the local community. I consider that they will all be unusable.
Some beautiful plane trees will be lost. The area is a conservation area, so the trees are protected, but they will probably have to come down. I am not even sure what will happen to the entrance to the lifts to the foot tunnel to Greenwich if it is in the way of the works.
My constituents will lose the use of Millwall park. They will lose some land permanently. They will lose the use of Island Gardens. The football club that plays on the sports ground will have to go miles away to the north of the borough. That will involve travelling time and fares and the club will probably dwindle. It was not unreasonable that we asked for money to be put into a community trust handled by representatives of the community to replace lost facilities and as compensation. At present only landowners directly affected by the Bill will receive compensation. Everyone else can whistle. I believe that the community is an entity and that it deserves some compensation. My request for a community trust was not unreasonable.
The Mudchute will also be affected. It is unique. London Transport seems to regard it as merely a bit of waste ground, but it is not. It was made by mud dredged from the docks. It is perhaps the largest farm in any city.
750
It has flocks of sheep and one can see horses grazing there. The effect on the Mudchute will be severe, as its western bank, an important part of the area, will be taken up by the development.
Horse riding has always been a popular activity on the Mudchute and the income which it generates has become ever more important in the overall budget. In September 1991, new stables were opened. They were built at a cost of £617,000, with funding largely from the LDDC. It was obtained because it would generate more income from the area. It was realised that if the Mudchute could offer hacking it could significantly increase its income and fund other activities. The farm circulated businesses in the area to tell them that it would be able to offer hacking. The plan was to develop a ride around the Mudchute and Millwall park, but that will now be blighted.
The Mudchute contains some buildings—classrooms which local teachers use for science lectures as part of study for the science curriculum. The children use trees for bark rubbings and they count the age rings. The elder trees along the southern and western edges are important because they provide examples of trees which have established themselves naturally, without deliberate planting. They will go.
The trees provide shelter and nesting sites for birds such as starlings, whitethroats, swifts and linnets. Further planting at the western edge was expected to attract a greater variety of birds, which are essential to wild animal and bird activities for the children who examine birds through binoculars, learn to identify and observe the different breeds, and make tally sheets and field sketches. I cannot tell hon. Members how important that is to children who grow up in a densely populated urban area. It is their little piece of the country, and it will be encroached upon.
The thicket area provides a rich source of food for birds, such as loganberries, blackberries, thistles and dog roses. It is a hiding place for wild animals such as voles, fieldmice, foxes and hedgehogs. Children follow animals footprints, track them and make plaster casts of their prints. All sorts of educational activities take place.
The Mudchute contains about 21 different species of butterfly—perhaps the greatest number for miles around. Much of the information that I have been given by Mudchute farm is very technical. The banks of the Mudchute provide an island for rare insects and rare species to live and to develop. The flowers and small beasts which enjoy that south facing bank are important to the children's scientific and nature studies.
The Mudchute has a livestock husbandry system. The stock is allowed occasional access to the area which will be taken away, so that it can benefit from the flora found there. Some highly palatable grasses such as timothy and coltsfoot are to be seen in abundance. That makes a rich pasture for sheep and goats. The well-established trees in the area provide cover for livestock in bad weather. It is a source of great concern that that area will no longer be available to the livestock. In addition, it is felt that a considerable area bordering the site will also be lost to grazing and not merely the part where work is carried out. The animals will keep far away from the work, shying away from areas of excessive noise and unfamiliar sights. The security of the livestock will be placed in jeopardy while work is taking place. Although existing fencing is adequate to contain stock, new fences and gates will have to be installed immediately work commences to keep

751
animals on the park and the farm. The farm feels that it would be a tragedy if it were to lose that valuable piece of grazing land.
The Minister saw the allotments, which are mostly used by old people for growing vegetables to supplement their diet. They will be affected.
I could go on for hours, but I do not want to take advantage of the House by going into a nature study tour of the area. However, it provides a good habitat for all sorts of butterflies—the wall, the common blue, the small copper and various other species which are becoming rare in this country. Twenty-one varieties of butterfly are to be found on the Mudchute. It is not merely a piece of wasteland, as London Transport seems to think.
There will be a great loss of amenities. A large part of Millwall park will be out of action for three years; part of it will go for ever, and it will not be properly compensated for. Island Gardens, where one can sit in the summer and look over the river, will be a big mess. The Mudchute will be affected, as will sports facilities attached to the George Green school.
Mr. Cohen: I listened to my hon's informative passage about the Mudchute. All hon. Members considering the Bill should bear in mind what she has said. She mentioned that the promoters of the Bill will chop down all the trees.
Ms. Gordon: No—some of them.
Mr. Cohen: They will chop down some of the trees—a great number of them—in the area. Has there been any offer to replace the trees within the vicinity? We now have much higher standards for the environment, or we should have. If trees are chopped down, they should be replaced. Have the sponsors approached her with any suggestions to replace the trees and the wildlife to which she has so eloquently referred?
Ms. Gordon: Many mature trees were planted at Canary wharf and the sponsors have promised to reinstate the park. However, since debris from the first phase of building the railway is still there and has not been taken away, and since the changing facilities have not been repaired and put back into operation we feel cynical about what will happen. We would like written guarantees, but we have not received any.
The planning authority, which will have to give planning permission for construction of the stations at Mudchute and Island Gardens, will be the LDDC. That is an unacceptable conflict of interests. The Bill gives outline planning permission for construction of stations, site unseen. The LDDC will be asking itself for planning permission, without any interference, or any responsibility to the local community. Whatever it wants to do, it will be passed automatically, without any investigation or inquiry. That is not right, especially in the light of the planning decisions which the LDDC has made in the past, with its bureaucratic powers, and in view of its insensitivity to the concerns of the local community.
Local people do not have any faith in the docklands light railway system. It was built as a tourist railway on a bus stop principle—frequent trains, at short intervals, operating more like a bus service than a railway. Some
752
people called it a Mickey Mouse railway and, in fact, the original carriages have been sold to Euro Disneyland. The railway has not been working properly and is unreliable.
If the Government are serious about improving north-south connections over the river, we need a proper railway or an underground line. The Jubilee line will be going through eventually and at least people have faith in that. Only a crazy person would rely on the DLR as things stand. Extending the railway merely increases the opportunity for things to go wrong.
We suggest that the DLR experiment has been tried for several years and has been found wanting. Further problems will arise during the construction period. As I have said, they propose to use a conveyor to take the spoil out of the tunnel. The spoil will not go to Greenwich; it will all come to our end and our people feel that they always get the rubbish and the worst of the bargain. The conveyor runs next to a school playing field. We do not know how it will be designed, but we have fears that the design and noise will make the area unusable.
The construction period is anticipated to last three years, so when we talk about the loss of view and of the effect on our environment and so on it is not a short-term one. We also understand that, when the spoil comes out of the tunnel, it will be wet and will have to be dewatered. A local resident who has worked on the Blackwall tunnel says that the spoil will be stinking as well. That is something we have not come across yet. We have had dust, noise and dirt—dust storms in the summer, mud in the winter and pile driving. The possibility of stinking spoil fills us with horror.
Mr. Cohen: What about rats?
Ms. Gordon: Yes; they will also be a problem.
The Thames at this point is salty and saltwater will have to be removed somehow. All that we have been told is that it will be pumped into the sewers. Thames Water says that the sewers are operating at capacity already, so we want to know where the water will go. If it goes on to the park, the salinity will destroy the vegetation.
The environmental impact statement prepared in December said that that point had been taken up with Thames Water, but all we know is that the matter is being discussed. The volume and the capacity of the sewer system are unknown.
No one on the Isle of Dogs needs the railway extension. There is a groundswell of opinion that local people do not want to travel to Lewisham or Greenwich. If they want to go to Greenwich, they can use the foot tunnel anyway. It is clear that the railway is being built to enable the population of south-east London to travel on to the Isle of Dogs and many people from Kent will travel through it to the Bank. We have no wish to impede the people of south-east London travelling easily and quickly where they want to go. However, if the object of the exercise is to provide employees needed for businesses that it is anticipated will start up on the Isle of Dogs, the idea is misconceived.
Unemployment on the Isle of Dogs is already higher than it is in south-east London. The people of Lewisham and Greenwich should know that the companies that move into the developments on the Isle of Dogs usually bring their own staff. The London research centre gives Tower Hamlets as a whole an unemployment rate of 16·4 per cent. In Milwall, it is 15·8 per cent. and in Blackwall it is 14 per

753
cent. Other organisations put the figure at up to 24 per cent. In Lewisham, unemployment is 16·3 per cent., Greenwich 14·4 per cent., Bromley 6·4 per cent., Bexley 7·6 per cent., and Croydon 8·6 per cent.
The LDDC has not created jobs for local people, either in construction or on a permanent basis, as it was meant to do. Local businesses have gone and are going out of business because of the planning blight—I have to call it that. Now the LDDC is making alternative arrangements to assist residents from outside the borough to bypass local people when it comes to obtaining jobs, and my constituents feel that they have had very few jobs out of the developments. Therefore, they resent that proposal, too.
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend referred to commuters coming from Kent, passing through her constituency and not stopping there on their way to Bank. Is she aware that a number of those living in Kent will benefit, although they will not benefit very much, from the Government's policy on the channel tunnel link? The Government changed their policy to assist those people so that their environment was not blighted by the railways which will pass through their area. They have, at least, received some help to defend their environment.
However, when it comes to constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend and mine, where the Department of Transport proposes a road scheme, the Government do not care about the environment. Is that not a double standard? Would my hon. Friend care to speculate on why the Government care for areas such as Kent but not for constituencies such as mine? Is not that political bias by the Government because they are trying to bribe some voters by protecting their environment to some extent? However, when the population does not support the Conservatives, the Government do not care for their environment and give them the worst of things. Is that not double standards and political bias and no way to run a railway?
Ms. Gordon: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a matter of political bias. It also depends on how much clout one has. In middle class areas people have money, they can employ barristers to fight their case, and they stand a better chance of avoiding planning blight.
The people of the east end feel that others can get away with anything. The whole point is that the Government have trodden roughshod over my constituents. I am talking not just about the railway extension, but about everything that has happened since they came to office. Land has been regenerated, but the people have been persecuted by noise, dust and dirt. No one takes any notice of their interests and no one cares that the Government are breaking up communities.
My constituents feel that they have no voice, but they are learning. One thousand members of SPLASH have got legal aid to sue the LDDC for what has happened to their lives. We shall watch the outcome of that case with great interest because thousands will be affected by and interested in the outcome.

I am always in favour of improving public transport rather than building more roads that generate more cars. The docklands highway will generate more traffic on to the A13, which will become worse than ever. If the railway functioned well, if it was reasonably quiet so that people could live with it, if it could take the extra load and if we
754
had proper guarantees, which should be in the Bill, and proper information rather than being asked to sign a blank cheque, we might have a different attitude towards it. If the community were given proper compensation, they would be prepared to put up with a lot. They are socially conscious people, good people, and if they saw the need for something and felt that their interests had been taken into account and not totally ignored they would have a different attitude. But now they are up in arms.
As well as causing the loss of amenities, the railway will cause an increase in noise, dust and dirt with deleterious effects on health, for example, on asthma sufferers, and the nerves of local people. Apart from that, however, construction of the railway would also require the diversion of the East Ferry road. That busy road is one of the most important residential roads in the area and it would be stopped up during the construction works. Anyone who wants to get around the island will face long detours. I should also mention that people can now walk across the park to the only supermarket on the island, Asda, but they will be unable to do so once the work starts.
The local population will receive no compensation for the losses that they will suffer unless the Department of the Environment has a change of heart. I assume that the DOE is the responsible Department, because I am assuming that the railway will be handed over to the LDDC. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has said, we do not know. Whoever's court the ball is in, be it the DOE or the Department of Transport, if there was a change of heart on their part and if they gave some compensation to the community, that would be welcome. So far, London Transport has said that it will compensate only on the basis of land ownership.
The users of the park will get nothing and the local authority, as the operator of the park, is still fighting London Transport for compensation from the building of the last railway. That case will go to the Lands Tribunal. We have no faith that the compensation available will be anything other than derisory. The promoters should compensate all local residents, not just those with property immediately abutting the line, but they offer nothing. The local population has everything to lose and nothing to gain from the railway. I am therefore opposed to the Bill.
8.29 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I wish to place on record the Government's support for the Bill and recommend to the House that it be given a Third Reading. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) on the way that he presented the Bill and for his hard work in all its stages in the House.
The Government support the Bill because the construction of an extension to the existing docklands light railway to run on into Lewisham and Greenwich will provide a welcome access for the people of south London to an important employment centre in docklands. It will provide great benefits to communities that are, in many ways, economically disadvantaged and it will give them much better access. Instead of having to pass through London Bridge or Bank stations they will be able to cross dirctly to docklands.
In addition to employment benefits, as the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) fairly pointed out, the railway will be an additional crossing of the

755
Thames. Crossings are relatively limited, even with the recent opening of the Dartford-Thurrock bridge. The railway will benefit people travelling from much further afield, including Kent.
The Government have supported the principle of the private sector designing, building and operating the extension for the simple reason that its involvement will mean that the project will be completed earlier than would otherwise have been the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South clearly spelt that out in his opening speech. Without private sector involvement in the project, we might have to wait many more years simply because there are many pressing and valuable projects within Greater London, not only for London transport and British Rail but for the LDDC, which is responsible for much of the roadworks within docklands.
Mr. Cohen: We have heard all that before in relation to the Channel tunnel and the Channel rail link. The Government and the Minister's predecessors said that private finance and involvement would get those built much sooner than if the state were involved. The truth has been the opposite—the Channel tunnel will not be completed in time and the Channel rail link is well behind schedule. We have no date for its completion. Are not the Minister's words just so much hot air?
Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman has heard those words before and he will hear them many more times from me. The Channel tunnel project has been a remarkable success—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would like to visit the Channel tunnel, I shall arrange it. I have walked through it and it is a miracle to behold. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would benefit from seeing what a tremendous civil engineering project it is. Moreover, it will be completed on time. The railway services through the tunnel, operated by Eurotunnel, British Rail and SNCF, may not be in operation by the summer of 1993 but they will be very shortly thereafter. The Government believe that the private sector's provision of the Channel tunnel is a tremendous achievement. I dare say that, had the public sector been responsible for financing it, it may have taken considerably longer.
Mr. Peter Fry: Will my hon. Friend remind the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) that the last great infrastructure project in the public sector in this country was the Humber bridge, which ran months and months over its time and increased its cost enormously?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I hope that we shall not go around the entire United Kingdom in this debate.
Mr. Freeman: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall come straight back to the Bill.
We propose to transfer the docklands light railway from London Regional Transport to the LDDC. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the representations made following the consultation procedure with the local authorities and others, and we shall reach a conclusion shortly. If it is decided to proceed with the transfer, it will be clearly appropriate to amend the Bill later in its proceedings, probably in another place, to substitute the DLR—not the LDDC—for London Regional Transport as the sponsor.
756
The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), in one of his several interventions, erroneously said that passengers would pay for the work that London Regional Transport will do on the preparation of the Bill and in carrying forward the project—consultation with the private sector, design work, etc. May I make it plain that the fare-paying passenger has not been financing London Regional Transport for that work. Rather, the taxpayer has been financing it through the grant mechanism. It would not be equitable to ask underground or bus passengers to pay for the work.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar in a very detailed speech, cited the environmental impact on her constituents. The whole House recognises that she has discharged that obligation this evening with great thoroughness. It is an important issue. I have visited her constituency with her and I agree that the construction of a new line running south through the Mudchute and Island Gardens, under the Thames to Lewisham and Greenwich, will bring inconvenience and disruption. I saw for myself the impact on the Mudchute which, incidentally, is where the contractors put the mud when they excavated the Royal docks and the docks on the Isle of Dogs. I saw for myself the allotments there and I know that there will be an impact, albeit marginal, on the Mudchute. However, Millwall park will be temporarily affected during construction and permanently by the loss of part of the park. Clearly, Island Gardens, with its most attractive view of Greenwich, the naval college and the observatory, will be affected during construction.
The conveyor belt to which the hon. Lady referred will be a visual intrusion to the residents of Island Gardens, who will suffer from the noise of construction and of the partial demolition of the old line. I do not know whether the sponsors of the Bill plan to demolish Island Gardens station but the construction of the new line will bring inconvenience. I have written to the hon. Lady and said that I understand the points that she raises and I have given her an undertaking that I will bring the matter to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, who is responsible for the LDDC and London Regional Transport.
If the transfer goes ahead, it will be a matter for the LDDC and the Department of the Environment, which is the sponsoring Ministry. The hon. Lady asked for an amenity fund and she made a powerful argument. I cannot assure her on that and she has sought none from me tonight but, having visited the site, I understand the strength of her argument and I shall discuss the matter with my hon. Friend.
Finally, you have ruled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is in order to comment on the second Bill. I understand that the block on this Bill has been removed. The Government also support what my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South said—it is appropriate because it rectifies a technical defect in the Bill. I commend both Bills to the House.
8.38 pm
Ms. Joan Ruddock: I begin by declaring a strong constituency interest in these Bills. As the Member for Deptford, I have supported the proposals of my local authority and London Transport and the promoters of the Bill since its early stages, and I want to put on record my admiration for the officers of my local authority who have struggled for six years to get this

757
package together, in support of the proposals by London Transport, and who have done a good job in assembling an impressive argument in favour of the extension of the docklands light railway across the river.
My constituency is very like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) in that it has high unemployment—19 per cent. at the latest count and an increase of more than 40 per cent. in the past year. It also suffers from poor transport infrastructure which greatly hinders my constituents when seeking employment anywhere other than the local area. It suffers, too, from all the inner-city problems that arise specifically from road congestion. We have air pollution, noise, environmental degradation and poor local amenities. My constituency, therefore, is in desperate need of economic regeneration. Thus it has been my view and that of the Lewisham local authority that the extension of the docklands light railway to Deptford and Lewisham will provide a vital stimulus for economic growth in the area.
The extension would also add to Lewisham's development as a major commercial and shopping centre in south London, and, with five new stations south of the river and interchanges with British Rail lines, it offers a considerable increase in the choice of public transport routes for local people.
It is not, however, as a constituency Member but as a Front-Bench spokesperson on transport in London that I ought to speak tonight. In that context, I begin with the record of the docklands light railway. It is not impressive. It was a badly designed railway, designed with a capacity far too limited for the potential demand. It was in fact another example of the Government trying to get new infrastructure on the cheap. It has not been an unmitigated success, and that needs to be acknowledged.
Many of the aspects mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar tonight give us great cause for concern. Too much noise is associated with the running of the railway; that must be put right. The railway has not been reliable; that must be put right, too. We certainly do not want an extended DLR that operates in the same way as the railway has been operating in the past 12 months.
It is our belief that the railway can be made more reliable and that it has the potential to offer a valuable form of public transport. Within the framework of a Labour transport policy for London, with a strong consumers charter, we believe that we can have an effective railway. For these reasons, Labour is prepared to welcome the extension of the DLR south of the Thames. It is welcome for strategic reasons and for providing an alternative to take the pressure off overloaded BR commuter services running into Cannon Street, Charing Cross and London Bridge. This extension will have the potential to carry at least 12,000 passengers an hour—rather more than the modest 20,000 a day envisaged for the original DLR.
The extension will create a much needed cross-river link between east and south-east London and will greatly improve links with the docklands. It is likely that many commuters using an extended DLR will transfer from their cars. That is enormously important to cutting pollution and easing road congestion. We strongly support measures that will enable people to use their cars less, and light rail is potentially non-polluting and environmentally friendly.
It is also undeniable that the DLR and its extension are fully accessible to people, including wheelchair users, with mobility handicaps. That is important to us and a
758
considerable improvement on existing public transport services in south London. For these reasons, we support the Bill.
Before I move on to the aspect of the Bill that gives us particular concern—the transfer of the DLR to the London Docklands development corporation—I should like to refer further to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar. I understand and appreciate the anxieties that she has expressed about the amount of disruption and the loss of amenities which her constituents will suffer as a result of these proposals. She will understand that, for the strategic reasons that I have mentioned, Labour supports the DLR extension, but I assure her that I have been impressed by the force of her arguments in support of her constituents and by the case that she has made for changes in the Bill, for compensation, for action on noise and environmental damage, and for an amenity trust.
I was disappointed by the Minister's reply. Given that most of us are so anxious for the passage of these Bills, surely he could have given a more positive response so that we could have made united progress on an important public transport measure. I undertand that reference has been made to the Department of the Environment; as the LDDC is outside the remit of London Transport, I urge the DoE and the LDDC to consider these matters sympathetically. I hope that ways will be found to compensate my hon. Friend's constituents; only in that way will we all be satisfied that there is justice in the passing of these Bills.
I come now to the proposal to transfer the DLR to the London Docklands development corporation. The Labour party has long argued that there should be a strategic plan for transport in London. We have often stated that transport in London cannot be left to the operation of market forces. Private companies cannot and do not wish to pick up the responsibility for a coherent transport network in this capital city. It is up to the Government to provide that framework, and our proposals for a Greater London authority will devolve responsibility for strategic planning in transport to a Londonwide authority which is elected and democratically accountable.
Welcome though the Lewisham extension measure is, we do not feel that the Government encouraged it because of its intrinsic merits or strategic valuethey did so simply because it would cost the Government nothing to let it go ahead.
Mr. Freeman: I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Lady will agree that she did not mean that. I have often said that the docklands light railway extension to Lewisham and Greenwich has been, is and will be recognised for its strategic necessity—and for its social and economic regenerative benefits. I am sure that she will concede that the private sector has been involved in building it to advance its construction.
Ms. Ruddock: It is still our view that this should be the responsibility of the Government. If they believe that the case has been made, they ought to give it real support—and they could have. The amounts involved in this extension are very small in Government terms and, had they been given, they would have speeded this measure's passage and thus avoided forcing those who want the

759
railway extended to devote enormous efforts to getting together the package of private money needed to make the proposal feasible.
This is rather like the extension of the Jubilee line. Private money drove that proposal forward and created priorities for the Government. That was wrong, and it is wrong of the Government to have made it a condition that this extension should proceed only if private sector money is found. The Government have demonstrated their willingness to subjugate the needs of Londoners and London's transport to private interests. When in government, Labour will take a very different view.
We oppose the creeping privatisation of transport in London which is endemic in this proposal. The transfer to the LDDC is an outrage, and we strongly oppose it. It is merely a prelude to complete privatisation when the LDDC ceases to exist in a few years' time. When the Government first suggested making this transfer, I tabled a long series of parliamentary questions. The answers showed that the Government had no idea of the implications of the transfer. No answers were forthcoming on the fate of travelcards, on through-ticketing or on the responsibility of the LDDC for a network outside its own area. There were no answers about the role of the London Regional Passengers Committee and no replies to a list of other important questions. However, it slipped out, although it was officially denied, that 1 April might be the transfer date. There are surely serious doubts about whether such a transfer is workable by 1 April. In any event, I promise the House that a Labour Government will return the DLR to London Transport when we take office on 10 April.
There are so many concerns about the second Bill that I shall not have time to go into all of them. I remind the Minister that no answer has been forthcoming on the availability of travelcards or concessionary fares. There has been no clarification of the responsibility of the LDDC to the DLR outside its own territory, and no information on new operational arrangements for emergencies or on the quality-of-service standard. May we expect an LDDC customers charter or will we just get more roses and boxes of chocolates?
There has been no explanation of how a railway system run under the aegis of the Department of the Environment will be co-ordinated with the rest of the rail and bus networks in London. Everybody in London, with the exception of the Government it seems, thinks that there must be integration and co-ordination of different modes of transport. However, the transfer will work directly against that strategy.
We want answers to our questions, but none has been given. As the Minister has declined to give them, I hope that the promoter—
Mr. Freeman: I do not want to put the hon. Lady off her train of thought. The intention is that travelcards and concessionary fares should continue. I understand that the LDDC will ensure that the LRPC's remit runs to the DLR. No change is envisaged on any of those three counts.
Ms. Ruddock: I thank the Minister because it is useful to have such matters on record. Again, he uses words such as "intention".
Mr. Redmond: I should like to be clear about transport commitments to the elderly. Following deregulation in South Yorkshire some old-age pensioners who had bus passes were unfortunately unable to use them because of the lack of transport. It was uneconomical for the private firms to pick up elderly people in housing estates and they were left without transport for some weeks. I suggest, and I am sure my hon. Friend agrees, that if the private sector finds a route uneconomic it will certainly not wish to provide transport or service on that route.
Ms. Ruddock: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Outside London, deregulation, fragmentation and privatisation of services have resulted in the loss of many arrangements similar to the travelcard. There is no doubt in the minds of Londoners that travelcards and concessionary fares are two of the city's most important transport measures and that they are undermined by fragmentation and privatisation. That would happen with the transfer of the DLR to the LDDC. We are not impressed by the Minister's assurances, because they are not specific enough to satisfy us and are not in the Bills.
Ms. Gordon: Has my hon. Friend considered the fact that if the railway is run by a private company and proves not to be sufficiently profitable it could be closed? A fleet of minibuses on the Isle of Dogs stopped wherever passengers wanted them to, but London Transport took it over and it went out of business.
Ms. Ruddock: My hon. Friend astutely expresses my concern. We are all afraid of such measures, because experience shows that they jeopardise the provision of public services in London and put transport services at grave risk.
Mr. Cohen: The LDDC is nominally due to close its doors in a few years. Some of us suspect that it might carry on if the present Government, horror upon horror, were to win the election. In that case it might sell off this line to another private company and, presumably, the Minister's assurances will be quite worthless. Would not it be better for assurances on concessionary fares and travelcards to be on the face of the Bill?
Ms. Ruddock: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I have consistently made that point to the Minister. There can be no doubt, and the Government have not denied, that the LDDC is expected to cease to exist and that the DLR, having been passed to the LDC, would then be passed to some private company or other. In connection with the DLR, the Government's intention is privatisation. We have no doubt about that, but we are opposed to it and will end it when we come to office in the foreseeable future.
I have expressed the concerns as forcefully as possible, but I am in a difficulty. We see the need for extending public transport provision, especially south of the river. We do not think that it is right to penalise the residents of south London by holding up the Bills while we debate the ownership of the DLR. With great reservations, we are prepared to allow the Bills to proceed. We look forward to the day, in the not-too-distant future, I think, when a Labour Government will control the transport strategy for London. I assure the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar that environmental considerations and safety will be given much greater

761
priority in transport planning than at present. They will also be given much greater priority in the day-to-day operation of our railways.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: In view of the fact that on 9 April we are supposed to have a general election, which the Prime Minister will announce two days after the Budget, having had an important Cabinet meeting, surely since Labour will win the election we need not talk about having a Labour Government in the foreseeable future because we shall have one in only a few weeks? Why can we not say that Labour will not assist to pass this Bill? We are going to win anyway, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) will have a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon). We can then draw up an agenda for the necessary negotiations and consultations. Be confident. They will get kicked out of office and we should not give them any support now. Nobody will come to any harm, but the residents of Bow and Poplar will be better off because we shall take control and those residents will be able to get their pound of flesh as they see it.
Ms. Ruddock: I was trying hard to assure my hon. Friend that that was the way things would go. We want to see the Bill proceed, even though the election is only a matter of weeks away. We want to be in the business of making the adjustments and amendments and being in control of the situation. We expect to be in control on 10 April.
I have outlined the way in which, when we are in power, much more consideration will be given to environmental and safety concerns in both the construction and the design of railways. The same will apply to the day-to-day running of the railways.
Public transport must operate in the wider public interest, and must have as little impact as possible on residential areas and community facilities. That is why Government must take responsibility for transport and must be willing to use public money where necessary to achieve their objectives.
Undoubtedly, two of the reasons why there have been so many problems with the DLR are its underfunding and the Government's lack of commitment to ensuring that it runs effectively. We know that there is no bottomless pit of public money; the difference between us and the Government is that we are prepared to adopt new and imaginative ways of making limited public funds go further.
The House will know of the persistence with which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has pressed Ministers to allow British Rail to lease rolling stock for the north Kent line. Such arrangements would be relevant to the funding of the Lewisham DLR extension and could possibly provide the means whereby an increase in total funds could help to meet the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar.
Mr. Freeman: How does the hon. Lady expect British Rail and the Treasury to treat the finance lease that would be involved in paying for the 188 class 465 Networkers? Is she confirming that that lease would, according to standard accounting practices, be capitalised on British Rail's balance sheet and counted as public expenditure?
Ms. Ruddock: The Minister will know—because of the frequency with which my hon. Friend has made the point to him—that we believe that we can make such arrangements in the same way as continental railways. We consider that this is a way of using a capital sum to pay out a much smaller amount, on an annual basis, in a lease arrangement, rather than funding the whole amount in any one instance. The arrangement is entirely acceptable to our shadow Chancellor and—as the Minister knows perfectly well—to the chairman of British Rail. It is dependent on our changing the Treasury rules. We have said that we will do that and we are satisfied that this is a way in which we can fund the railway properly.
Let me ask the Minister a more relevant question. Why is he not prepared to allow British Rail to make such a lease arrangement? Is he as ideologically opposed to the arrangement as he has said that he is for the past 12 months?
Mr. Freeman: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms. Ruddock: I hope that the Minister will excuse me if I do not.
We are perfectly satisfied that this is a way of making a limited sum of public money go further, in the interests of the taxpayer and of the travelling public.
Let me end by promising that a Labour Government will get the DLR running effectively. Labour will ensure that there is an extension to Lewisham and south of the river, in the ways proposed in the Bill, but with more priority given to both safety considerations and the environmental impact of the railway. We believe that the railway can be made to work effectively, in the interests of Londoners, in the interests of those who seek to travel and, I hope, in the interests of those who live and work in its vicinity.
9.2 pm
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: I have been involved in discussions about the railway extension since 1988. Those discussions have taken place on an all-borough, all-party basis. We have made forceful representations to the Minister, urging him to give the scheme favourable consideration. Although there may be some t's that we would have liked to cross differently, the broad principle of the extension is much needed by the people of south-east London.
Over the years, we have had a very raw deal south of the river in terms of public transport. We have almost been cut off: we have had no underground system and only a limited British Rail system. That has had some advantages for the people of Greenwich—it has retained a certain village-like quality, for instance—but, although that may have added to the charm of the place, it has certainly not added to local people's job prospects and it is inhibiting commuters.
Over recent decades, Greenwich has experienced a vast decline in industry. In the 1950s and 1960s, many residents could find employment very close to their homes—almost within walking distance. Unfortunately, that has changed. Now, people must travel to seek employment.
Greenwich is also experiencing a major housing crisis. As house prices in north London have steadily risen, more and more people have moved to south London, where—

763
for a while, at least—prices were more moderate. That has led to more people trying to reach other parts of London for work opportunities.
By railway development standards, the cost of this railway is relatively modest. The period of time involved is relatively short. We are not talking about a decade or more. The scheme could be up and running by the mid-1990s. There will be immediate benefits, therefore, if the scheme goes ahead. We have heard that about 12,000 commuters an hour will use the railway. I am not so pessimistic as the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) about the residents of south-east London being unable to obtain jobs in docklands. The current recession means that the hoped-for jobs in docklands are not there, but I have always taken the view that the people of Greenwich and Deptford —I have a little bit of Deptford in my constituency—must be given the opportunity to take advantage of the future work opportunities that docklands presents. I have never accepted the argument that docklands jobs are for a different category of people, with different educational attainments. If that presents a problem, it has to be tackled. We must make sure that our people have access to those jobs.
Congestion in the area, particularly when it comes to crossing the river in the morning, is appalling. Those who have to use the Blackwall tunnel or the Rotherhithe tunnel know of the delays that can be experienced. The Network South East service in Greenwich is becoming almost a joke. We have experienced particular problems. I hope that the introduction of the Networker trains and the construction of the new tunnels will lead to a vast improvement. The present service, however, is infrequent and unreliable. Trains are frequently cancelled, or travellers experience considerable delays. The frustration of commuters is rising by the day.
A great step forward will be made by the combination of the docklands light railway extension and the Jubilee line which, for the first time, will link Greenwich with the underground system in London. Even those who travel to work by Rolls-Royce will be tempted to travel by means of a railway that allows them to cross the river to Canary wharf in 10 minutes and links them with other lines to take them into the City.
The railway's route through Greenwich is surprisingly uncomplicated. It will travel through pockets of residential areas. However, an almost ready-made route is available that would cause relatively little disruption to local residents. The railway will stimulate development and investment in Greenwich town centre. A great waterfront development is planned for the forthcoming decade. It will be no more than a pipedream, however, if a proper transport infrastructure is not provided.
I am concerned that the Bill's progress has already been somewhat delayed. That is due, in part, to the Prime Minister's announcement that the scheme is to be transferred to the London Docklands development corporation which, I understand, will be the shareholder, banker and strategic planner, while the docklands light railway will continue to run the day-by-day business of the railway. I understand the Government's motive—that they need to reinspire confidence and initiative, since the railway has been regarded as a very poor substitute for
764
what was originally promised. The number of breakdowns, the number of people stranded for hours on end and the inoperative nature of the scheme has caused great concern to those who had looked forward to its extension across the river. However, I have been reassured that some of the fundamental problems are already being tackled. Therefore, when the extension has been completed I expect it to run well.
I accept the LDDC's undertaking that it will honour all the commitments made to local groups and residents by London Regional Transport, but I share the concern of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar that we need strategic planning for public transport in London so that we can achieve the long-overdue cohesion and co-ordination.
In my constituency, there has been some debate and controversy about whether we should have two stations relatively close together—one at the Cutty Sark and one at the British Rail station in Greenwich town centre. They are about five minutes walk apart and several bodies have argued forcefully that one would have been sufficient. I accept the principle that the railway will be a tram-like system which people will use for relatively short journeys to get very close to where they want to go. I also accept that commuters in Greenwich will find it easy to link with the British Rail station in Greenwich whereas tourists will want to use the Cutty Sark station.
I heard with concern what the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar said about the noise and deterioration experienced by her constituents over the years and I shall seek continual reassurance that that problem can and will be eradicated before there is any further development. The majority of constituents on the Meridian estate which will be affected by the Cutty Sark station will not, of course, have the immediate problem of noise, because at that point the extension will be underground, but, naturally, there are concerns. They fear dust, dirt and noise during the construction period and vibration once it is in operation.
One block of flats in particular has had a difficult few months. It was initially threatened with demolition and, although it now seems to have been spared that, it will bear the brunt of the dirt, noise and pollution during construction. I hope that the residents of Walrond house will be treated with the generosity and sensitivity that they need.
I should also like to draw the Minister's attention to the problem of residents in Straightsmouth who already have to contend with a great deal of noise from the British Rail tracks which run near their homes and which will have to be moved slightly nearer as a result of the development. I understand that the continuous track which they have requested is technically possible and it would, I believe, alleviate many of their problems. As so few residents will be adversely affected by the development, which will be to the great advantage of the vast majority, I hope that generosity can be the order of the day. However, the uncertainty of the past few years has been the worst of all worlds for many residents who have not known whether the development would go ahead.
I strongly recommend that there is no delay in proceeding with the Bill, as it will be to the enormous advantage of the people of south-east London. It will substantially improve the quality of their lives and provide access to job opportunities currently denied them. We are talking about journeys of 10 minutes as opposed to a miserable journey of, perhaps, an hour and a half stuck in a car trying to get through the Blackwall tunnel in the rush

765
hour. Such journeys are proving to be an enormous barrier. It is extremely frustrating for people who can stand in Greenwich park and see the development in docklands. Let us hope that, when the area eventually becomes economically more vibrant, people in Greenwich will be able to do more than see it—let us hope that they can participate in it.
9.14 pm
Mr. Alan Amos: I am a strong supporter of public transport in London and I frequently try to get to work on the docklands light railway. It follows, therefore, that I support the extension of the DLR. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his close and genuine interest in the operation of the DLR. I remember one occasion on which he offered to come to my house and to come into central London with me on the DLR. Fortunately for him, he could not do so that morning. If he had tried to make that journey, he would have been half an hour late.
I have one serious concern. How can the management of the DLR be expected to run an extended system to Lewisham and Greenwich when they cannot run the present system? Docklands Light Railway Limited must be the most badly managed and incompetently run part of the whole London transport system. I have wasted more time hanging around for trains and buses than I care to remember. The Government were right to transfer the management of the DLR from London Regional Transport to the London Docklands development corporation if for no other reason than that the LDDC cannot do any worse than LRT has.
The basis of my concern is widespread. About two years ago, I went to see the management of the DLR to discuss my concern about the unreliability of the system. I was then introduced to the proposals for the extension under the river to the south and I was given a map. I was concerned by what I saw on the map, so a few days later I went to LRT to discuss the proposals with it. I was told that the map I had been given was already nine months out of date and that all the proposals had been changed. I was not impressed by the management of DLR giving me a map that was more than nine months out of date.
Mudchute and Island Gardens are the two stations affected by the extension. I understand the need and desire of the DLR management to double the length of the trains which means that they have to double the length of the platforms. However, they did not double the length of Mudchute station and Island Gardens station. The people using those stations face a reduced service because trains terminate at Crossharbour. The galling point was that the DLR management put notices through the doors of local residents saying that that represented an improvement of the service of the DLR, although the opposite was the case. People are not fooled by such stupid statements.
No notice is given of changes in the bus routes which operate in the evenings and at weekends. There are no public announcements on platforms about what is going on during the daily disruption. The indicator boards on the stations rarely work. The escalator at Tower Gateway is frequently out of operation. In other words, the service is infrequent, irregular and unreliable.
There is no co-ordination between routes to Stratford and the connecting trains at Crossharbour to Tower
766
Gateway and Bank. The disruption is bad because it is daily. The only thing that is regular, reliable and predictable is the extent of the disruption.
The DLR's reputation is now appalling, but I fear that it is justifiable. What concerns me most is that it is bad for the long-term success of docklands, to which I am strongly committed, and it undermines all the good work of the developers, of the Government and of the others involved in the massive enterprise. I say yes to the extension, but only if the management are paid by results directly related to the DLR's reliability and punctuality, which is the only incentive to bring about radical improvements in the operation of any newly extended system. The DLR is superb in concept, but disgraceful in its management.
I urge the promoters to take note of those serious points. I have described what we have had to put up with over the past four years. If the system is extended, as I believe that it should be, it is vital that the quality of the service is dramatically improved. The people of that part of London deserve better from the management of the DLR.
9.19 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) is right that, in many ways, the docklands light railway has been a disaster—one might even say an unmitigated disaster. The blame for that rests with the Government because it was the Government who built it on the cheap. It is an example of market forces at work and of what happens when there is a lack of proper planning in building such a system and in seeking to provide a good transport infrastructure for the area. For 13 wasted years, this Government have let market forces run the show.
Matters will not be made better if we allow the LDDC to take over. The LDDC eulogised the system when it first appeared but the LDDC is not—and nor has it ever been—a transport operator. It will control the railway only as a first step towards privatisation. I think that the disaster will continue as a result of the Government's chosen course.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) on a superb constituency speech. When the general election comes—perhaps on 9 April—she will be returned with a handsome and increased majority. The people of Bow and Poplar should be told how she defended their interests in the House when the Government, LRT and the LDDC wanted to walk all over them. No doubt my hon. Friend will see off the challenge from the Liberals quite comfortably. It is interesting that they have not been here at all. I suspect that, if the Bill and the interests of the people of Bow and Poplar were up before the House for discussion again in future, they would not be here to defend the areas interests.
Mr. Skinner: I have been here for a while and I have been looking for the Liberal Democrats, as they call themselves nowadays. It is just conceivable that they are having a caucus meeting to change their name again. It is just possible, with an election coming up. They have had their name for a year and a half—it is the longest lasting name that they have had since the last general election. Mr. Speaker should be told about this matter because, when they change their name, the question arises whether they

767
should receive what is called the Short money which they get on the basis of their name at the previous general election.
It is also possible that the Liberal Democrats are not interested in railways and that what they are interested in is getting round Paddy Backdown—I nearly said something else—otherwise known as Captain Mainwaring so that this little Dad's Army can have a caucus meeting to discuss what to do at the general election. They have all these high-flown ideas; we shall probably see them on telly tomorrow. I can see that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are beginning to think, "What has this got to do with the docklands light railway?" I can understand that, but I think that you will agree that railways are an environmental issue. They are an issue that is supposed to be for the anoraked people—the ones with green wellies who eat brown rice—but they are nowhere to be found. What can they expect when they are being led by him?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman had a good run but, as he admitted, what he said had nothing to do with the Bill.
Mr. Cohen: I can well imagine the Liberal Democrats having a caucus meeting about their name because they certainly have no policies worth talking about. They have shown us that they are not interested in the environment and in public transport.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) said, the Labour party welcomes investment in new public transport infrastructure. Such investment has been grossly lacking in 13 years of this Government. We have had £109 billion from North sea oil but very little of it has gone into public transport infrastructure. The Minister said again tonight that he wants to rely only on private money. Where is private money during a recession?
Mr. Skinner: In Lloyd's?
Mr. Cohen: No, it is not there either. The Government are washing their hands of what they should do in terms of building up our public transport infrastructure. I welcome the element in the Bill concerning the extension to south London.
Mr. Redmond: We used to have an excellent transport service in south Yorkshire until the Government intervened. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) will agree that London desperately needs a co-ordinated transport system which takes people off the road and puts them on to rail. However, the Government have no sensible suggestions in that regard because they believe in market forces. Regrettably, market forces do nothing to improve services. Instead, they cause the cost of fares for the people in London to escalate. As a northern person, I implore people in London to demand co-ordinated cheap and efficient services so that the emergency services can move freely on the roads in London, something that they cannot do now.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) will be very ingenious if he can respond to that intervention and remain in order.
Mr. Cohen: I can do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the Bill will mean less co-ordination of services because the
768
control of London's transport is being fragmented. By passing control to the LDDC halfway through the procedure, there will be less co-ordination. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) speaks from experience. He knows that we get better services if there is overall co-ordination.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar was right to say that the docklands light railway does not run properly. However, will the new line run properly? My hon. Friend said that the residents in her area suffer from noise and pollution. Will residents by the extended line suffer noise and pollution problems? She said that inherent noise problems were built in at the initial stage. Will that be the case with the extension? She also referred to inherent breakdowns. Will they occur on the new system?
The Minister made a very short speech, but he should have found time to respond to those basic issues about the docklands light railway. He should at least have said that the new system will not have the faults of the existing system. It was worrying that the Minister could not give any assurance about that. It looks like the same problems will be experienced, but that they will be extended.
In those circumstances, it might have been a better option to extend and improve the east London line to south and south-east London. The east London line has better links with east London and it might have been an option worth considering. Even if there are problems with the docklands light railway and the Minister still wants to go ahead—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair has allowed a fairly wide debate on the Third Reading of this Bill because it is closely linked with the Second Reading of the No. 2 Bill. However, it strays beyond that for the hon. Member for Leyton to talk about other options.
Mr. Cohen: I accede to your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Redmond: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the argument has been about the lack of response by the Government to compensate those who will be affected by the development. If the residents are convinced that compensation is the order of the day, they should press and press again. Only by doing that can they hope for a Government U-turn, which the Government have done in respect of many other matters not connected with this. I urge the residents to ensure that they give maximum support to my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon), who has done such an excellent job. The only way to obtain compensation is to press and press again. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with me.
Mr. Cohen: I agree with my hon. Friend.
The transfer of the Bill to the LDDC halfway through its proceedings is disgraceful. The Bill was brought forward by the LRT and it was later switched over to the LDDC. Nobody knows who is responsible for what. Who is responsible for controlling the contractor, who is responsible for safety, and who is responsible for the compensation that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar have requested? Again, no light was shed on that matter by the Minister. That is a disgrace.
The transfer to the LDDC is wrong in principle, because we cannot ensure the strategic planning for London transport as a whole, and it breaks up

769
management of the transport network. It also is a step in the direction of privatisation. The travelcard and concessionary fares systems could be put at risk in that part of the network. The transfer to the LDDC is wrong, particularly halfway through the proceedings on this private Bill.
Under the private Bill procedure, there was an objection by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar. Attempts should have been made to meet her objection to try to resolve the matter. That is the normal process. If there is no objection, a Bill quickly passes through the House. If there is an objection, a Bill can sometimes flounder. I do not think that the objection that my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar eloquently put was insurmountable. If LRT, the LDDC or the Government wanted to, they could have met her objection. In part, they did not want to because they were shifting responsibility. They could have set up the community trust fund to supply some of the compensation to which my hon. Friend referred.
One of the few points that the Minister made about the amenity fund was that it has nothing to do with the Department of Transport, but it is a matter for the Department of the Environment. He said, "Go to it and try to persuade it to give you a few bob for the residents who are suffering." If a Department of the Environment Minister had been present, he would have said, "It has nothing to do with us, it concerns the Department of Transport." That mirrors the shift of responsibility between London Regional Transport and the LDDC. The LDDC says, "It has nothing to do with us, it is a matter for the docklands corporation." The docklands corporation would say, "It has nothing to do with us; London Transport is bringing forward the Bill." That demonstrates the Government's shiftiness in avoiding resolving my hon. Friend's simple objection. It took an hour to raise it because it could not be resolved simply.
Mr. Freeman: There was no ambiguity in what I said. The Government's proposal is to transfer the DLR from London Regional Transport to the LDDC. If a decision is taken to ratify that and give instructions to London Regional Transport to that effect, responsibility for the amenity fund will rest with the LDDC. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), who spoke for the Opposition, gave no commitment or promise to provide an amenity fund. I have not ruled it out and I hope that I have given a positive, clear and constructive response to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon). I have visited the site. I recognise the problems and I have told her where the responsibility lies.
Mr. Cohen: I still think that the Minister is being somewhat mealy-mouthed. He says that the responsibility is with the LDDC but does not give any commitment to a fund.
Ms. Gordon: My hon. Friend is right. The Minister may have come down to the site and may have sympathy with the community and understand its problems but my impression is that the decision about a fund will be taken by the Department of the Environment and the LDDC, which is not sympathetic. We could not get more than £50,000 for thousands of television aerials, so how can we expect to obtain a decent amenity fund as compensation for the loss of facilities with the docklands light railway extension?
770
The people of Greenwich and Lewisham should also ask what type of metal the extension will be made of. Will it be heavy-gauge metal or the light metal with metal wheels against metal tracks that will deteriorate, need regrinding and make a terrible noise? Many matters have been left out which should have been specified in the Bill, so we cannot be certain how the line will be built. Therefore, we have to oppose it.
Mr. Cohen: I hear what my hon. Friend says. We have reached the Third Reading of the Bill. My hon. Friend has made her objections clear from the initiation of the Bill in the House. The Government, the promoters or the LDDC, which will take over the railway, should have got their act together, met my hon. Friend and come up with an offer of compensation for her constituents who will suffer. It is all right for the Minister to say that he is still open minded. He should have come up with the cash. He has had plenty of time to do that.
Mr. Redmond: Can my hon. Friend clarify what the Minister said? Lots of names are being bandied about by the Minister and he has made lots of promises about the project. But I am at a loss to understand—perhaps my hon. Friend can explain—why positive steps have not been taken to allay the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) and to meet the objections of her constituents. I listened most carefully to what the Minister said. Does my hon. Friend agree that there may be a danger that any money found for compensation will be taken elsewhere? Given the great giveaway that is taking place, I am at a loss to understand why the Minister has not come to the Dispatch Box and said that several million pounds will be provided to satisfy the points raised.
Mr. Cohen: That is a fair point. The Government think that my hon. Friend's constituents are not important and that they can walk all over them. Until now, the Government thought that they could walk all over my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar, even though she has made an objection on behalf of her constituents. She has shown the Government that they have another think coming. She will not let the Government walk all over her constituents and treat them in such an appalling way. The Minister must come up with the cash and an amenity fund to compensate her constituents.
The environmental aspects of the extension must also be dealt with. As my hon. Friend said, it is being built on the cheap. Some sections should be built by cut and cover. Improvement of the environment, compensation and the amenity fund should be written into the Bill.
Mr. Skinner: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has referred to the environment. We are talking about an environmentally sensitive aea. A Tory Minister came here the other day and talked about providing money for environmentally sensitive areas. I thought, "Hello. Summat for Bolsover, because of the dioxin." But I am not going to talk about that tonight. What was it for? It was money for environmentally sensitive areas in Tory marginal seats. It was an electorally sensitive area grant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) is representing her constituents and demanding some form of compensation for them from this tinpot Minister, who reckons to run the railways, because they

771
will be blighted by the railway development and what she referred to as its Hornby-like tracks. I had better not say any more because it is already a matter for the courts.
The Secretary of State for Transport is here—the Minister who went upstairs to see the railway exhibition on the first floor of the House of Commons last week. What did he do? The £60,000 a year Tory Cabinet Minister smashed the clockwork trains. The whole clockwork arrangement on the floor came to a shuddering halt when that man ran it into the ground. He is supposed to have had 13 years in Government and he cannot even run a clockwork train. He is educated beyond his intelligence. Let us hear from him.
Mr. Cohen: I am happy to give way to the Minister.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) because he has given me the first opportunity since that curious piece appeared in The Times Diary to say that The Times has since apologised. It was a case of mistaken identity. I have not even visited the exhibition in question.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that we can now get back on the rails.
Mr. Cohen: I shall try to get back on track, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree that the area should be treated as environmentally sensitive. That is why I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar. The railway should be in cuts or covered in certain places and the amenity fund to compensate her constituents should be on the face of the Bill. We need more commitment than the Minister has shown tonight. The opinion of the House is clear—he should come up with the cash. He should compensate my hon. Friend's constituents.
Mr. Redmond: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cohen: Yes, but this will have to be the last intervention.
Mr. Redmond: I am concerned whether the Bill will provide what it says that it intends to provide—an efficient cheap service which will be integrated with the London transport system. I am not confident that that is the case. I have listened to some of the arguments, although not all. Will my hon. Friend give me some assurance which will stop a Division? Having taken a train to travel here on Sunday night and sampled some of the delays on the way from Scotland to the City, I wonder whether one can accept what is being said by the Government side and by the promoter of the Bill. Can my hon. Friend give me that assurance as I have grave reservations?
Mr. Cohen: I suspect that my hon. Friend will not get a reservation on that particular train. I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance he requires because I suspect that the train will not be cheap in terms of fares. However, it certainly will be cheap in terms of its building costs—just like the existing system. The service will not be integrated because it will be managed in a different way from London Transport.
Ms. Gordon: My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) has asked serveral times to be
772
assured that the railway will be a cheap and integrated service. It is my understanding that the private company that will run that railway will charge a premium fare. We do not know how much that will be and whether it will be in line with normal fares. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that.
Mr. Cohen: We are on Third Reading, with 16 minutes of debate to go and we now learn that premium fares are likely to be charged. That was not referred to by the sponsor or the Minister in his exceptionally short speech. It is extremely worrying to contemplate the introduction of premium fares. Fares across the capital have already gone up, so how much will the premium fare be? What effect will it have on concessionary fares?
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) demanded from the Minister what would happen in the subsequent takeover in respect of concessionary fares for pensioners and the disabled. The concessionary fare system in London is pretty good in comparison with the rest of the country. In response the Minister said something like, "It is not our intention". We know that that is parliamentary gobbledegook, because that means that in the event of the Tories winning the next election—if they are lucky—the whole concessionary fare system could go down the drain. That is what "intention" means.
The Government are now talking about a public sector borrowing requirement of up to £30 billion and it is a scandal that they cannot find enough money to compensate the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar. What is worse, someone from the royal family will open the railway. Di will turn up in her Mercedes or the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), who got a Mercedes from Maxwell for a quid, might come along. I have a straight John Bull question for my hon. Friend. Does he believe that the compensation for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar should come from taxing the Queen's income?
Mr. Cohen: That is a fair question. I signed the early-day motion, along with a number of hon. Members, to that effect.
I doubt whether the Queen will come along to open this particular line, because the story goes that she came along to open the original docklands light railway and got stuck in one of the carriages. She got stuck because the railway was of a poor standard, even then. She will probably send Fergie along instead in the hope that she will get stuck in a carriage for ever.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was right about borrowing, which will be a key issue in the Budget. They should borrow the money to compensate the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar. If borrowing is a good option when it comes to the economy—
Mr. Skinner: It is flavour of the month.
Mr. Cohen: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Therefore, it is appropriate to borrow money to compensate my hon. Friend's constituents and to improve their environment.
Mr. Cryer: We are now on Third Reading and, unfortunately, amendments are not easily applicable at this stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and

773
Poplar (Ms. Gordon) is the principal opponent of the Bill. However, she has made it clear that she supports the construction of railways, as we all do in the Labour party. However, because of the absence of clear safeguards in the Bill, she felt that she had to oppose it. Could my hon. Friend elaborate on some of those safeguards so that the House can be quite clear about the argument? People are keen to have railways that provide public transport on the basis of decent safeguards, but those safeguards have been rejected by the promoters in what appears to be a disgraceful fashion.
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is right. I support improving and investing in the railways and our whole public transport infrastructure. In his repeated interventions, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) has answered my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). We need a co-ordinated system of public transport. Indeed, in London we need an integrated public transport system. Instead, we have chaos in many respects.
Mr. Redmond: Two points need to be clarified. First, reference has been made to whether the construction will be of a standard to ensure that the line will be able to run without the breakdowns associated with the modern system. The service that British Rail operates leaves a hell of a lot to be desired. If the Bill allows substandard development, it will lead to all sorts of chaos, such as we hear on news bulletins on transport in London.
Secondly, will my hon. Friend clarify the Minister's point about concessionary fares that will apply to residents of the area? Who will pay for them? They will be financed not by the company seeking to own and operate the railway but by the various boroughs that fall within the area covered by the line.
Will the construction of the railway be of a substantial nature and who will pay for the concessionary fares that the Minister said will be available once a private company is operating the line?
Mr. Cohen: That is exactly what the Minister was asked. Will there be the same problems with the extended line as there are with the existing docklands light railway? The Minister failed to respond or say whether it would be an improvement on the existing structure. I suspect that it will not.
I am reminded of an appalling evening that I spent in the docklands. Actually, I enjoyed the concert al the London Arena with my step-lad and his girlfriend. We travelled on the docklands light railway but halfway through the concert it was announced that the light railway would not be running at the end of the concert. So we were trapped in the arena and had to walk back in the pouring rain. I am told that that is not the first time that that has happened—[Interruption.] I have said who was at the concert on previous occasions because I have recounted the story in the past. Many people are caught because the operators arbitrarily stop running the trains. I wonder whether they will do the same with the extension.
Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cohen: Let me answer the first point about concessionary fares. The Minister said that they would continue, but how much is his assurance worth? Who will pay for those concessionary fares? I doubt whether the LDDC will pay for them if the Bill does not force it to do
774
so. If no legal commitment enforces it to do so, it will not pay for concessionary fares. The next step, as the LDDC goes out of business, will be to sell the railway off and the next company that takes it over and strips its assets will not run a concessionary fare system either. It will certainly not do so out of charity.
We support an improved transport infrastructure for the people of Lewisham and south-east London. I want those people to get the jobs, and the seats on the trains —but I wonder whether they will get either. The Government bribed the people of Kent in the channel tunnel episode; now they are bribing them with the promise of jobs in docklands. When the trains arrive in Lewisham they will be packed with commuters from Kent whom the Tories are still keen to bribe. So the people of Lewisham, who may think that the extension is a life-saver, will not get their burns on the seats, let alone any jobs.
I should have thought that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) would demand that some trains set off from Lewisham and Greenwich to cater for local people; otherwise, the commuters arriving at British Rail stations will enter the trains first—
Ms. Gordon: My hon. Friend might like to know that once the railway is extended to Greenwich and later further into Kent my constituents will probably not be able to get seats at Island Gardens ever again. I asked London Transport to arrange that one train every half hour should start at Island Gardens so that people could get a seat on it. London Transport refused; in fact, it did not give way on anything.
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend's demand was most reasonable. [Interruption.] I see that one of the Conservative Members who represents Lewisham has walked into the Chamber. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) has an important role in the Treasury: he can borrow the money. I am pleased that he has walked in—[Interruption.] I see that both Conservative Members representing Lewisham are here now. The other one, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), has had to take time off to decide which one of his brothers should get a knighthood. These gentlemen could borrow the money so that my hon. Friend's constituents were given the environment that they deserve and the compensation that they deserve.
I have no intention of talking out the Bill, and I have tried to be brief. [Interruption.] I have taken a lot of interventions—worthy interventions that deserved a response. I am happy to sit down now and allow the sponsor of the Bill the last few words.
9.58 pm
Mr. Thorne: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to this interesting debate. I will certainly not talk the Bill out.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) made a detailed speech. I should like to correct one point in it—the original railway was designed for 25,000, not 1,500 people a day. It is now designed to cater for 100,000 a day. I am afraid that there is no time to discuss the hon. Lady's other points. I know that LRT is anxious to discuss various aspects of the Bill with her and that it has been

775
waiting since last October to do so. I hope that she will take the opportunity to discuss her various concerns with LRT in the near future—it is anxious to hear from her.
The Minister asked about the future of Island Gardens station. It is to be demolished; the new viaduct is to be demolished, but the old viaduct will be left, because, although it has not been preserved, it is of architectural interest. I am afraid that I have no more time in which to respond.
Mr. Redmond: I am grateful for an opportunity to say a few words about this matter—
Mr. Thorne rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 29.

Division No. 92]

[10.00 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Arbuthnot, James

Irvine, Michael

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Jack, Michael

Baldry, Tony

Jackson, Robert

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Jessel, Toby

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Beith, A. J.

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Boswell, Tim

Lightbown, David

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Lord, Michael

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Brazier, Julian

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Bright, Graham

McLoughlin, Patrick

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Mans, Keith

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Maples, John

Carrington, Matthew

Marek, Dr John

Cartwright, John

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Cash, William

Maude, Hon Francis

Chapman, Sydney

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Chope, Christopher

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Moate, Roger

Couchman, James

Morrison, Sir Charles

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

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Dover, Den

Neubert, Sir Michael

Durant, Sir Anthony

Nicholls, Patrick

Fallon, Michael

Norris, Steve

Farr, Sir John

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Paice, James

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Patnick, Irvine

Fookes, Dame Janet

Porter, David (Waveney)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Riddick, Graham

Franks, Cecil

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Freeman, Roger

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Fry, Peter

Ruddock, Joan

Gale, Roger

Sayeed, Jonathan

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Shaw, David (Dover)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Steen, Anthony

Ground, Patrick

Stern, Michael

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Stevens, Lewis

Hanley, Jeremy

Summerson, Hugo

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

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Harris, David

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Hawkins, Christopher

Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Thorne, Neil

776

Thurnham, Peter

Wilkinson, John

Trippier, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Winterton, Nicholas

Wallace, James

Wood, Timothy

Waller, Gary

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Warren, Kenneth

Watts, John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wells, Bowen

Mr. Peter Bottomley and

Wheeler, Sir John

Mr. Christopher Gill.

Widdecombe, Ann

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

McCrea, Rev William

Boyes, Roland

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Callaghan, Jim

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Cohen, Harry

Meale, Alan

Dalyell, Tam

Nellist, Dave

Dixon, Don

Paisley, Rev Ian

Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

Redmond, Martin

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Fatchett, Derek

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Flynn, Paul

Soley, Clive

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Gordon, Mildred

Grocott, Bruce

Tellers for the Noes:

Illsley, Eric

Mr. Bob Cryer and

Lamond, James

Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Lewis, Terry

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 19.

Division No. 93]

[10.10 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Arbuthnot, James

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Baldry, Tony

Ground, Patrick

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Hanley, Jeremy

Beith, A. J.

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

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Harris, David

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Hawkins, Christopher

Boswell, Tim

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Bright, Graham

Irvine, Michael

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Jack, Michael

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Jackson, Robert

Carrington, Matthew

Jessel, Toby

Cartwright, John

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Cash, William

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Chapman, Sydney

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Chope, Christopher

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Couchman, James

Lightbown, David

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

Lord, Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Dover, Den

McCrea, Rev William

Durant, Sir Anthony

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Fallon, Michael

McLoughlin, Patrick

Farr, Sir John

Mans, Keith

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Maples, John

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Marek, Dr John

Flynn, Paul

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Maude, Hon Francis

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Franks, Cecil

Moate, Roger

Freeman, Roger

Morrison, Sir Charles

Fry, Peter

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Gale, Roger

Neubert, Sir Michael

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Nicholls, Patrick

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Norris, Steve

777

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Thompson, Sir D. (Calder vly)

Paice, James

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Thorne, Neil

Patnick, Irvine

Thurnham, Peter

Porter, David (Waveney)

Trippier, David

Price, Sir David

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Riddick, Graham

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Wallace, James

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Waller, Gary

Ross, William (Londonderry E,

Warren, Kenneth

Ruddock, Joan

Watts, John

Sayeed, Jonathan

Wells, Bowen

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wheeler, Sir John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Widdecombe, Ann

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Wilkinson, John

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Winterton, Nicholas

Steen, Anthony

Wood, Timothy

Stern, Michael

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Stevens, Lewis

Summerson, Hugo

Tellers for the Ayes:

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mr. Peter Bottomley and

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mr. Christopher Gill.

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

NOES

Bermingham, Gerald

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Boyes, Roland

Meale, Alan

Callaghan, Jim

Nellist, Dave

Cryer, Bob

Parry, Robert

Dalyell, Tarn

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Dixon, Don

Skinner, Dennis

Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Golding, Mrs Llin

Tellers for the Noes:

Gordon, Mildred

Mr. Martin Redmond and

Lamond, James

Mr. Harry Barnes.

Lewis, Terry

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

London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, etc.) Bill (By Order)

  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order fir Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 27 February.

  LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 27 February.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Wood.]

Orders of the Day

  Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  10.21 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
  I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The House will have observed that the names of all the present members of the House of Commons Commission except yours, Mr. Speaker, appear on the back of the Bill as supporters. Their support, which I appreciate, demonstrates that this is an agreed measure.
  This is a short, technical Bill which the House of Commons Commission, as well as the authorities in another place, have been advised is necessary to enable further progress to be made in implementing the Ibbs report on House of Commons services. We had hoped to avoid the need for a Bill and have looked at various ways of doing so before finally accepting recently that the legislative route was the only one to overcome the problem.
  In accordance with the timetable recommended in the Ibbs report, responsibility for works, and vote responsibility for stationery and printing is due to pass to Parliament on 1 April this year. The relevant estimates have already been presented. As things stand, there is a problem because there exists no legal persona in either House to whom property, leases and contracts can be made over. The House will quickly recognise the quite serious practical difficulties to which that could give rise. The solution, encapsulated in clauses 1 and 2, is to constitute the Clerks of each House as corporations sole under whose authority these and similar functions in other spheres of parliamentary activity, such as broadcasting and information technology, can be carried out.
  The remaining clauses make provision for the takeover of works services. The Commission is grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and his Department—and, indeed, to Her Majesty the Queen's advisers—for their co-operation in facilitating the transfer and helping with the preparation of the Bill, which has been quite a complicated operation.
  Two other provisions are of particular note. Clause 4 rectifies an anomaly, which has been encountered in other contexts, where civil servants have been transferred to new undertakings still in the public service. Under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, purely technical redundancies can arise for people who, to all intents and purposes, will be doing the same job under essentially the same terms of service. The clause extinguishes any resulting technical redundancy rights—and I stress the word "technical". For those who continue in their jobs, there is clearly no case for contemplating such rights. I can assure the House that it has no effect at all on

  779
  actual terms of service or on pension rights or on the rights of any employees if they are actually made redundant at any time.
  I might also mention at this stage—although the point is not affected by the terms of the Bill—that the House of Commons Commission has accepted that, on 1 April, all the new employees of the House will retain their existing trade union affiliations if they so wish. In due course, proper recognition procedures will have to be undertaken and the arrangements for trade union representation assimilated into the House's existing structure, with whatever amendments may prove necessary. But, as I have said, nothing in the Bill will pre-empt this process.
  Finally, I should mention the issue raised in the amendments to clauses 1 and 2 tabled by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), in his capacity as Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), to whom I am grateful. Let me make it clear that the Government accept the amendments. I agree that it would be awkward and anomalous for the Bill, through the provisions removing Crown immunity from the corporate officers, to force upon the two Houses the necessity to apply for planning, listed building and building permission for any works schemes on land that we will own outside the Palace itself.
  The suggestion is that appropriate provision to make exceptions for those purposes—but not for other purpose—should be included in an Order in Council subject to the negative procedure in both Houses. What we are doing in the amendments is providing for the possibility of meeting the wishes of the Accommodation and Works Committee.
  As I have said, the Bill has the support of the House of Commons Commission and I commend it to the House.
  10.25 pm
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: It is something of a pleasure to be speaking from the Dispatch Box on a Bill among whose sponsors are listed my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), in the near-certain knowledge that that Bill will pass on to the statute book. This is the first time that I can recall that happening for some time—although after 9 April it will, of course, be happening regularly and that is something in which to rejoice.
  As the Leader of the House said, this is a small but important measure. Not being a member of the House of Commons Commission—and in that I am almost unique among those present—I was surprised to discover that it was necessary to introduce a Bill to enact what was basically a fairly simple measure.
  The Bill was designed following the Ibbs report to bring us perhaps not into the 21st century but just about into the 20th century. I hope that I shall not sound a sour note if I say that even this little Bill appears to be trying to make us preserve the fiction that the really important House is the one down the corridor. Is it purely churlish on my part to ask why the other place is dealt with in clause 1 while this place is dealt with in clause 2? Why is their Lordships' corporate officer described as the Clerk of the Parliaments and ours as the Under Clerk of the Parliaments?
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Deeply demeaning.
  Mr. Grocott: It is deeply demeaning, as my hon. Friend says. Perhaps as we stumble towards the 21st century, we shall come to accept that this place is marginally more important that the other place.
  The Leader of the House touched on an extremely important matter on which I should like something placed on record. We are dealing not just with equipment and powers in this small Bill but with people's careers and livelihoods. We are dealing with the staff who will be affected by the change and I understand that they will include as many as 70 non-industrial civil servants and 120 industrial civil servants. I seek confirmation from the Leader of the House—either now or at a later stage in our proceedings, which will doubtless be fairly short—and an absolute assurance that the staff have been consulted at all appropriate stages in the development of the proposals and that, in any subsequent decisions affecting the staff, there will be full consultation with the staff affected and the relevant trade unions.
  In particular, can the Leader of the House confirm again—I am fairly certain that I heard him say precisely this during his opening remarks—that there will be absolutely no adverse effects on the terms and conditions of employment of staff, including working hours, holiday entitlements and pension entitlements following any transfer of staff? Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm their right to continue to be represented in negotiations by the trade union of their choice?
  Mr. MacGregor: Perhaps I can clarify the position. As I said, clause 4 does not affect the pension rights and so on of those who are transferred. With regard to trade union recognition, any recognition negotiations after 1 April will be conducted by the transferred staffs' existing trade unions and through the consultation machinery to which they have become used.
  Mr. Grocott: I am grateful for that confirmation.
  As I did not speak in the debate on the Ibbs report, I must state that the Bill is not a sterile piece of legislation although it certainly does not make good bedtime reading. It does, however, have some important functions. I hope that it will be a move towards our having far better and more satisfactory working conditions, not just for ourselves, but—far more importantly—for those who work for us and those who visit the Palace of Westminster. Given that the Ibbs report found that no fewer than 69 per cent. of hon. Members thought that the Palace was a poor place in which to work, it should not take too much to begin to improve that position.
  I want particularly to emphasise the need for improved working conditions for those who work for hon. Members. We are not looking for glossy paradises in which to work ourselves—far from it. We want minimum conditions in which we can operate and good conditions for our employees. In particular, I want to underline the appalling lack of facilities for visitors to the Palace who still have nowhere satisfactory to wait when they come to tour the House of Lords and the Commons. They have no proper refreshment facilities and I hope that, as a result of the Bill and similar decisions, there will be substantial improvements in that respect.
  I am not asking for vast amounts of money to be spent. However, I hope that some areas of the Palace of Westminster can be used more effectively than they are at present. I am not convinced that Westminster Hall is used

  781
  as effectively as it might be. I am certain that there are parts of the Palace which very few people know exist. One of the joys of being a member of the Select Committee on Broadcasting was that we found a huge area, to which I have referred before, above the Central Lobby which no one knew existed before. It contained the odd plank, bucket and a half empty tea cup. That huge space had not been used before and it could have been used to accommodate the control room for the television studios and also a couple of television studios.
  When we finally get control over our own affairs—the Bill goes part of the way towards achieving that—I hope that we shall be able to use most effectively all the accommodation presently available in the building. I will raise one other potentially divisive note: I wonder whether the balance of accommodation in the Palace between the amount used by the House of Lords and that used by the House of Commons has changed this century. In asking that question, I break all the rules, because it is a question to which I genuinely do not know the answer. The balance of power between the two Houses has changed this century and the balance of work rate has also inevitably changed this century. I wonder whether the use of the accommodation in the Palace of Westminster reflects the work required to be performed by the two Houses.
  We must work towards raising our facilities up to minimum standards for ourselves, staff and visitors. We should also try to improve facilities. The Leader of the House touched on that matter.
  I look forward to the time when—I am not alone in saying this—hon. Members will have in their rooms the clean feed of the televising of the proceedings of Parliament. It is odd that we can see them via satellite but we cannot do so from a direct feed to our offices. It is odd also that Ministers can do so in their offices but the rest of us cannot. I look forward to resolving that matter in due course.
  This debate is related to what we shall debate next Monday, which is the procedure of the House of Commons. I do not think that all improvements will necessarily mean additional costs. There are many things that we could do which might reduce costs. For example, why are we here at 10.35 pm debating this matter? Why could we not do so in the morning?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): Why does the hon. Gentleman not sit down then?
  Mr. Grocott: I shall sit down and be quiet if my two or three minutes over the limit enable us to debate such matters at 9 am instead of at 10.30 pm. They would be three minutes of my time most usefully spent.
  With those comments, in particular those underlining the staffing queries, I am happy to support the Bill.
  10.35 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Although technical in character, the Bill is the expression of a fundamental change in the way we organise our affairs in the House of Commons. It is part of a process of taking control of the buildings into the hands of hon. Members, a process that began in 1975 with the setting up of the House of Commons Commission, which took the employment of staff under the control of hon. Members. That is not a nominal process, as it would be if the House
  782
  of Commons Commission were merely a Government body. It is a process in which there is wide representation, indeed, a majority of interests other than those of the Government. That should remain a characteristic of the bodies through which we carry out the responsibilities expressed in the Bill.
  For Parliament to be independent, it must regulate its own affairs independently of the Government of the day. The Government come to Parliament to bring forward their legislation and to be answerable to Parliament, but Parliament must control its own affairs. It is therefore a happy occasion that there are the names of members of the Government, the Opposition, Liberal Democrats and other Back-Bench Members on the Bill. That is a necessary feature of the process of ensuring that Parliament is genuinely independent and in control of its own affairs.
  10.36 pm
  Sir Barney Hayhoe: I endorse what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has said. Such matters are deeply for the House of Commons, not just Front-Bench Members. It is right and proper that there should be brief interventions from Back-Bench Members in support of the measure. I certainly endorse the commendation of the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.

  Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Bill
    Clause 1

      ESTABLISHMENT OF A CORPORATION TO BE KNOWN AS "THE CORPORATE OFFICER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS"
      10.38 pm
      Mr. Ray Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 9, at beginning insert
      'Except in so far as Her Majesty may by Order in Council otherwise provide'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 2, in page 2, line 13, at end insert—
      '(7) A statutory instrument made in the exercise of the power conferred by subsection (6) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution either House of Parliament.'.
      No 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 44, at beginning insert
      `Except in so far as Her Majesty may by Order in Council otherwise provide'.
      No. 4 in clause 2, page 4, line 48, at end insert—
      '(7) A statutory instrument made in the exercise of the power conferred by subsection (6) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution either House of Parliament.'.
      Mr. Powell: As Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, I speak on behalf of my colleagues and, I hope, for the new generation of domestic Select Committees in welcoming the Bill.
      Initially, with my characteristic Welsh suspicion of being on the receiving end of something spontaneously offered, I wondered whether the Bill was simply a manoeuvre to strengthen further the already formidable influence of the Clerk of the House. But, as I understand

      783
      it, the Bill seeks only to establish in the form of corporate bodies the legal representative of each House who may, among other things, acquire property and enter into contracts. As such, the Bill gives legal force to the arrangements recommended by Sir Robin Ibbs and approved by the House. All hon. Members will remember the excellent report that Sir Robin Ibbs rendered to the House, which was accepted unanimously and has since been implemented.
      The amendments arise out of concern on both sides of the House that the change in the nominal ownership of the parliamentary outbuildings might result in the House being subject to planning procedures in respect of its future building projects which would not have applied if the estate had remained under the control of the Secretary of State for the Environment.
      The Bill provides for the transfer of parliamentary outbuildings from the Secretary of State to one or both of the so-called corporate officers. Clauses 1(6) and 2(6) specifically provide that any property so transferred
      "shall not be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown."
      Although the transfer of ownership and control of the outbuildings to Parliament is to be welcomed, it appears to have the side effect of making the buildings subject to a range of legislation. In the case of most of this legislation, the Accommodation and Works Committee would raise no objections.
      However, the Committee is worried that the effect of the Bill could be to impose town and country planning regulations at variance with those that apply to the Palace of Westminster. For this reason, the Accommodation and Works Committee would have wished to move amendments merely to retain or restore Crown immunity to the outbuildings in respect of the town and country planning Acts alone. We have been advised, however, that such amendments to the main Bill would have been difficult, if not impossible, to draft. Instead, we have proposed amendments which would enable Crown immunity to be restored to the outbuildings in respect of special legislation. Any statutory instrument to that effect would be subject to amendment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.
      The purpose of the amendments is to allow planning for phase 2 of the new parliamentary buildings to proceed as if the parliamentary outbuildings had continued to enjoy immunity as Crown property. They are designed for no other purpose, and we would not expect the additional powers included in the amendments to be used to claim immunity from other legislation.
      These are minor amendments which will assist the House in proceeding with the programme to provide adequate office accommodation for all Members and their staff. They have the unanimous support of the Accommodation and Works Committee. I hope that the Government and the House will support them.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 2, in page 2, line 13, at end insert—
      '(7) A statutory instrument made in the exercise of the power conferred by subsection (6) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.—[Mr. Ray Powell.]
      Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2

      ESTABLISHMENT OF A CORPORATION TO BE KNOWN AS "THE CORPORATE OFFICER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS"
      Amendments made: No. 3, in page 2, line 44, at beginning insert—
      'Except in so far as Her Majesty may by Order in Council otherwise provide'.
      No. 4, in page 2, line 48, at end insert—
      '(7) A statutory instrument made in the exercise of the power conferred by subsection (6) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.—[Mr. Ray Powell.]
      Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 3 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  That the draft Farm Woodland Premium Scheme 1992, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.) and Order [6 February],
  That the draft revised Code of Practice on picketing, which was laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8918/91, relating to Community strategy to limit carbon dioxide emissions and to improve energy efficiency, and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on behalf of HM Treasury, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Energy on 11th February 1992; welcomes the conclusions of the joint Energy/Environment Council of Ministers on 13th December and of ECOFIN on 16th December as a positive step forward in agreeing a coherent and co-ordinated approach across the Community to limiting carbon dioxide emissions; endorses the Government's view that further analytical work on the likely effects of any Community-wide energy/carbon tax is required before any decision on such a tax can be taken; and supports the Government's intention to continue to work towards its conditional target of returning United Kingdom carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2005, as part of the international efforts to combat the threat of climate change.—[Mr. Boswell.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

    FREE MOVEMENT OF MEDICINAL PRODUCTS
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10089/90 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Health on 30th April 1991, and European Community Document No. 9490/91, relating to the free movement of medicinal products; and supports the Government's view that the proposals are

    785
    acceptable in principle, subject to detailed improvements to the text primarily to ensure that the health and safety of the United Kingdom human and animal populations are fully protected.—[Mr. Boswell.]
    Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

  Kashmir (Human Rights)
  10.46 pm
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I beg leave to present a petition to support the right of the people of Kashmir to self-determination.
  It is signed by Mr. Mohammed Younis of 61 Nuttall street, Accrington and 637 others, most of them my constituents. They express their concern, which I share, about the situation in Kashmir and the failure of the world community to give the problems of Kashmir the attention which justice demands. They urge the United Nations to seek to ensure that a plebiscite, which was the subject of successful United Nations resolutions, be carried out to ascertain the will of the people of Jammu and Kashmir in relation to the state's final disposition.
  The petition states:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable house will condemn the systematic mass murders, torture, arson and rape by the Indian forces of occupation in Kashmir, promote international efforts to help refugees fleeing Kashmir and to relieve the hardship and suffering of the people who remain in the territory, demand that India permit Amnesty International and other independent human rights agencies to enter Kashmir with a view to investigating and reporting on human rights violations and calls for the withdrawal of India's armed forces and security forces from the state of Jammu and Kashmir and their replacement by an interim United Nations administration with the task of restoring law and order, and as soon as practicable conducting the said plebiscite.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Puppies (Tail-docking)
  Mr. Hargreaves: The second petition is signed by Mr. and Mrs. Smith of 312 Willows lane, Accrington and the members of the Council of Docked Breeds and
  sheweth that we wish to retain our rights to dock our puppies tails as in time honoured tradition and to prevent serious damage and injury in adulthood.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House revoke the June 1991 amendment to the Veterinary Act of 1966.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Mifegyne
  Mr. Hargreaves: This petition is against the drug RU486, which destroys life and risks damaging the health of women. As someone who believes that life is sacred arid begins at the moment of conception, I am happy to support the petition, signed by Mr. Barrie Price of 54 Palace road, Ripon, and 47 residents of north Yorkshire. The petition says:
  we the undersigned wish to note with regret that, the abortion pill Mifegyne known as RU486 has been granted a product licence. We believe that drugs and medicines should be used only to save life. We deplore the fact that this drug causes the death of unborn human beings and we express our grave concern that it will damage women physically and psychologically.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House, which is committed to upholding respect for human life and protection of the weak and vulnerable, will do

  787
  everything possible to prevent the distribution and use of … RU486 and any other drug which, like it, are produced with the deliberate intention of destroying innocent human life.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Water Depletion (East Anglia)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]
10.49 pm
Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of drought and water depletion in East Anglia. My staff and I did not realise how much information was available and we have been positively inundated with information and technical material.
I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment for attending the debate and I hope that he will respond positively to the various points I shall raise. I should also like to thank Anglian Water, the National Rivers Authority, the National Farmers Union, Norfolk county council, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and others who have provided me with a great deal of information. That has enabled me to present a speech full of material and I hope that it will stimulate debate.
The purpose of tonight's debate is to highlight the drought in East Anglia and to press for further debate, education and long-term planning so that the threat to water supplies, caused by increasing demand and possible climate change, can be averted.
It is not so many months ago that I had a debate in the early hours of the morning on global warming. There is a link between that and drought. At a recent conference at the United Nations, the organiser, Gordon Young, said:
"A change in climate may mean changes in precipitation patterns and quantities, changes in evaporation and, consequently dramatic changes in water resources. Rivers may flow less predictably, with altered discharges."
He also said that there would be just as important consequences for ground-water supplies. The question of climate change is relevant when one thinks about the long-term future of our water supplies.
In the county of Norfolk there is increasing discussion among the press, farmers, business men and consumers about water depletion. Everywhere I go in Norfolk people continually remind me of the fact that we are, for some reason, exporting water from Norfolk via Thetford to the more populated areas of Cambridge. That is a controversial practice and people are arguing about it because it is causing concern.
The university of East Anglia's school of environmental sciences is embarking on a three-year research contract funded by the NRA. The object of that research is to look at the relationship between climate change and river flows in East Anglia over 20 years. That research will use the inter-disciplinary approach, which is a particular strength of the university. This is an opportunity to draw attention to the good work that is done at the school of environmental sciences. That research will address whether there has been a real deterioration in river flows in that 20 years.
The drought has now entered its 43rd month according to the NRA and the facts about water depletion during that time are staggering. The authority reported recently that the 41 months to the end of December proved to be the longest dry period this century with only 79 per cent. of normal rainfall. Furthermore, rainfall was below average in 32 months, average in two months and above

789
average in seven months only. The results of those statistics suggest that an accumulative deficit of approximately 18 inches developed during that time.
Those 18 inches represent nine full months of rainfall for the region. East Anglia has suffered in particular, because it is acknowledged to be one of the driest areas with an annual rainfall of 600 mm only. The current demand for rainfall demands 200 per cent. over the average in the next three months in order to achieve levels prevailing prior to the drought. That dramatic increase is an impossibility according to the NRA and all other groups monitoring the situation. If there were such a dramatic increase in rainfall it would cause serious flooding and other damage to the environment.
Those to whom I have spoken generally agree that there needs to be stricter control over abstraction licences. In the past few weeks when I have been studying the subject, I have become increasingly aware of the apparent abuses in the water industry involving over-abstraction. The drought has been affected by abstraction to an extent that merits further study and possible re-evaluation. The University of East Anglia has begun the process of studying the effects of gravel extraction, sewage and farming on the flow rates of the Wensum, the Nar and the Bure rivers. Its work is an important starting point for determining what has led to the drought in East Anglia, over and above the lack of rainfall. We are studying whether the drought is caused by over-use of the water supply or by population flows into the region and house building.
There is a serious lack of knowledge about domestic water conservation. I believe, as do many people, that water metering must be introduced as quickly as possible. I therefore support the campaign by the Council for the Protection of Rural England and others for better water management. I also support the idea of a two-part tariff, where charges increase for excess use, which will promote water conservation and, at the same time, be fair to less well off consumers.
I reject the argument that the cost of introducing water meters is such that it would not be worth while for individual consumers to pay that capital cost because they would not recoup it in their lifetime. We must encourage Anglian Water and water authorities throughout the country to introduce metering as fast as possible. I have some knowledge of its use in France where it works well, is popular and results in cheaper bills for many people. Let us get a move on with water metering.
Ground water extraction has reached its highest level in the history of East Anglia. The growth in extraction is a response to present and future population increases. The planning policies of the Department of the Environment and local councils have been challenged regularly in the local press, the media and local debates as the seriousness of the water supply problem has become clearer.
Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that we must look at the law and practice involved in licence distribution? The current drought, coupled with over-licensing, has severely damaged rivers and therefore streams. Over-extraction means more than water depletion. Concern is also being expressed about its effects on the ecosystem in Norfolk generally. Unfortunately, I do not have time in this short debate to give chapter and verse examples, but my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of them, as much publicity has been given to them.
790
I am informed that the National Rivers Authority has granted licences to almost every application from Anglian Water over the past year, which shows the need for careful monitoring of current practices. The National Rivers Authority originally turned down an application in Norfolk on the grounds
"that the proposed increase in abstraction would significantly affect low flows in the nearby water course, and that the impact upon the fishery, local amenity and the maintenance of water quality downstream of East Rudham sewage treatment works would be unacceptable".
My hon. Friend the Minister may not be aware that his officials at the Department of the Environment reversed that decision on appeal. That causes me even more concern than the point that I put a few moments ago.
In the midst of the current drought, there has been no decline in the number of licences being distributed. There is therefore a strong case for a moratorium on all new licences until resources are allowed to replenish themselves.
A recent article in the Eastern Daily Press—it was written by Roger Southwell of the National Farmers Union—took up the issue of agriculture and irrigation. Time does not allow me to quote the article but it is important to realise that a long-term irrigation plan is needed. During the past few weeks I have been convinced by discussions that irrigation is important to agriculture and that it is important to educate the public to appreciate the significance of that. If irrigation were to stop, there would be higher food prices and job losses, for example. As I have said, there must be a plan for irrigation. It is not good enough to say that it can be switched on and off, as it were. There must be a long-term plan. The need for that was emphasised in the article to which I have referred. It is the NRA that imposes irrigation restrictions whereas the Anglian water authority controls the watering of gardens, golf courses and so on.
If there is difficulty in finding water for irrigation, in spite of the importance which I attach to irrigation, as do farmers in Norfolk, the authorities have a duty to provide incentives to farmers to build their own storage facilities. After all, ground water is available during the winter. It should be feasible for those who are involved in farming or horticulture to build storage facilities so that more water is available for irrigation if the effects of drought are to continue in the longer term.
The NRA had distributed a launch-of-options study, which clearly outlines a plan for future water demand management. Indeed, the purpose of my speech is to get across the idea that we need a long-term plan for water demand management and control. The NRA has produced a good report but one aspect of it disturbs me. Unfortunately, I do not have time to quote from the report, but there is constant reference to there being no single solution, to there being no great urgency and to studies taking a great deal of time. That approach concerns me. The message that I want to convey to the NRA through my hon. Friend the Minister, and perhaps in other ways, is that although the study is good, and the ideas set out in it are acceptable, it is unfortunate that it does not highlight a sense of urgency. I therefore make a plea to the NRA to show a greater sense of urgency in its approach to these matters.
If we are to solve the problems that stem from water shortage, assuming that they continue into the future as a result of climate change or population increase, or for

791
whatever other reason, it is important that people are educated to conserve water by using water-efficient appliances and by encouraging general reductions in consumption. These are the tools that we can use to begin an effective campaign to increase public knowledge. Future home owners should be encouraged to understand the basics of water usage. A long-term conservation campaign should start now. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have something to say about that, especially as I do not have time to say much about such a campaign.
The Council for the Protection of Rural England and the NRA, in presenting their case for demand management of water supply, have discussed the imbalance in the distribution of available water resources in different parts of the country. In the longer term, I believe that there will need to be inter-regional transfers, even if there is not a national network of pipelines. I have even heard it suggested that when the extra carriageway is built on the A1—an important north-south road—the opportunity should be taken to lay a pipeline. That makes sense. After all, the sort of transfer that I am talking about is common in the Mediterranean and in other areas. Many of us have gone sightseeing in Provence and seen the Pont du Gard and other great works built many years ago. If that could be done then, it can be done now. Long distance water transfer must be considered seriously.
While I am on the subject of major projects that may have to be considered. I would like to mention the Wash barrage. Recent correspondence in the local press has asked why, 20 years ago, we did not grasp the opportunity to build that barrage. Many of our problems of water supply and flood control in Fenland would not be costing us so much now if the requisite investment had been put into the Wash barrage some years ago.
We have an eccentric approach to public finance in this country. It may have something to do with the way in which the Treasury works. We do not seem to be able to spend big money now to save even greater expenditure in the future. I know that my hon. Friend is not in a position to respond to that more general point, but we need to think long term. If large investments are necessary for the long term, we may save ourselves money by making those investments.
The problems in East Anglia and elsewhere are the legacy of a failure to recognise the problems soon enough and to get our strategy for the future right. I hope to be able to persuade my hon. Friend and others responsible that ad hoc responses will not suffice; long-term strategic planning and action are required, in all the ways that I have mentioned in this brief survey. I look forward to my hon. Friend's response, and I thank him once again for being here.
11.7 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) has done the House a service by raising this subject tonight and setting out the issues with characteristic clarity of thought and balance of argument. I welcome the opportunity to
792
explain the problems being caused by the current dry spell both throughout the country as a whole and, more particularly, in East Anglia.
The national situation is difficult and is under constant review. Over the last three and a half years rainfall has been below average. Never since records began has a spell of this nature extended beyond two consecutive years. Nineteen eighty nine was the driest year since 1976; and the 13-month period to March 1991 was the third driest this century. The period from November 1988 to January 1992 was the driest for over 200 years in the Anglian region, an area which in average conditions is also the driest in the United Kingdom. Over the last six months, rainfall over England and Wales has been about 35 per cent. below average while the December and January rainfall was the third lowest this century. No one should be in any doubt about the scale of the challenge, therefore.
The situation next summer will be heavily influenced by the amount of rainfall over the next two months. If it is not well above average, eastern and south-east England could face a critical situation. These weather conditions, particularly in the east of England, have brought home the fact that our water is valuable and is a finite resource.
In the Water Act 1989, this Government ensured the proper stewardship of water by appointing a separate body, the National Rivers Authority, with responsibility for judicious management of resources, balancing the demands of users against the need to maintain and enhance the water environment. The NRA has clear and coherent statutory powers. The largest users of water are the water companies which, under the Act and subsequent consolidating legislation, have in their licences responsibility for the adequacy and quality of public water supplies.
What is being done to safeguard the public from the effects of dry weather? It goes without saying that, whatever else the Government can do, they cannot make it rain. If it rains heavily and consistently over the next two months, the problem will become much less widespread. If it does not, we shall be faced with another summer of restrictions and possibly shortages in many southern and eastern areas.
I must re-emphasise the roles of the NRA and the water companies. Under section 19 of the Water Resources Act 1991 The NRA has a duty to conserve, redistribute and otherwise augment water resources in England and Wales while, under section 37 of the Water Industry Act 1991, the companies must develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply in their areas. My Department has a supervisory role over them, but the NRA and the water companies must play the active part by fulfilling their functions.
I have asked officials in my Department shortly to meet officials from the NRA and the water companies to discuss contingency arrangements for the areas most likely to be affected should the worst occur. What form the arrangements will take is as yet difficult to predict. It depends upon a number of factors, not least rainfall. However, I should like to mention some action that has already been taken.
While investment in the water industry declined by 27 per cent. in the last half of the 1970s, it rose by 51 per cent. in the 1980s under Conservative government and the progress made helped to produce an additional 10 gallons of water for every man, woman and child each day. That momentum is accelerating under the privatised regime.

793
For example, a major reservoir at Roadford in Devon was put into use in 1990. Another at Carsington, near Derby, will yield 49 million gallons per day when completed in 1993. London's water supply into the 21st century will be secured by the construction of the London water ring main, due to be completed by the mid-1990s.
A number of development options for water resources are being explored by water companies to meet local shortfalls and deal with prospective additional regional demands. These include sinking boreholes, the construction of local pipeline transfer schemes and the building of major reservoirs. The NRA has commissioned a study, to be undertaken by Sir William Halcrow and Partners, on the options for a national water resources development plan.
However, a balanced strategy must not lose sight of the importance of conservation. In the short term, and particularly in those areas worst affected by drought, water companies and the NRA have given increasing publicity to the need to use water wisely. The casual user who leaves his or her sprinkler running for hours should be made aware that this can use in one hour at least as much water as an average family uses in one day, without necessarily benefiting his garden.
In the long term, measures such as sophisticated leakage control policies are being pursued by water companies to minimise losses through leaking mains. The Office of Water Services expects suppliers to adopt the most cost-effective control measures so as to lead to the most favourable charges to customers. The director general has made it clear that he will take appropriate action to secure improvements. The NRA would wish to be satisfied that water losses have been minimised before lending support to proposals for the development of new resources.
In times of water shortages, it is important to strike a balance between competing users and the environment. The NRA has recently been liasing with those holding abstraction licences, such as the water companies and farmers in the south-east, where the shortage has been worst. In East Anglia, they are already working to the warning procedures and advice set out in a leaflet published last year.
There are various concepts of what actually constitutes East Anglia, but for the purposes of simplicity I will equate it with the area covered by Anglian Water, the largest water company in England in terms of area. That area is also the flattest and driest. It extends from the southern part of Humberside in the north to the Thames estuary in the south, and covers also most of Northamptonshire and Bedfordshire.
The company area, as I have said, had the lowest rainfall in the country, even in normal times. Over the last six months it has received only 67 per cent. of its average rainfall. It is particularly vulnerable in such times as over half its water supply is from groundwater sources. These
794
are replenished mainly during the winter months, due to high evaporation in the summer. The current comparatively dry winter is therefore a serious blow to the avoidance of a shortage next summer, when demand will rise with the needs of agriculture and tourism. Groundwater levels are currently very low. Surface reservoir levels vary at present but are generally rather more than half full.
Anglian Water continually updates its contingency arrangements. It has reduced abstractions from depleted aquifers, even where that has entailed moving to sources with higher costs for treatment or pumping. Publicity campaigns using television, newspapers and leaflets have exhorted consumers to save water. Over the last two years, the company has spent nearly £800,000 on high-technology leak detection equipment. Over the same period, it has drilled or re-equipped many boreholes, and improved a number of water treatment works and pumping stations. Further schemes are being accelerated.
I should, perhaps, add that, although three statutory water companies within the area—Three Valleys, Cambridge and Essex—currently have hosepipe bans in force, they, and Anglian Water, felt that they are able to withstand last year's condititions without applying for a drought order.
Lastly, let me return to the question of spray irrigation. The Anglian region is the most intensively farmed and spray-irrigated area in the United Kingdom. Following over-use in 1990, MAFF and the NRA issued a leaflet entitled "Good Irrigation Practice". The leaflet describes simple precautions to avoid wasting water, and gives details of three alerts. An "amber alert" issued by the NRA warns farmers, during prolonged dry weather following periods of low rainfall, that supplies in individual catchment areas are low. A "red alert" follows at least a fortnight later, and imposes a 50 per cent. cut in the annual licensed volume of water on any single abstraction licence. The final stage—during a prolonged drought, when supplies for irrigation fall to environmentally dangerous levels—is the imposition of an indefinite ban on all spray irrigation. The alerts are issued by catchment, and are not wide-area or blanket restrictions.
The situation in the Anglian region is becoming critical and its groundwater sources could suffer from further depletion unless the next six to eight weeks are very wet. We are doing what is necessary to ensure that contingency planning is high on the agenda of all those concerned, so that, if the rain does not materialise, those responsible for water resources management, and consumers among the public and industry, can play their part in minimising the effects.
I welcomed the opportunity of reporting on those issues, afforded to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Repossession Orders
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Attorney-General how many repossession orders in favour of building societies or other lending institutions were made by Wandsworth county court in 1979, 1990 and 1991.

  The Attorney-General
  The 1979 figures are not available. The total number of mortgage possession actions entered, suspended orders and orders made during 1990 and 1991, in each county court in England and Wales, is contained in two lists which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. These figures do not indicate how many houses have been repossessed through the courts as not all of the orders made will have resulted in the issue and execution of warrants of possession. At this stage, the 1991 figures are provisional and therefore liable to revision in the future.

TRANSPORT

  Vehicle Test Certificates
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will supply the figures of the numbers of Ministry of Transport test certificates for both heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles that have been reported stolen over the last five years from heavy goods vehicle and private vehicle testing stations.

  Mr. Chope
  The numbers of heavy goods and public service vehicle testing certificates reported as stolen in each of the last five years are as follows:

  HGV test certificates

  Year

  Motor vehicle test certificates

  Trailer test certificates

  PSV test certificates

  1987

  3,499

  1,189

  1,077

  1988

  111

  48

  0

  1989

  0

  0

  0

  1990

  0

  0

  250

  1991

  1,160

  1,005

  505

  Total

  4,770

  2,242

  1,832

  Black Cabs
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the steps that are taken to ensure the fitness of applicants for black cab licences in London; what action he is considering to tighten the scrutiny procedure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  On my behalf, the Public Carriage Office of the Metropolitan police already carries out 356
  stringent checks on the suitability of applicants for taxi drivers' licences in London, including a criminal record check. It also carries out further checks on each driver every three years when his or her licence is due to be renewed. It is difficult to know what effective additional checks might reasonably be carried out.

  I am satisfied that the present procedures do ensure, as far as possible, that licensed cab drivers are suitable for the task they undertake, although no such system can give a 100 per cent. guarantee.

  There is at present no regime for the licensing of minicabs or minicab drivers in London. I have commissioned a working party to make recommendations on the framework needed to ensure that users of taxis and minicabs in London can travel in reasonable safety and security.

  Pollution, Bristol Channel
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of measures to reduce pollution of the Bristol channel by the dumping of refuse or the pumping out of bilges by vessels in transit.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Standards for the discharge of oil and garbage from ships are set by international convention and implemented by domestic legislation which applies to all ships in United Kingdom waters. The Department's marine surveyors monitor compliance with the regulations as part of their responsibilities when they go on board ships to undertake port state control inspections. In addition the marine pollution control unit's surveillance aircraft regularly overfly all United Kingdom waters, including the Bristol channel, to check for infringements which may also be reported by ships in the area.

  The Department recently completed research into the shore provision of reception facilities for oil and garbage. Although the report of the findings is still being considered, indications are that such provision is adequate.

  BR (Disabled People)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) on 5 November 1991,Official Report, columns 23–24 on British Rail's duties in respect of access to its services by disabled people, whether British Rail is permitted to make arrangements to exclude wheelchair accessible taxis from Eltham station.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is for the courts to interpret the law. My advice is, however, that what British Rail is alleged to be doing at Eltham station is not contrary to the London Cab and Stage Carriage Act 1907. I am, however, disturbed to learn that its effect may be to reduce the transport opportunities open to disabled people, and I am writing to the chairman of British Rail about it.

  Rail Investment
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the percentage change in British Rail rail investment between(a) 1964 to 1970, (b) 1970 to 1974, (c) 1974 to 1979 and (d) 1979 to 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The percentage changes in real terms for the given periods were as follows:
  357

  Per cent.

  1964–1970

  -57

  1970–1974

  +48

  1974–1979

  +13

  1979–1990–91

  +55

  The 1991–92 financial year is not yet complete, so no outturn figures is available.

  Over-height Vehicles
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish, or give references to, the latest report into the problem of over-height road vehicles, or their loads, hitting bridges, overhead structures, or the roofs of tunnels; and what methods are currently in use or are being developed to deter or prevent their use of approaches to such obstructions.

  Mr. Chope
  The recommendations of a joint British Rail and Department of Transport working party were published in 1988 in a report, entitled "A Strategy for the Reduction of Bridge Bashing", published by HMSO.

  The Department has made progress with implementing the working party's recommendations. Last month I announced proposals for increasing driver awareness of the height of the vehicle, and the award of contracts worth £1 million for warning systems at 15 high-risk low bridge sites. Other measures include better road signing and road improvements to increase the headroom at some low bridges.

  Cradlewell Bypass
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory pilot study of traffic origins and destinations prepared for the Cradlewell bypass project, Newcastle upon Tyne.

  Mr. Chope
  In autumn of 1991 the Transport and Road and Research Laboratory carried out the "before" part of a study to improve understanding of traveller responses to road improvements at a total cost of £109,000. This study forms part of a larger research project being undertaken by the Department of Transport.

  Blind Spots
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the number of accidents due to blind spots involving lorries over 12 tonnes, first used before 1 October 1988, in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Chope
  The statistics requested are not available. It is almost impossible to prove that a blind spot was the cause of any particular road accident.

  British Rail Leasing
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how a long-term finance lease by British Rail would be capitalised for public expenditure purposes.

  Mr. Freeman
  Leased assets will be capitalised for external financing limit—EFL—purposes in the same way as if they had been bought. The capitalisation of such leases follows standard accounting practices applying to 358
  all similar business undertakings whether in the private or public sector. Leasing is a form of borrowing, and the Government need to ensure that BR borrows according to its means; hence it is brought within the same EFL control as all other borrowing.

  M42–A45 Junction
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of road improvements at the M42–A45 junction adjacent to the Birmingham exhibition centre.

  Mr. Chope
  Good progress is being made on a number of planned highway improvements at this junction. Statutory orders will soon be published for the construction of a new dedicated slip road from the M42 northbound to the A45 westbound. Design work is well underway on a scheme to improve access from the national exhibition centre to the M42 northbound. Work will also begin soon on a scheme to improve the roundabout itself.

  An extra camera has been installed to improve television surveillance of traffic conditions at the junction and new motorway gantry signs will be erected later this year on the approaches to it. In the longer term the M42 is to be widened and consultants have been asked to investigate the options for improved access to the NEC and other facilities.

  Rotherhithe Tunnel
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he expects continuous TV surveillance to be installed in Rotherhithe tunnel for traffic control;

  (2) when he expects work to be put in hand to improve ventilation in the Rotherhithe tunnel.

  Mr. Chope
  Management of the Rotherhithe tunnel—including ventilation and TV surveillance—is a matter for the London boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Southwark. I understand that discussions are taking place on the need to install surveillance equipment in the tunnel, linked to the new east London traffic control centre.

  Lorries
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has made representations to the European Community for lorries weighing over 12 tonnes, and used prior to 1 October 1988, to be obliged to be fitted with additional close proximity mirrors on their near-side, and, if the articulated type, also fitted with additional wide-angle mirrors.

  Mr. Chope
  The directive which requires the fitment of additional close proximity mirrors and, in some cases, additional wide-angled mirrors has applied to new lorries since 1 October 1988. The Government have not sought a retrospective requirement that vehicles manufactured before that date be fitted with such mirrors.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will extend the MOT test to require all lorries over 12 tonnes to be fitted with additional close proximity mirrors on their near-side and, if articulated, to be fitted also with additional wide-angle mirrors.

  Mr. Chope
  No. It would not be reasonable to require vehicles manufactured before 1 October 1988 to be fitted in such a way in the absence of any proven road safety benefit.

  Motor Vehicles
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider amending the construction and use regulations for motor vehicles to prohibit the use of fluorolastomel or veton.

  Mr. Chope
  As no danger arises from the use of fluorolastomel or veton in the normal course of construction or use of motor vehicles, there is no reason to amend construction and use regulations to prohibit these materials. There is only a risk from these materials if they have been subjected to high temperatures. For motor vehicles this is only likely to be a problem when scrapping burnt out vehicles. Health and safety inspectors are aware of the risks and give appropriate advice.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what standby assets are specifically allocated for contingencies by British Rail InterCity, French and German railways;

  (2) if he will issue a general directive to British Rail to seek to reduce InterCity train cancellations, even if this involves a lower utilisation of capital assets;

  (3) if he will tabulate the cancellation records of British Rail InterCity and the French and German railways;

  (4) if he will meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the relationship between the improved financial results on InterCity and the increase in the number of InterCity train cancellations.

  Mr. Freeman
  As part of the quality of service objectives agreed between the Government and British Rail, InterCity already has an objective to operate 99·5 per cent. of its scheduled services. The actual performance achieved in recent years is as follows:

  Percentage of scheduled services

  1987–88

  99·5

  1988–89

  99·0

  1989–90

  98·0

  1990–91

  97·5

  Not all cancellations are due to rolling stock problems. I understand that crew shortages, particularly in the south-east, have been a major factor in the recent decline in performance.

  It is a management matter for BR to judge how much spare capacity is needed for maintenance and other contingencies. The Department does not hold information on this or on the performance of French and German railways in this area.

  I have no reason to believe that there is any direct link between InterCity's financial performance and the rate of cancellations.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all the television advertising campaigns and all other publicity campaigns costing over £100,000 to be carried out by his Department in February, March, April, May or June of the current year.
  360
  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department currently proposes to carry out a child road safety publicity campaign in April. Further road safety publicity campaigns in the period to June are under consideration.

  Helmsdale Auxiliary Coastguard
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) why he proposes to reduce the Helmsdale auxiliary coastguard complement to seven; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what changes he proposes to make to the present roles of the Helmsdale auxiliary coastguard.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The recently completed sector and auxiliary coastguard review defined the Coastguard's coastal commitments and reviewed the availability, readiness and training of coastguard personnel to meet current requirements. It concluded that the present day coastguard needs modern bases from which to operate. The present complement at the Helmsdale auxiliary coastguard station is 11 members. Their present roles will not change, and the premises currently occupied will not be released. Equipment utilised by the team is to remain unchanged, except that the Land Rover presently in use will be replaced by a modern 4WD Vauxhall Brava in March 1992. The complement will be reduced by four members initially, however a further two will he recruited in the Dunbeath area to the north in order to fulfil the initial response requirement between Helmsdale and Wick. It is anticipated that these changes will be implemented by the end of the financial year 1992–93.

  A21
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the road improvement schemes and their estimated time of completion that are being planned for the A21 trunk road.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 21 February 1992]: The road improvement schemes in the national programme for the A21 trunk road are as follows:

  Tonbridge bypass to Pembury bypass

  Kippings Cross to Lamberhurst improvement

  Lamberhurst bypass

  Lamberhurst to Flimwell improvement

  Hurst Green bypass

  Silver Hill improvement

  These schemes are at varying stages of development. Their completion will depend on progress that can be made with the design, statutory and other procedures and the availability of funds.

  In addition, there are a number of smaller scale works in the regional programme, mostly aimed at improving safety and traffic flow.

  Leicester Eastern Bypass
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in relation to the tender secured by Travis Morgan to act as advisers on the proposed route of the Leicester eastern bypass, if he will state the total number of companies who submitted unsuccessful tenders and, where possible, their names and addresses.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 21 February 1992]: Two companies submitted unsuccessful tenders. They were Sir Owen Williams and Partners, 41 Whitcomb street,

  361
  London, WC2H 7DT; and Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners, Earley House, London road, Reading, Berkshire RG6 1BL.

  National Parks
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what appraisal he has made of transport needs to and within each of the national parks.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 21 Feburary 1992]: My right hon. and learned Friend's responsibility is for the trunk road network, which forms a small proportion of the transport infrastructure serving national parks. The Government's policy remains as stated in the 1987 White Paper:
  "In National Parks the Government is committed to ensuring that no new trunk routes will be constructed or an existing road upgraded unless there is a compelling need which cannot be met by any reasonable alternative means."

  Policy for trunk roads in national parks in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Other transport needs are a matter for local authorities, passenger transport executives, and British Rail, in consultation with the national park authorities where appropriate.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Civil Service (New Tasks)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what new tasks have been assumed by the civil service in the past year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  As departmental and agency reports show, the civil service is responding to a wide range of new tasks flexibly, effectively and efficiently. The question of functions and priorities is constantly under review.

  Racial Discrimination
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what measures he is taking to counteract racial discrimination in the civil service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  We continue to implement the servicewide programme for action on race, introduced in May 1990. There has been an increase in ethnic minority representation among staff. Copies of a recent report on progress have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

THE ARTS

  Royal Academy
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last visited the Royal Academy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  I visited the Royal Academy on 15 January when I formally opened the Andrea Mantegna exhibition and was a guest there at the Japan festival gala one month later. I have also again seen the Mantegna exhibition, and very splendid it was too. I am delighted to congratulate the 362
  Royal Academy on its magnificent and almost entirely self-sufficient work of refurbishment and pleased that the Government were able to contribute to the renovations via the museums and galleries improvement fund.

  Natural History Museum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is(a) the current number of employees and (b) the current funding for the natural history museum.

  Mr. Renton
  There are currently 672 staff in post at the natural history museum. In 1991–92 the museum will receive £27·8 million grant-in-aid.

  Libraries
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will meet the Association of London Authorities to discuss public library provision.

  Mr. Renton
  Yes. The association should first write to me outlining its points for discussion.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will meet representatives from the Association of District Councils to discuss library provision.

  Mr. Renton
  Yes. The association should first write to me outlining its points for discussion.

  Welsh Arts Council
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he next intends to meet the chairman of the arts council for Wales to discuss funding.

  Mr. Renton
  I meet the chairman of the Welsh Arts Council from time to time to discuss matters of mutual interest. I met the chairman in May and October last year and look forward to meeting him again in the near future.

  Museums and Galleries (Attendance)
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many people visited the national museums and galleries in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Renton
  I was delighted to see that it is estimated that more than 21 million people visited the 11 national museums and galleries for which I am responsible during 1991.

  Galleries and Theatres (Regulations)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what arrangements his Department has to assess the effect of proposed regulations affecting museums, art galleries and theatres prior to implementation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The Office of Arts and Libraries carefully monitors the likely impact any proposed regulations might have on museums, art galleries and theatres before their implementation. The number of such regulations is, however, small.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Customs Checks
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends to review the number of routine checks by Customs officials at Scottish airports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Routine checks by Customs officers are becoming less of a feature of customs work at all ports and airports as a result of that department's strategy of more flexible deployment of staff based on intelligence and assessment of risk and concentrating on drugs, obscene material, instruments of terrorism and other high priority smuggling targets.

  The strategy is kept under constant review.

  Customs (Honesty System)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the honesty system employed by Customs and Excise at Cardiff airport.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The arrangements at Cardiff international airport are part of Customs' strategy to provide a more flexible deployment of staff according to intelligence and assessment of risk and targeted on the key areas of drugs, instruments of terrorism, pornography and so on. We aim to allow honest travellers the freest movement through our frontiers.

  Customs will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the approach but it is too early to make an assessment.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost of collecting income tax from Scottish-based taxpayers; and how this relates to the Inland Revenue's calculations of the late 1970s.

  Mr. Maude
  Information specific to taxpayers resident in Scotland is not available.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of Scottish-based income tax which is collected via computer-based offices; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which computers make the collections easier and less costly to collect.

  Mr. Maude
  No information is available on total income tax collected in Scotland as opposed to the liabilities of those resident there. Computerisation projects are subject to rigorous investment appraisal before approval to proceed is given. In the 10 years to 1991 a reduction of 6,260 Inland Revenue staff is attributable to computerisation.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Abergavenny chamber of trade concerning the uniform business rate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have received a letter.

  Energy Efficiency
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider introducing capital allowances for equipment installed as part of an energy efficiency drive.

  Mr. Maude
  I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number of people paying tax in each year since 1978–79, giving the numbers on basic rate and higher rate tax.

  Mr. Maude
  Latest estimates are given in table 1.5 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1991".

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of the number of taxpayers divided into basic rate and higher rate, and by sex, in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  Estimates at 1991–92 levels of income are as follows:

  Number of taxpayers million

  Basic rate men

  14·2

  Higher rate men

  1·4

  Basic rate women

  9·3

  Higher rate women

  0·2

  TOTAL

  25·1

  Single Person's Allowance
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost in 1992–93 of an increase in the single person's tax allowance of(a) £50, (b) £100, (c) £150, (d) £200, (e) £250 and (f) £300, giving the numbers taken out of tax in each case, in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  Estimates are given in the table.

  Increase in personal allowance1 £

  Exchequer cost in 1992–932 £ million

  Exchequer cost in full year2 £ million

  Numbers taken out of tax thousands

  50

  260

  330

  100

  100

  510

  650

  190

  150

  770

  970

  300

  200

  1,020

  1,300

  400

  250

  1,270

  1,620

  480

  300

  1,520

  1,940

  570

  1 Including the personal allowances for the over-65s and over-75s.

  2 Over and above statutory indexation.

  Married Couples Allowance
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the effect on revenues in 1992–93 of freezing the married couples allowance instead of index-linking it.

  Mr. Maude
  A yield of about £180 million in the first year and £230 million in a full year.

  Civil Service Relocation
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further plans he has to relocate civil service staff to the regions; what performance assessment he has made of the civil servants in the north-west; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 4 December 1991,Official Report, columns 163–64, to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). Under the Government's relocation policy, it is for Departments and agencies to review the location of their work regularly and systematically, with the intention of finding sites offering better value for money. Departmental Ministers will announce their own decisions on significant relocations on completion of the essential processes of assessment and consultation.

  Performance assessments of civil servants are made by their line managers within the department or agency in which they work. These assessments are neither collected nor analysed on a regional basis.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress is being made to reduce the number of civil servants.

  Mr. Maples
  I refer my hon. Friend to table 4.13 of the "Statistical Supplement to the 1991 Autumn Statement", Cm. 1920, presented to the House last month, which shows that civil service manpower fell by 171,000 between 1978–79 and 1991–92.

  Civil Servants (Scotland)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants from Departments and agencies other than the Scottish Office are based in Scotland.

  Mr. Maples
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 21 February 1992, at columns 308–10.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements his Department has to assess proposals for regulations on competitive tendering and their effect on existing small firms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  My Department well appreciates the effects of changes of policy on small firms. When assessing proposals for regulations on competitive tendering, full consideration is given to the impact upon small firms. My Department consults the Department of Employment, which has responsibility for Government policy on small firms. Minimising the costs of regulation for business is an important part of the Government's programme to create the conditions to promote prosperity.

  Training
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in favour of treating training as an investment qualifying for an investment allowance against corporation tax.
  366
  Mr. Maude
  I have not received any such representations.

  Earnings
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of taxpayers earned over £55,000 a year gross in each of the past five tax years.

  Mr. Maude
  Estimates are readily available for both 1990–91 and 1991–92. About three quarters of 1 per cent. and just under 1 per cent. of taxpayers respectively are estimated to have gross earnings from employment and self-employment of over £55,000 in these years.

  Taxes
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those taxes which have to be renewed annually by resolution of the House.

  Mr. Maude
  Income tax and corporation tax.

  Fiscal Drag
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of the amount of revenue that would accrue to the Government from fiscal drag if the tax system were simply indexed in the 1992 Budget, in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  The amount of real fiscal drag that accrues to the Government in any one year depends on the rate of growth of the economy and on the composition of demand. But on average over a cycle it might be expected to raise the ratio of tax receipts to GDP by about 0·2 percentage points per year.

  Disabled Taxpayers
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, in the latest year for which information is available, is the total number of people in receipt of a disability benefit who pay income tax; and how many pay VAT.

  Mr. Maude
  The latest estimates for 1991–92 of the numbers of people in receipt of a disability benefit who pay income tax are as follows:

  Thousands

  Invalidity benefit

  220

  Severe disablement allowance

  20

  These estimates are based on Department of Social Security estimates of the total numbers in receipt of each benefit and information on taxpayers derived from the results of the 1990 family expenditure survey. The figures are, therefore, provisional. VAT is chargeable on a wide range of consumer expenditure and it seems likely that everybody has to pay some during the course of a year.

  Tax Inspectors
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of the amount of revenue brought in by each tax inspector in a year; and what is their average salary.

  Mr. Maude
  In the year to 31 March 1991 the average yield of inspectors of taxes in local offices involved in
  367
  counter evasion and avoidance and technical review work was £700,000. A figure for average salary is not available, but the average overall cost of such an inspector was £32,000.

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was for each year of the years of the existance of the business expansion scheme, the total amount invested in BES, the total cost to the Exchequer, and the percentage and amount of BES money invested, and associated cost to the Exchequer, in residential and assured tenancy schemes.

  Mr. Maude
  The business expansion scheme was extended to include investment in private rented housing in 1988–89. The latest estimates are as follows:

  Amounts invested

  Cost of income tax relief

  Total of which investment in private rented housing

  Total of which in respect of investment in private rented housing

  £ million

  amount £ million

  percentage

  £ million

  £ million

  1983–84

  105

  —

  —

  50

  —

  1984–85

  148

  —

  —

  75

  —

  1985–86

  157

  —

  —

  85

  —

  1986–87

  169

  —

  —

  95

  —

  1987–88

  201

  —

  —

  120

  —

  11988–89

  420

  368

  88

  150

  130

  11989–90

  211

  160

  76

  75

  55

  11990–91

  320

  280

  88

  120

  105

  1 provisional estimates.

  Information is not yet available for 1991–92.

  Taxation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will bring up to date his answer of 25 November 1983,Official Report, columns 316–17 showing the proportion of taxation levied on capital, labour and other.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 19 February 1992]: In the table, taxes on capital include corporation tax, North sea taxes and royalties, income tax on rent, dividends, interest and so on, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, development land tax, and national non-domestic rates. Taxes on labour include income tax on earned and self-employment income—including pensions and benefits to the unemployed—and employer's and employees' national insurance contributions. Other taxes—mainly taxes on expenditure and community charge—are not allocated.

  On this basis the figures for 1990–91 are as follows:

  Percent

  Capital

  Labour

  Other

  Total

  19·4

  44·0

  36·6

  100·0

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of people receiving mortgage tax relief are first-time buyers.

  Mr Maude
  [holding answer 21 February 1992]: Information on the proportion of all those receiving
  368
  mortgage tax relief who were first-time buyers when the mortgage was taken out is not available. Almost 50 per cent. of those mortgages taken out in the year ending September 1991 were for first-time buyers.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what conditions and at what rate he expects to initiate the taxation of invalidity benefit; if he proposes at the same time to review the taxation liability of the invalidity benefit supplement to the retirement pension; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 21 February 1992]: It remains the Government's intention to bring invalidity benefit into taxation when operationally possible. When taxation is introduced the benefit will form part of the recipient's taxable income and will therefore be taxed at the taxpayer's marginal rate. The Government have no intention of changing the tax treatment of the addition to retirement pension given to those previously entitled to the invalidity allowance.

  Alcohol Duty
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy relating to European Community legislation with regard to duty on(a) vin doux naturel and (b) vin de liqueur compared with still table wine.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 20 February 1992]: The UK excise duty bands of wines and made-wines are based solely on alcoholic content. These constitute neutral and objective demarcations between alcoholic drinks of different strengths. I see no reason to make any fiscal distinction between fermented and distilled alcohol and will seek to retain our existing arrangements in future EC negotiations.

  Royal Mint
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the members of the board of the Royal Mint, together with the ranges of pay applicable to their position and any appropriate qualifications.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 20 February 1992]: The members of the management board of the Royal Mint, their current ranges of pay, including performance-related pay, and appropriate qualifications are:

  Member and Relevant Qualification

  Pay Range £

  Mr. A. D. Garrett MA Deputy Master and Comptroller (Chief Executive)

  up to 166,000

  Mr. D. C. Snell FCMA MBCS Director of Finance and Corporate Services (Deputy Chief Executive)

  242,724 to 47,921

  Mr. A. R. W. Lotherington Sales Director

  2337,928 to 49,671

  Mr. R. D. Burchill MSc C.Eng MIEE Director of Operations

  234,667 to 46,122

  Mr. B. D. Williams Marketing Director

  226,622 to 41,120

  Mr. C. J. J. Boyle FIPM Director, Human Resources and Establishment Officer

  226,622 to 41,120

  Mr. S. G. Cameron MC Non-Executive Director

  43,000

  Mr. J. Burnett-Stuart BA Non-Exective Director

  43,000

  369

  1 Including special performance-related bonus.

  2 Excluding bonuses payable under the Mint's profit-sharing scheme.

  3 Including London weighting.

  4 Fee paid.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Lockerbie Disaster
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make contact with Mr. Mazn Abu Shriff about responsibility for the Lockerbie air disaster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by the Foreign Secretary on 14 November. A thorough three-year investigation into the Lockerbie disaster by the Dumfries and Galloway police revealed no evidence to suggest that any other countries or groups were behind the attack on Pan Am 103.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the television advertising campaigns and all other publicity campaigns costing over £100,000 to be carried out by his Department in February, March, April, May or June of the current year.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is continuing its campaign of consular publicity. For the period in question new versions have been commissioned of films on drug smuggling and holiday medical insurance, made for free showing on TV as public service announcements and aimed at viewers planning holidays overseas. The cost of producing the films will be around 160,000.

  Spanish customs Officers
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Spanish Government on the problems likely to be encountered by Scottish fish processors as a result of industrial action by Spanish customs officers.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I have had no discussions with the Spanish Government about the industrial action by Spanish customs agents. The embassy in Madrid is monitoring the situation.

WALES

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the television advertising campaigns and all other publicity campaigns costing over £100,000 to be carried out by his Department in February, March, April, May or June of the current year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Welsh Office does not plan to run any television campaigns. At present the Department plans to run the following three publicity campaigns:—

  Education—including teacher shortage

  Industry—including Enterprise Wales

  Road Safety.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise with President Bush the circumstances of involvement of non-Libyans in the Lockerbie bombing.

  The Prime Minister
  We remain in close contact with the United States over the Lockerbie bombing. We and the United States authorities share the view that there is no evidence to suggest that any countries other than Libya were responsible for the Lockerbie bombing.

HEALTH

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) hospitals and (b) clinics in the Greater Manchester area he has visited in the last year.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My Ministers and I regularly visit hospitals and clinics in the course of our official duties and I last visited hospitals and clinics in the Greater Manchester area on Tuesday 12 March 1991.

  Cataract Operations
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he issues to regional health authorities about adding cataract patients to the waiting list when it may be many months from diagnosis to preparedness for an operation for medical reasons.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Guidance on the management of waiting lists, issued by the Royal College of Surgeons in July 1991, states that patients should only be placed on a waiting list when they are clinically ready to undergo surgery. This advice is reiterated in departmental guidance which was issued to all health authorities at the same time.

  Procurement
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements his Department has to assess the effect of proposed regulations made by his Department affecting companies involved in the procurement process; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Where regulations are planned which are likely to impact on the business sector a compliance cost assessment is prepared wherever possible in order to provide an indicative guide to costs and other effects. The Department seeks wherever possible to reduce the burden of regulations or other Government procedures on the business sector.

  Dentists
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has evaluated the effect on national health service patients of any changes to dentists' fee structures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The health departments have been consulting dentists' representatives on dental remuneration. The health departments and the general dental
  371
  services committee have now agreed to re-examine the detailed elements of the levels of fees. They will simultaneously begin a more fundamental review of the dental remuneration system, as recommended by the doctors and dentists review body.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all the television advertising campaigns and all other publicity campaigns costing over £100,000 to be carried out by his Department in February, March, April, May or June of the current year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Television advertising campaigns during February are:

  Solvents Misuse

  Nursing Regional

  Other planned publicity campaigns likely to cost over £100,000 from February to June are:

  Food Safety

  Blood Donor Recruitment

  Health Advice for Travellers

  Nursing

  AIDS

  Drugs Misuse

  Back to Sleep

  Help with NHS Treatment Costs

  Individual campaign allocations from April 1992 have yet to be confirmed.

  Local Government Electors
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table to show for England the number of local government electors on each of the 1985 to 1990 electoral registers, together with the estimated resident population for the mid point of each preceding year, including those aged 17 years and over, and 63 per cent. of those aged 16 years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Numbers of local government electors on the 1985 to 1990 registers have been published in annual volumes of "Electoral Statistics"—series EL nos. 13 to 17— copies of which are available in the Library. I have arranged for the requested resident population estimates to be prepared and sent to the hon. Member, and a copy will then be placed in the Library.

  Parkside Health Authority
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will begin a review into the adequacy of hospital services in Parkside health authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: We are satisfied that Parkside health authority is fulfilling its statutory duty to provide a comprehensive health service for its residents, within the resources available. We do not intend to institute an inquiry.

EMPLOYMENT

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements his Department has to assess the effect of proposed new regulations affecting small firms and enterprises; and if he will make a statement.
  372
  Mr. Forth
  In line with the deregulation initiative and in common with other Government Departments, all regulations proposed or approved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment are assessed for their impact on business. Details of these assessments are provided to the deregulation unit in the DTI and are publicly available. Because of my responsibilities for small firms, I take a keen interest in the impact on small firms of regulations proposed by other Government Departments.

  Job Discrimination
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has made to those companies who impose an age limit of 50 years on job applicants to ensure people above this age group do not suffer discrimination.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department regularly urges employers to give proper recognition to the qualities that older workers possess. They should abandon arbitrary age limits in recruitment and treat everyone on their merits. To assist this process, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced on 11 February that we propose to set up an advisory group on older workers. The group will have an important role to play in the identification and dissemination of good practice in the employment of older people.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East,Official Report, 22 April 1991, column 366, concerning wages councils.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not yet available but will be available during March.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list all the television advertising campaigns and all other publicity campaigns costing over £100,000 to be carried out by his Department in February, March, April, May or June of the current year.

  Mr. Forth
  No television advertising campaigns are planned by the Department between February and June this year. Other publicity campaigns costing more than £100,000 planned for this period are jobclubs, national training awards, high technology national training, employment action, and learning technologies.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Commonwealth of Independent States
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessments have been carried out of the impact of food aid on markets for locally produced food, on the development of the marketing system and on the prices that farmers receive in the Commonwealth of Independent States.

  Mrs. Chalker
  EC food aid is being sold through free market mechanisms so as to bolster the development of a
  373
  market infrastructure which will greatly assist the development of distribution systems and thus benefit local producers. No formal assessment has yet been carried out of the impact of this on emerging markets, as the process of providing food aid on a large scale is as yet in its infancy, and time is needed to assess its full effect.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total level of counterpart funds raised from the sale of food aid from all western donors in the Commonwealth of Independent States; and what mechanisms exist within the Overseas Development Administration, the EC and other bodies to monitor the use of these counterpart funds.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Unofficial estimates suggest that over 400 million roubles may be generated by the sale of food so far delivered under the European Community's 200 mecu (£140 million) food aid package for Moscow, St. Petersburg and other cities. These counterpart funds will be used to provide direct aid for needy groups such as families and pensioners—an approach which we endorse. The fund will be monitored by the Community task force which currently oversees the entire food aid operation. We are pleased to see that more staff have been made available to the European Commission in this area.

  Turks and Caicos Islands
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are his plans for assistance to the Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Discussions on future assistance were held between the Government and the Turks and Caicos Islands—TCI—Government on 13 and 14 February.

  Her Majesty's Government have agreed to provide nearly £24 million to the TCI Government over the three financial years beginning in 1992–93.

  Of this, £18 million in bilateral funds and £1 million in regional funds will be used in support of projects agreed between the two governments in accoreance with the TCI Government's "Progress through Partnership" policy. It is anticipated that a further £4 million will be forthcoming over the same period for activities in support of the basic functions of government. Funds will also be used to clear part of the debt of the TCI Government inherited during the winding up of the national airline.

  This is the largest aid package the United Kingdom has provided to TCI and is designed to assist the TCI Government in their policy of moving rapidly towards economic self-sufficiency.

  Her Majesty's Government have agreed to further talks with the TCI over the next few years to monitor the progress of this aid in meeting the objective of economic self-sufficiency.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Education, Suffolk
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what extra money has been given to Suffolk county council to cover the teachers' salary award for 1992–93; and what advice he has given to the authority on how to meet the gap between its budget and its teachers' pay bill;
  374
  (2) if he will make a statement on the estimates he made of pupil numbers and teachers required for Suffolk county council for 1992–93; and how he expects those estimates to be altered following the teachers' salary settlement for 1992–93.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Government are paying additional grant to authorities in England of £56·5 million to help them cover the cost of the increase in teachers' pay recommended by the school teachers review body. Suffolk's share will be some £677,000. The Government's view is that with this additional support LEAs should have adequate headroom within the 1992–93 local authority finance settlement to cover the cost of the teachers' award in full, provided that they exploit their scope for making efficiency savings. It is for individual local authorities and schools with delegated budgets to determine spending priorities, including the number of teachers to be employed. In determining education's share of the overall 1992–93 settlement, the Government took account of the expected growth in pupil numbers nationally; and individual authorities' shares reflect the latest information available about the distribution of school pupils between authorities.

  Palaeontology
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has had from geologists at the British Geological Survey about funding for palaeontology in Edinburgh.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received no such representations.

  Ice Skating
  Mr. Denis Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what discussions he has held with the National Skating Association regarding the need to replace the first-class coaching facilities lost to skating by the closure of the Richmond ice rink; and what proposals he has to ensure the future level of national and international skating skills in this country;

  (2) what steps he has taken to assess the effects of the closure of the Richmond ice rink upon the development of the sport of ice skating in the United Kingdom and the training of future international competitors; also upon the public of the loss of these facilities for recreational use; and what steps he is taking to safeguard these interests.

  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions have been held with the London borough of Richmond to plan a replacement of ice skating facilities in that area.

  Mr. Atkins
  Despite the closure of Richmond ice rink I understand that training facilities are available elsewhere. I welcome, however, the feasibility study, by a subsidiary of the National Skating Association and funded by the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, into a proposed national ice training centre.

  Discussions are still taking place between the London borough of Richmond and the London Edinburgh Trust which owns the former ice rink, concerning an alternative site for an ice rink in the borough. It is for the National Skating Association to consult with the London borough of Richmond and others as appropriate, and I have not, therefore, held discussions with either body.

  Argentina Animal Health Authority
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about any agreement between the Agricultural and Food Research Council's institute of animal health arid the animal health authority of Argentina including the costs involved.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Pirbright laboratory of the AFRC institute for animal health—IAH—has agreed in principle to undertake a collaborative programme of research with the Centro de Investigacion en Ciencias Veterinarias—CICV—of Argentina's Institute de Virologia del Institute Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria subject to agreement of suitable funding arrangements. The research will investigate the role of carrier animals in the epidemiology of foot and mouth disease, for which Pirbright is the European and world reference laboratory. The Argentine Government are considering whether to support the project. The CICV and IAH are also seeking support from the Commission of the European Communities as part of its scheme to promote bilateral scientific co-operation between laboratories in the Community and countries in Latin America, Asia and the Mediterranean.

  Stratford School
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when Her Majesty's inspectors last visited Stratford school; and if the report was published.

  Mr. Eggar
  Two HMIs paid a routine visit to Stratford school on 4 December 1991. As with all such visits, there will be no published report.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much financial support he has given to Stratford school in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Eggar
  The annual maintenance grant for the financial year 1991–92 is some £1·5 million. In the last 12 months we have paid further sums amounting to some £100,000 for capital and special purposes.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current pupil roll at Stratford school; and what proportion are resident in the borough of Newham.

  Mr. Eggar
  I understand that there are currently 570 pupils on roll at the school, of whom fewer than 2 per cent. are resident outside Newham.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he intends to take in respect of Stratford school.

  Mr. Eggar
  We shall continue to monitor the situation at the school and make further use of our powers to act when appropriate.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he has taken to date to deal with the current difficulties at Stratford school; and what has been the effect.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has communicated with the school on a range of matters. My right hon. And 376
  learned Friend has used his powers to intervene to ensure the reinstatement of the headteacher. He has also appointed Mrs. Daphne Gould and Mr. Eric Bolton as additional governors to the school. We have made it clear that we are keeping in close touch with the situation and we will not hesitate to use our powers further in the interests of the education of the pupils at the school.

  PE Teachers
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many qualified physical education teachers left training colleges in each of the last five years; and what is his Department's estimate for the number still in teaching.

  Mr. Fallon
  The table shows the numbers of students specialising in PE who successfully completed an initial teacher training course in England and Wales, in each year from 1985 to 1989, together with the number of these who were teaching in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools sector in England and Wales on 31 March 1990.

  ITT complelers with main subject PE

  Of whom: teaching on 31 March 1990

  1985

  654

  369

  1986

  781

  466

  1987

  661

  428

  1988

  687

  454

  1989

  571

  394

  Total

  3,354

  2,111

  The remainder includes those who have not taught since qualifying or have left teaching, as well as those who are teaching in other sectors such as independent schools, or teaching outside England and Wales.

  Sports Grounds
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what response he has made to the report by the Institution of Structural Engineers "Appraisal of Sports Grounds", a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I received the institution's report with interest. I understand that it has been warmly welcomed by the Home Office, within whose responsibility sports ground safety falls, and whose "Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds" it complements.

  Sensory Impairments
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what criteria were used in determining the outcome of Liverpool education authority's bid for funds to develop provision for children with dual sensory impairmants; how many bids from the north-west were successful; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  Bids under the grants for education support and training programme to encourage the development of regional provision for deaf-blind children were assessed against the criteria set out in the Department's published guidance. Bids were to be made on a regional basis, with
  377
  at least three local education authorities per bid unless geographical constraints made this impossible in practice. The successful bids were those thought most likely to secure lasting benefits both locally and nationally. Geographical representation was not a selection criterion, and none of the successful bids involved authorities in the north-west.

  GCSE Coursework
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many letters he has received on the subject of GCSE coursework; and how many of these have supported his proposed changes in the extent of coursework.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a large volume of correspondence on this subject. The correspondents have expressed a range of views.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list all the television advertising campaigns and all other publicity campaigns costing over £100,000 to be carried out by his Department in February, March, April, May or June of the current year.

  Mr. Eggar
  Publicity campaigns costing over £100,000 cover the following areas:A touring exhibition, "Time for School", which was launched in January will continue during February and March.
  A campaign of information for companies about tax relief on business gifts and charitable giving to educational institutions—February/April.
  Information for parents about the National Curriculum —February/March.
  Information for parents about testing at age 7 and 14—May/June.
  In addition, the professional, industrial and commercial updating programme will continue to support and encourage colleges, polytechnics and universities to improve and increase their provision to meet the training needs of employers and their employees.
  No television campaigns are planned for these months.

  Mr. David Mogie
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to pay Mr. David Mogie, a student at Sunderland polytechnic, his bursary of £1,500; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  A cheque for the first instalment of the bursary was dispatched from this Department to Sunderland polytechnic on 29 January. The second instalment of £750 will be paid in April.

  A-levels
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the drop-out rate from A-level courses in England and Wales each year from 1985.

  Mr. Eggar
  Comprehensive information on A-level drop-out rates is not readily available. However, estimates of the percentage of 16-year-olds commencing A or AS level courses at schools in England who were no longer pursuing those courses a year later are as follows:
  378

  Academic year of commencement of A/AS level course

  Percentage no longer pursuing course one year later Per cent.

  1984–85

  13·6

  1985–86

  13·3

  1986–87

  13·5

  1987–88

  12·7

  1988–89

  12·9

  1989–90

  12·4

  Seven-year-olds (Tests)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table of local education authorities whose attainment test results at seven years were published showing in each case(a) those who included all seven-year-olds in the tests, (b) those who excluded special needs pupils, (c) those who excluded statemented or excluded pupils, (d) those who excluded pupils with a mother tongue other than English, (e) those who excluded other categories of pupil with an indication of which other category was so excluded and (f) those who made no return of which categories of pupil were excluded.

  Mr. Eggar
  With the exception of pupils with statements of special educational needs, and some others temporarily excepted from the provisions of the national curriculum under section 19 of the Education Reform Act, all pupils coming to the end of key stage 1 of the national curriculum were required to be tested in the core subjects last summer.

  Some LEAs and schools chose to include pupils with statements of special educational needs in the tests. The reply which I gave to the hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) on 10 February, Official Report, column 374, explains how the LEA results published on 19 December treated such pupils.

  National Curriculum Council
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what financial arrangements were made for the former chairman and chief executive of the National Curriculum Council upon his departure from office last year.

  Mr. Eggar
  Mr. Duncan Graham received financial compensation of just over £100,000 in respect of loss of income and pension benefits on the early termination of his contract of employment.

  Pupil Placements
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children attend city technology colleges, grant-maintained schools and grammar schools and use the assisted places scheme.

  Mr. Eggar
  [pursuant to his reply, 10 February 1992, c. 373–74]: Latest estimates suggest that more than 105,000 pupils now attend grant-maintained schools in England, and that this is expected to rise to some 160,000 next term. Nearly 8,000 pupils are in city technology colleges and in excess of 27,4000 pupils receive support under the assisted places scheme.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Fairs and Promotions
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the cost of the review of the fairs and promotions branch of his Department being carried out by Price Waterhouse.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Price Waterhouse is not carrying out a review of my Department's fairs and promotions branch.

  Life Cycle Analysis
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice and assistance his Department offers companies to introduce life cycle analysis in product planning and development.

  Mr. Leigh
  Life cycle analysis—LCA—is a system for assessing the environmental impact of products at all stages of their life from the winning of raw materials through to the eventual disposal of the product. Although the methodology for assessing these impacts is still developing, many individual companies are turning to LCA to assist them in understanding where the main environmental impacts of their products occur. My officials actively encourage companies in this direction.

  My Department has been involved in a number of presentations to business audiences to explain the relationship between LCA and the setting up of an EC-wide official ecolabelling scheme for consumer products. This official scheme will use a "cradle to grave"
  380
  analysis as the underpinning requirement for assessing the environmental criteria to be applied to products which may attract a label.

  RENAVAL
  Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how his statement to the House on 17 February,Official Report, column 27, about agreement with European Commissioner Bruce Millan affects the RENAVAL programme in Plymouth, and other Devon county council programmes dependent on EEC part-funding including RECHAR.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 21 February 1992]: I expect the RENAVAL programme now to proceed satisfactorily. Devon is not eligible for RECHAR grants, which are for coalfield areas.

  Export Controls
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when his Department next plans to hold seminars on changes to United Kingdom export controls to prevent proliferation; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of the export control seminars his Department sponsored for industry in 1991.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 21 February 1992]: Five DTI non-proliferation seminars are planned for this year, the first in Manchester on 23 March.

  The seminars held last year were well received by industry. I am satisfied that they made a valuable contribution to highlighting awareness about the risks of clandestine procurement activities and explaining export controls.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Records
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the production in court of the offender's previous criminal record.

  Mr. John Patten
  We receive representations from time to time on this subject, about which my hon. Friend wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 4 February.

  Marriages of Convenience
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department was last notified by the Registrar General that a proposed marriage was purely one of convenience.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On Wednesday 29 January 1992.

  Police (Body Armour)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 January,Official Report, column 647, what is the cost to public funds in providing body armour for police forces.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is not available centrally and could he obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Police, Hampshire
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the figures for Hampshire police establishment(a) police operational duties and (b) civilian staff; and what were the figures in 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The present establishment of the Hampshire Constabulary is 3,202 compared to 2,954 in 1979. The establishment will increase to 3,269 from April 1992. It is for the chief constable to decide how available manpower should be deployed. At the end of 1990, 84 per cent. of the force was deployed to operational duties.

  My right hon. Friend does not control civilian staff numbers: this is a matter for the police authority. At the end of December 1991 the civilian strength for the Hampshire Constabulary was 1,039, as against 708 in 1979.

  Vehicle Test Certificates
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the numbers of prosecutions for using or possessing stolen Ministry of Transport test certificates each year for the last five years by each of the following categories(a) heavy goods vehicles, (b) public service vehicles and (c) private cars.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information is not available centrally.

  Extradition
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been detained at his request by the police in(a) Spain, (b) Turkey, (c)
  382
  Zimbabwe, (d) the Republic of South Africa and (e) all other countries and subsequently flown to the United Kingdom, arrested and remanded into custody for each of the last five years; and whether extradition procedures were followed in each case.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No such requests have been made in the last five years. International co-operation between police forces to apprehend people suspected of criminal offences is a matter for individual chief officers of police.

  Charities
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements his Department has to assess proposals for regulations to be made by his Department and their effect on charities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Guidance on this matter, approved by the ministerial group on the voluntary sector, has been issued by the Home Office to all Government Departments. It has been circulated to officials within the Home Office. The guidance is designed to ensure that, when considering changes of policy or changes in procedures, the Home Office, and other Departments, should assess the implications which those changes may have for voluntary organisations and charities.

  Sports Grounds
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has made to the report by the Institution of Structural Engineers, "Appraisal of Sports Grounds", a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I was sent a copy of "Appraisal of Sports Grounds" on 30 May 1991. My private secretary replied to the Institution of Structural Engineers on 13 June 1991 to convey my thanks for the report and to relay my congratulations to the institution on producing a document which I regard as an important contribution towards achieving safety at sports grounds.

  Football, London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was received by the Metropolitan police from London Football League clubs in respect of matches called off last season 1990–91 and 1991–92 to date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the Metropolitan police received £5,316 for matches postponed during the 1990–91 season. To date no payments have been received for the 1991–92 season.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the minimum amount of notice required by the Metropolitan police in respect of Football Association cup and league matches in London.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This is a matter for the Commissioner of the Metropolis. I understand that safety certificates for most London clubs require that the police be notified of fixtures 28 days beforehand. In the case of cup match replays, the police require 10 days notice. The police are sometimes able to accommodate fixtures with less notice, depending on other operational commitments.
  383
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total amount received by the Metropolitan police from London's Football League clubs in respect of charges for police services in seasons 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 to date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the information is as follows:

  Amount received by the Metropolitan police

  Season

  £

  1989–90

  2,384,379

  1990–91

  2,394,469

  1991–921

  1,051,642

  1 To 20 February.

  Wimbledon Tennis Championships
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was received by the Metropolitan police in respect of police services at the 1991 Wimbledon tennis championships.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the Metropolitan police received £172,296·50 for policing the 1991 Wimbledon tennis championships.

  Car Crime
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the total number of car-related crimes between 1979 to the present in(a) Humberside and (b) Scunthorpe divisional police area.

  Mr. John Patten
  Figures for Humberside are contained in the table.

  Figures for Scunthorpe are not available centrally.

  Car crimes1 recorded hr the police in Humberside

  Year

  Number of offences

  1979

  7,077

  1980

  7,498

  1981

  9,168

  1982

  10,488

  1983

  9,680

  1984

  9,462

  1985

  11,267

  1986

  13,004

  1987

  15,298

  Grants1 2 3 of asylum or exceptional leave in the United Kingdom, by the location of application

  Granted asylum

  Granted exceptional leave

  Application made at port

  Application made after entry

  Total granted asylum

  Application made at port

  Application made after entry

  Total granted exceptional leave

  Date of grant

  July to September 19914

  15

  55

  75

  30

  90

  120

  July to September 1990

  120

  80

  200

  345

  220

  565

  1 Excluding dependants.

  2 Provisional figures, rounded to the nearest 5.

  3 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the time period.

  4 1991 figures are likely to understate because of delays in recording.

  384

  Year

  Number of offences

  1988

  16,515

  1989

  17,969

  1990

  23,060

  1 Theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicle; theft from motor vehicle.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all the television advertising campaigns and all other publicity campaigns costing over £100,000 to be carried out by his Department in February, March, April, May or June of the current year.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  My Department is running a car crime prevention campaign on television from 11 February until June. It will be supported by press, poster and radio advertising for shorter spells within that period.

  A smoke alarms campaign was run on television from 26 December until 12 February.

  An absent voting campaign will be run on television and in the press for three days from the announcement of an election date.

  A prison service recruitment campaign has been run in the press from 13 January and will continue until 13 April.

  With the exception of absent voting, all Home Office advertising will be suspended for the duration of the general election campaign period.

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants for political asylum, at ports of entry and after entry, since last July to the latest available date, have been(a) granted political asylum and (b) granted exceptional leave to remain; and what were the figures for the comparable period of 1990–91.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 19 February 1992]: The readily available information is of total grants of asylum or exceptional leave made in the period July to September 1991. This is shown in the table, along with corresponding information for the same period in 1990.

  The figures for July to September 1991 may be an understatement because of delays in recording. Information on decisions made since September 1991 is not yet available.

  Asylum
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number, to the latest available date, of applications for political asylum, from
  385
  all sources, awaiting decision; and what were the comparable figures for the comparable period of each of the last three years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 19 February 1992]: Information is given in the table:

  Number of asylum applications1 outstanding

  Date

  Total

  As at:

  31 December 1988

  6,500

  31 December 1989

  10,500

  31 December 19902

  27,200

  30 September 1991 2 3

  59,300

  1 Estimated figures, excluding dependants.

  2 Provisional figures.

  3 Corresponding information for 31 December 1991 is not yet available.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Rabies
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans are in place to end rabies quarantine for domestic animals; and what changes in procedure are expected as a result of the European single market.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made towards retaining United Kingdom quarantine regulations until rabies has been eradicated on the continent.

  Mr. Maclean
  European Community scientific experts have been asked to review the scientific evidence relating to the precautions necessary to avoid the spread of rabies by domestic animals. The Government would not support any proposal for changes to existing arrangements which would increase the risk of rabies being introduced to this country.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the EC on the elimination of rabies; and what facilities are available to the Commission to confirm the reports given by member states.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that the campaign to eradicate rabies from the European Community is progressing more slowly than the Commission originally expected. It is too early to say whether the campaign will be a complete success. Member states are required to report to the Commission on their plans for control of rabies, which is a compulsorily notifiable disease throughout the Community.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what public statements the chief veterinary officer has made in 1992 about possible developments in EC law affecting United Kingdom quarantine regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Chief Veterinary Officer has explained that the Commission has recently asked the Scientific Veterinary Committee to review the scientific evidence relating to the spread of rabies, in the light of suggestions that some categories of animals that have been vaccinated and blood-tested could represent no greater risk of the introduction of disease than those imported 386
  under our existing arrangements. The Government will not support measures which would increase the risk of rabies being introduced into this country.

  Dietary Supplements
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he intends to support the European Commission view that dietary supplements with a greater strength than that in food should be classified as medicines and sold as such, regardless of whether the manufacturers made medical claims for them;

  (2) if he will make a statement about European Community proposals to restrict the availability of dietary supplements and his assessment of the consequences of so doing to both consumers and practitioners.

  Mr. Maclean
  The European Commission have not issued proposals for legislation on dietary supplements but a discussion paper which presents various options for consideration by member states. One option would be to introduce maximum permitted daily doses for dietary supplements containing certain vitamins and minerals known to be toxic in excess. The Government support this proposal although we have not yet reached a firm view on the limit that would be appropriate for individual substances. The consequences of introducing maximum daily doses would depend on the limits actually set. But in principle such limits would protect consumers by preventing the sale of high dose products to consumers of food although such products would still be available for proper medicinal purposes.

  Beef
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the agreements which are currently in place between the United Kingdom and Argentina Governments concerning the import and export of beef between the two countries.

  Mr. Gummer
  No such agreements exist.

  Fur Farming
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the recommendation on fur farming adopted under the 1976 Council of Europe convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes was implemented; and what information, advice or instructions have been distributed to British fur factory farmers.

  Mr. Maclean
  The recommendation on fur farming was adopted in October 1990 and was implemented in October 1991. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wrote to the Fur Breeders Association in November 1990 informing them of the adoption of the recommendation. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food also advised that officers of the State Veterinary Service would follow the recommendations in future inspections of fur farms.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what changes will be brought about in the living conditions of mink and Arctic foxes on fur farms as a result of implementing the recommendations on fur farming of the Council of Europe convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes 1976;
  387
  (2) what plans exist to inspect Arctic fox factory farms in Britain to ensure they comply with the recommendations contained in the Council of Europe convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes 1976.

  Mr. Maclean
  The recommendations have no legal force in themselves but it is expected that the European Community will incorporate them in binding legislation. In the meantime State Veterinary Service officers will continue to inspect fur farms and will advise operators to adopt the recommendations. For mink the standards broadly reflect current practices in this country, while for foxes implementation of the standards will lead to welfare improvements particularly through the provision of nesting boxes or platforms. The Community, when considering legislation on this subject, will have the opportunity to lay down more stringent conditions.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which recommendations of the 1976 Council of Europe convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes have been implemented by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Maclean
  All recommendations are implemented, either by way of regulations or administratively through the issue of guidelines.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the television advertising campaigns and all other publicity campaigns costing over £100,000 to be carried out by his Department in February, March, April, May or June of the current year.

  Mr. Curry
  MAFF has no plans to carry out television advertising campaigns during February, March, April, May or June of the current year. An exhibition programme will take consumer information on a wide range of food safety and environmental issues to a number of major venues in England. The revision and distribution of the Department's publications on food will also continue.

  Badgers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent advice he has received from his consultative panel on badgers and tuberculosis; if he intends responding publicly to that advice; and if he will place a copy of the advice in the Library.

  Mr. Maclean
  The work of the consultative panel on badgers and tuberculosis is described in "Bovine Tuberculosis in Badgers" a report published annually by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and

  Discharges from mental illness hospitals, psychiatric units and mental handicab hospitals by disposal on discharge, years 1985–90

  Discharges

  Year

  Home alone

  Home to relations/friends

  Hostel for ex-patients

  Other hostel/home

  Other type of residence

  Total

  1985

  3,729

  20,405

  207

  784

  455

  25,580

  1986

  3,992

  20,136

  305

  1,043

  425

  25,901

  1987

  4,366

  20,669

  294

  1,067

  524

  26,920

  388
  placed in the Library of the House. At its most recent meeting, on 13 February, the panel had a preliminary discussion of the feasibility of a control strategy based on the application of a diagnostic test applied to live badgers.

  Pollution, Bristol Channel
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement upon the measures being taken to reduce the pollution in the Bristol channel caused by the dumping of sewage sludge from the Bristol and Avon area.

  Mr. Curry
  Regular monitoring shows that there is no evidence of harmful effects from licensed dumping of sewage sludge in the Bristol channel. Nevertheless the two water companies who currently dispose of their sludge there have well developed plans to terminate the operation by the end of 1993.

  Pennine Dales
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to make changes to the Pennine dales environmentally sensitive area scheme.

  Mr. Gummer
  As I foreshadowed, I have decided to make changes to the provisions of the Pennine dales environmentally sensitive area scheme which I introduced on 15 January. This scheme was drawn up following extensive local consultations with farmers and conservationists. In the event, there do seem to be better ways of balancing the payments to achieve the envirmental ends. I have sought to maintain a premium payment for hay meadows, now set at £125 per hectare, while increasing the payment for pastures to £90 per hectare. I have also increased the payments for meadows which are managed without fertilisers to enhance their floral diversity to £210 per hectare. The necessary amending Statutory Instrument has today been laid before Parliament. I am sure that these changes will be welcomed by all farmers throughout the extended environmentally sensitive area as well as by the environmental interests. Questions of detailed application of the revised scheme will be addressed in a way which responds to local circumstances.

SCOTLAND

  In-patients
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of in-patients(a) returned to the community in each year since 1985 and (b) the planned number to be returned into the community in the current and future years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information for all Scotland is as follows:
  389

  Discharges

  Year

  Home alone

  Home to relations/friends

  Hostel for ex-patients

  Other hostel/home

  Other type of residence

  Total

  1988

  4,667

  21,189

  310

  1,219

  542

  27,927

  1989

  4,970

  20,768

  293

  1,323

  507

  27,851

  1990

  5,091

  21,308

  333

  1,567

  583

  28,882

  There is no planned number for current or future years. Each patient is considered on their individual merits and only those patients who would benefit from a community placement are offered such a move.

  Dykebar Hospital
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what support services are available for patients from Dykebar hospital, Paisley who have been or will be released into the community; and which agencies he expects to provide each service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The requirements of each patient will vary depending on their individual needs. Only those patients who are inappropriately placed in hospital and who would benefit from the move will be considered for a community placement. Patients would be offered such a placement only if appropriate support arrangements were in place.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in relation to the services provided by Dykebar hospital, Paisley.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Since July 1987 I have received only one such representation, relating in that case to laundry services at Dykebar.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with Argyll and Clyde health board regarding the services and facilities provided at Dykebar hospital, Paisley; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None. It is, however, open to the board to raise any issue, at any time as part of the regular meetings and contact that is established to discuss the full range of services and strategic issues.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much(a) has been spent, (b) is being spent and (c) is planned to be spent on the development of Dykebar hospital, Paisley; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A total of £7·4 million has been invested since 1984 to the end of the financial year 1991–92 and a further investment of £2 million is planned within the next three years.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what capital developments are currently taking place at Dykebar hospital, Paisley, and what is the purpose and financial value of each development.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The development of a £1·3 million purpose-built 24-bedded intensive therapy clinic for acutely disturbed patients and the provision of a new £150,000 dispensary are currently underway.

  In addition, there are five minor capital developments with a total value of £125,000 which are designed to improve the amenity and facilities for patients in the hospital.
  390
  The decentralisation of the hospital boiler plant is currently being planned at an estimated cost of £250,000. This investment will potentially yield an energy efficiency saving of £50,000 per annum.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many in-patients there are currently at Dykebar hospital, Paisley; and what is the projection for the current and future years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  On 11 February this year there were 437 in-patients at Dykebar hospital. The Argyll and Clyde health board expects that level to be maintained for the current year and beyond.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial assistance has been or will be earmarked for local authorities and other agencies to provide support and assistance to patients who have been or will be released into the community from Dykebar hospital, Paisley.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is for the Argyll and Clyde health board, the local authorities and other agencies to determine from within the financial and other resources available to them what level of provision is appropriate to the needs of any patients transferring from Dykebar hospital.

  I announced on 18 November last that funds available to local authorities under the mental illness specific grant scheme would double for 1992–93 to £6 million. I have also recently announced that £33 million in total will be available during the period 1991–92 to 1994–95 under the bridging finance scheme to assist their programmes of care in the community. Of this, some £2·26 million has been allocated to Argyll and Clyde health board and it has been invited to submit bids for a further allocation.

  These decisions underline the Government's main aim of improving the quality of life for the mentally ill and their carers and our commitment to assisting health boards and local authorities in providing facilities in the community to reduce the number of people inappropriately placed in hospital.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for the long-term future of Dykebar hospital, Paisley; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Such matters fall entirely for consideration by the Argyll and Clyde health board.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to dispose of land or assets associated with Dykebar hospital, Paisley; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are no current plans to dispose of land or assets associated with Dykebar hospital, other than a small strip of roadway which was not required for health service purposes, and over which the health board will retain a right of access.
  391
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review the services and facilities provided at Dykebar hospital, Paisley; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is for Argyll and Clyde health board to review continuously the needs of the population that it services and how to meet these. The managers and clinicians at Dykebar hospital should also consider regularly how its services can be improved and should discuss that with the board.

  Patients (Relocation)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to relocate patients from the state hospital at Carstairs to Dykebar hospital in Paisley; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The suitability of patients for transfer out of the state hospital following treatment is a matter for agreement between the clinicians at the state hospital and those of the referring health board.

  Economy (Paisley)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to regenerate the economy of the Paisley post code area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The Government's main instrument for economic development, environmental improvement and training in the Paisley area is the Renfrewshire enterprise company. The company has a range of powers available to it and will continue to fulfil these functions. Renfrewshire Enterprise's budget of £24·7 million for 1991–92 is substantial, and makes it well placed to respond to opportunities within the local economy.

  In addition, the Ferguslie Park partnership in Paisley is implementing an agreed strategy for the comprehensive long-term regeneration of the area.

  Elderslie Hospital
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to dispose of or acquire any land or assets in relation to Elderslie hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are no current plans to either dispose or of acquire land or assets in connection with Elderslie hospital.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what services are provided in or from Elderslie hospital; what plans he has for the development of services at Elderslie hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Elderslie hospital provides 10 continuing care places for young adults, and eight respite care places for children, with a mental handicap. The services provided include medical and nursing care and paramilitary input where appropriate. There are also links with community mental handicap nursing staff.

  As part of its continuing review of service provision, Argyll and Clyde health board is considering how best to improve the facilities and care at the hospital.

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial support has been earmarked for Argyll and Clyde health board to provide support and assistance to patients who have been or will be released into the community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is for Argyll and Clyde health board to determine from within the overall resources available to it what financial and other support should be made for the health care of those patients who would benefit from a community placement.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. McMaster
  To,ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to visit Paisley, Johnstone or Elderslie to discuss the economic, housing and social problems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The Secretary of State has no immediate plans to visit Paisley, Johnstone or Elderslie. His last visit to Paisley was on 4 October 1991 to launch the Glencoats area development, a major joint venture housing initiative associated with the Ferguslie Park partnership.

  SSSIs
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sites of special scientific interest are currently designated in Scotland; what means exist to monitor loss and damage to sites of special scientific interest in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A total of 1,342 sites of special scientific interest have been notified in Scotland. Site monitoring, using standard recording techniques, is undertaken by local staff of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland. Site visits are the usual method, but other techniques such as overflying or comparative air photography may also be used when appropriate. In addition sites may be the subject of specific monitoring projects; examples include research into the effects of skiing, overgrazing on moorland and the acidification of lochs.

  Constituencies
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the acreage of each of the six geographically largest parliamentary constituencies in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The areas by hectares of each of the six geographically largest parliamentary constituencies in Scotland are as follows in descending order:

  Parliamentary constituency

  Area by hectares

  Ross, Cromarty and Skye

  954,680

  Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber

  870,708

  Caithness and Sutherland

  788,297

  Argyll and Bute

  661,362

  North Tayside

  485,104

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  441,883

  Housing Valuations, Borders
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the district valuer's valuation for houses in each of the areas in the borders proposed to be sold by Scottish Homes to the Waverley housing trust.

  Mr. Lang
  I am considering the terms of the sale proposed by Scottish Homes to Waverley housing trust. Details such as the district valuer's valuations will be made available when I announce my decision.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which hospitals within the Renfrew district area of Argyll and Clyde health board have applied for trust status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No applications for NHS trust status have been received from within the Argyll and Clyde health board area. However, given the benefits to patients which are now clearly emerging from existing operational trusts, I would expect those charged with health care in Renfrew district, as elsewhere, would wish to examine the matter very carefully.

  Spanish Customs Officers
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what assessment has been made on the impact on the Scottish fishing industry of the interruption of supplies bound for the Spanish market as a result of planned industrial action by Spanish customs officers;

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Scottish Fish Merchants Association on the planned industrial action by Spanish customs officers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Spanish market is a very important outlet for Scottish fish and shellfish and it would be of some concern if the trade with Spain were to be disrupted. For the moment, industrial action by Spanish customs agents appears to be sporadic with notice of their intentions being given in advance. As yet there have been no representations from Scottish fish processing sources on the matter. We are continuing to monitor the situation.

  Food Hygiene
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the likely timetable for the introduction of amendments to the Food Hygiene (Scotland) Regulations 1959.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) on 21 February 1992.

  Repossession Orders
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many orders for repossession of houses there were in each sheriff court area in Scotland for 1979, 1990 and 1991.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 February 1992]: Information on orders for repossession of houses is included in the returns relating to all actions involving land or heritable estate which are
  394
  supplied to the courts for the purposes of the Judicial Statistics (Scotland) Act 1869 and cannot be identified separately.

DEFENCE

  Atomic Energy Authority, Harwell
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) from which subheads of which votes funds for his Department's contracts with the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority establishment at Harwell are taken;

  (2) what contracts his Department has with the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority establishment at Harwell; what are the purposes of these contracts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Atomic Weapons Establishment has a number of contracts which utilise the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's expertise in the fields of nuclear waste treatment, plutonium handling, safety studies, materials analysis and equipment testing and calibration. Funding for these contracts is provided from class 1, defence vote 2—defence procurement. It would not be in the national interest to reveal further details of the funding arrangements.

  Nuclear-Powered Warship Safety Committee
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the terms of reference of the nuclear-powered warship safety committee.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The terms of reference are to advise the Secretary of State for Defence and other Ministers on all public safety matters associated with the construction, operation and maintenance of nuclear-powered warships.

  Procurement
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements his Department has to assess the effect of proposed changes of regulations relating to the defence procurement programme on supplier companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department is unaware of any proposals for such changes that would affect supplier companies.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the television advertising campaigns and all other publicity campaigns costing over £100,000 to be carried out by his Department in February, March, April, May or June of the current year.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Royal Navy/Royal Marines

  1. Press campaign to recruit RN/RM officers—February/ March 1992.

  2. Press campaign to recruit specialist RN officer categories —February/March 1992.

  (This is in place of the cinema campaign mentioned in my answer of 8 November 1991, at column 297.)

  Territorial Army

  1. Combined TV and press recruiting campaign—January/ March 1992.

  395

  Northern Ireland
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the involvement of military forces in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The armed forces are in Northern Ireland acting in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to defeat terrorism. We are determined to defeat terrorism within the rule of the law.

  Housing Task Force
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the housing task force to report.

  Mr. Tom King
  The housing task force, under the chairmanship of my noble Friend the Earl of Arran, was required to look radically at housing for the services. This it has done and it has now reported to me with proposals for the immediate future, and the medium and longer term. It has undertaken a major task in a short time and I pay tribute to the contribution made by its members, including those from the private sector, the service charities and the voluntary housing sector. I have placed in the Library a note describing the actions that are being taken in the light of its recommendations. Separately, I have placed a note in the Library setting out a number of improvements to provision for resettlement advice and support for the services.

ENERGY

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what initiatives he is taking to assist local authorities in the development of renewable energy sources.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Department of Energy is supporting a series of pilot studies to assist local authorities to identify the renewable energy potential in their area and to explore the associated planning and environmental issues. The first two studies are taking place in Cumbria and Devon.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what new plans he has to increase electricity production from renewable sources.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The non-fossil fuel obligation will continue to bring forward additional renewables-sourced generating capacity. Meanwhile, I am reviewing my Department's renewable energy strategy.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what arrangements his Department has to assess the effect of new rules and regulations proposed by his Department which would affect small firms engaged in renewable energy projects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Proposed new regulations are subject to a compliance cost assessment, which would include consideration of the effect on business. The departmental deregulation unit regularly surveys the scope for reducing burdens on business. However, at present I have no proposals to introduce new rules or regulations which would affect small firms engaged in renewable energy projects.

  United Kingdom Continental Shelf
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the level of gas production on the United Kingdom continental shelf in 1990.

  Mr. Moynihan
  In 1990, 50 billion cubic metres of gas were produced from the United Kingdom continental shelf. My Department's provisional estimate is that the level of production rose by over 10 per cent. in 1991.

  Petroleum Act 1987
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any proposals to modify the Petroleum Act 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  As far as the abandonment provisions of the Petroleum Act 1987 are concerned, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave him on 9 December 1991 at column 335. In addition, the Offshore Safety Bill makes provision for those powers in the Petroleum Act which relate to the establishment of safety zones to be made an "existing statutory provision" of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. There are no other plans to modify the Petroleum Act.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the level of carbon dioxide emissions produced as a result of energy use in the home; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the level of carbon dioxide emissions produced as a result of energy use in the home.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is estimated that in 1990 the domestic sector emitted some 150 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (or 40 million tonnes of carbon). This represents about a quarter of total emissions. These figures take into account the domestic sector's estimated share of emissions from the electricity supply industry.

  Energy Prices
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by how much the level of prices for fuel, light and power has changed in real terms since 1986.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse') earlier today.

  Coal Task Force
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is in a position to respond to the report of the coal task force.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Our response to the report by the task force on coal research and development issues will be published in due course.

  Coal Industry (Industrial Disputes)
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the level of production lost through industrial disputes in the coal industry in(a) 1980–81, (b) 1986–87 and (c) 1990–91.
  397
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Saleable tonnage lost as a result of industrial disputes for the years quoted are as follows:

  Million tones

  1980–81

  1·5

  1986–87

  1·0

  1990–91

  0·2

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many days were lost through strikes in the coal industry in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  This Department does not collect information of this nature. British Coal, however, records saleable tonnage lost as a result of disputes in its annual report, and the latest figures are:

  Million tones

  1978–79

  1·5

  1982–83

  3·6

  1986–87

  1·0

  1990–91

  0·2

  Site

  Applicant

  Proposals

  Status

  Hinkley Point "C"

  Nuclear Electric

  1,200 MW PWR

  Consent given 6 September 1990

  Killingholme "A"

  National Power

  1,020 MW combined cycle gas turbine station (CCGT)

  Consent given 17 April 1990

  Little Barford

  National Power

  680 MW CCGT

  Consent given 5 February 1991

  Rye House

  PowerGen

  560–680 MW CCGT

  Consent given 19 December 1990

  Sutton Bridge

  Electricity System Industry

  60 MW coal-fired station

  Withdrawn

  Ratcliffe on Soar

  PowerGen

  Installation of FGD

  Consent given 27 March 1991

  Ferrybridge "C"

  PowerGen

  Installation of FGD

  Under consideration

  Wilton

  Teesside Power Ltd.

  1,725 MW CCGT

  Consent given 5 November 1990.

  Deeside

  Deeside Power Development Company Ltd.

  450 MW CCGT

  Consent given 15 November 1990. A new application to increase the output to 500 MW has been received and is under consideration

  Drax

  National Power

  New ash disposal facilities

  Under consideration

  Keadby

  Energy Resources Ltd.

  720 MW CCGT

  Consent given 4 March 1991

  Plymouth

  PowerGen

  350–450 MW CCGT

  Under consideration

  Staythorpe "C"

  National Power

  1,500 MW CCGT

  Awaiting report of public inquiry

  Angle Bay

  Texaco Ltd.

  1,100 or 1,280 MW CCGT

  Consent given 9 September 1991

  Didcot "B"

  National Power

  1,500 MW CCGT

  Awaiting report of public inquiry

  Ryedale

  Kelt UK Ltd.

  50–60 MW open cycle gas turbine station

  Awaiting report of public inquiry

  Coryton

  Coryton Cogen Ltd.

  460 MW CCGT

  Consent given 4 July 1991

  Barking

  Barking Power Ltd.

  1000 MW CCGT

  Consent given 11 February 1992

  Rugby

  Rugby Power Company Ltd.

  380 MW CCGT

  Withdrawn

  Blyth

  National Power

  New ash disposal facilities

  Consent given 3 February 1992

  Killingholme "PowerGen"

  PowerGen

  Cooling water works

  Withdrawn

  Belvedere

  Cory Environmental Ltd.

  126 MW station fuelled by refuse

  Under consideration

  Ardleigh

  Eastern Generation Ltd.

  380 MW CCGT

  Under consideration

  Medway

  Medway Power Ltd.

  660 MW CCGT

  Under consideration

  King's Lynn

  Energy Supply Company Ltd.

  118 MW CCGT

  Consent given 14 January 1992

  Stallingborough

  Humber Power Ltd.

  1,100 MW CCGT

  Under consideration

  Dungeness

  Nuclear Electric

  New low level waste handling facility

  Under consideration

  West Burton

  National Power

  New ash disposal facility

  Under consideration

  Pembroke

  National Power

  Fitting of new dust control equipment

  Under consideration

  Connah's Quay

  PowerGen

  1,350 MW CCGT

  Under consideration

  Shoreham

  South Coast Power Ltd.

  450 MW CCGT

  Under consideration

  Oldbury-on-Severn

  Nuclear Electric

  Installation of a silt lagoon

  Under consideration

  Charterhouse Street, London ECI

  Citigen Ltd.

  90 MW station fuelled by gas and fuel oil

  Under consideration

  Spondon

  Courtaulds

  318 MW CCGT

  Under consideration

  Seabank

  Seabank Power Ltd.

  1,212 MW CCGT

  Under consideration

  Greenwich

  MetroPower Ltd.

  370 MW CCGT

  Under consideration

  Sutton Bridge

  Independent Power Generators Ltd.

  700 MW CCGT

  Under consideration

  Trafford, Manchester

  Electricity System Industry Ltd.

  680 MW CCGT

  Under consideration

  King's Lynn

  Eastern Generation Ltd.

  380 MW CCGT

  Under consideration

  Electricity
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by how much domestic electricity prices rose(a) between 1974 and 1979 and (b) since 1984.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Between 1974 and 1979 domestic electricity prices rose by 16 per cent. in real terms (an increase of 147 per cent. in cash terms). Between 1984 and 1991 they fell by five per cent. in real terms (an increase of 41 per cent. in cash terms).

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list all the applications under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, stating for each application whether it was granted, refused, or is outstanding; and whether it has gone to a public inquiry.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The applications made under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 are as listed.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairmen of the regional electricity companies to discuss the citizens charter.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet chairmen of the regional electricity companies from time to time to discuss a range of issues.

  Severn Barrage
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will report progress on the Severn barrage project.

  Mr. Moynihan
  A £50,000 preliminary financing study for the barrage has just been agreed, in addition to the existing environmental and energy capture studies costing £940,000.

  Verification Technology
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether his Department received any invitation to(a) attend, (b) participate in or (c) present a paper on radioisotope monitoring at the Joint Verification Technology Information Centre/Royal Astronomical Society discussion meeting on nuclear verification being held at the Geological Society on 14 February.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No.

  Photovoltaic Research
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what funding his Department has provided into photovoltaic research for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Moynihan
  On 8 May 1991 I announced that the Government would fund a £250,000 programme of research into photovoltaics. It is expected that expenditure in FY1991/92 will amount to about £60,000. Prior to my announcement, the Department's renewable programme undertook an investigation into photovoltaics costing about £40,000, and the report was published in 1990 as ETSU-R-50, "Review of Photovoltaic Power Technology". Between FY1981/82 and FY 1990/91, the solar element of the renewables programme was directed primarily at passive solar design, rather than photovoltaics, with expenditure rising from £0·7 million to £2·1 million during that period.

  Oil
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much oil is refined per head of population in each Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country and member state of the European Community.

  Mr. Moynihan
  In 1990, the latest year for which data are available, the amount of oil refined per head of population in OECD countries and member states of the European Community was as follows;

  Country

  Tonnes of refind oil per head of population

  Australia

  1·75

  Austria

  1·16

  Belgium1

  2·96

  400

  Country

  Tonnes of refined oil per head of population

  Canada

  3·16

  Denmark1

  1·54

  Finland

  2·10

  France1

  1·40

  Germany1

  1·71

  Greece1

  1·63

  Iceland

  Nil

  Ireland1

  0·50

  Italy1

  1·58

  Japan

  1·41

  Luxembourg1

  Nil

  Netherlands1

  4·74

  New Zealand

  1·38

  Norway

  3·10

  Portugal1

  1·06

  Spain1

  1·42

  Sweden

  2·05

  Switzerland

  0·45

  Turkey

  0·40

  United Kingdom1

  1·54

  United States

  2·92

  1 Member states of the European Community.

  NB Germany refers to the (former) Federal Republic of Germany.

  Source: Population—OECD Main Economic Indicators.

  Source: Oil data—International Energy Agency.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of United Kingdom oil is refined within Wales; and how much this is per head of population.

  Mr. Moynihan
  In 1990, 19·7 per cent. of United Kingdom oil was refined in Wales. The amount of oil refined per head of population in Wales in 1990 was 6·06 tonnes.

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what information he has regarding the annual budget of the International Atomic Energy Agency for safeguards and other purposes for each year since 1979;

  (2) what has been the annual contribution in financial terms to the International Atomic Energy Agency for each year since 1979; and what non-financial assistance has been given.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Details of all these are given in the International Atomic Energy Agency's annual accounts. I am making arrangements for copies of the accounts to be deposited in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy from which countries radioactive and toxic waste was treated at the nuclear re-processing plant at Sellafield in Cumbria from 1 April 1991 to 31 December 1991; and what methods of transportation were used.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Neither radioactive nor toxic waste is imported for treatment at Sellafield. During the period mentioned by the hon. Member, spent nuclear fuel from Italy and Japan was reprocessed to recover the uranium and plutonium for possible recycling. The fuel in question was transported by sea and rail. The arrangements were subject to the stringent requirements laid down by the appropriate national and international regulations. Fuel from United Kingdom customers was also reprocessed at Sellafield during the period.

  Libya
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has received the report of the outcome of the visit of the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency to Libya on 2 February.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The International Atomic Energy Agency has made a report in the form of a press release on this visit. A copy of the press release has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Balance of Trade (Fuels)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the balance of trade in fuels in 1991.

  Mr. Wakeham
  In 1991 the United Kingdom had a trading surplus in fuels worth £104 million.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the volume of coal which will be imported into the United Kingdom during 1992 and in each of the next three years; and what proportion he expects imported coal to be of the total tonnage consumed in each of those years.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We do not make such estimates.

  Privatisations
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the amount of electricity and gas saved since privatisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In the electricity industry, competition has created an incentive on generators to reduce their fuel costs and an incentive on customers to manage their demand. As a result, the National Grid Company has noted evidence that high peak demands are now being managed more effectively, and older, inefficient plant is being closed down.

  The Government are taking steps in the Utilities Bill to open up the gas market to wider competition, which will encourage a further focusing on costs by supplier and consumer as they evaluate the new options open to them.

  British Gas and the regional electricity companies have also introduced initiatives to encourage their customers to use energy more efficiently, such as advisory services, Codes of Practice, competitions for industrial and commercial consumers, and appliance labelling. In addition, the Government have welcomed OFGAS' intention to incorporate into the gas tariff an "E factor" which would allow British Gas to pass on costs of energy efficiency programmes to consumers, and also the consultation document from OFFER on energy efficiency in the electricity industry.

  Greenwich Power Station
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will take into account the impact on the water quality and fish stocks of the Thames when considering whether to approve the application from MetroPower Ltd., to reconstruct the Greenwich power station.
  402
  Mr. Wakeham
  I am obliged, when considering an application made under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, to take into account the environmental effects before deciding whether to grant my consent to an application.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will take into account the reports by Greenwich environmental health department and by the director of public health for Bexley on the rate of respiratory diseases among the population of Greenwich when considering whether to approve the application from MetroPower Ltd., to reconstruct the Greenwich power station.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have not received either of the reports.

  Greenwich borough council, which is the relevant planning authority, has yet to give me its views. It is a matter for the council whether to include these reports when submitting its views to me.

  Offshore Installations
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) in relation to the relevant provisions contained in the Petroleum Act 1987, if he will list the offshore installations and pipeline networks which have been dismantled and removed or those which are to be demolished and withdrawn from their sites on the United Kingdom continental shelf; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) in relation to the relevant provisions contained in the Petroleum Act 1987, how many programmes involving the abandonment of (a) offshore installations and (b) submarine pipe line networks he has approved over the past three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Over the past three years my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has approved two abandonment programmes under the terms of the Petroleum Act 1987, relating to the Crawford (block 9/28a) and Blair (block 16/21a) fields. On the Crawford field all installations and pipelines have been dismantled and removed from the United Kingdom continental shelf. They comprised:

  —The North Sea Pioneer floating production system.

  —The Hamilton 2 CALM loading buoy.

  —Subsea facilities, including flexible pipelines and control lines.

  On the Blair field, the single production wellhead has been dismantled and removed; two small partially trenched pipelines have been left in place after cleaning and, to prevent interference with fishing vessels, have been covered with concrete mattresses where they were not trenched. Approval of the abandonment programme was subject to conditions requiring inspection and maintenance of these pipelines.

  No other installations or pipelines have been dismantled and removed. The Piper Alpha installation was toppled in situ in 1989 as it was not safe or practicable to abandon it by other means.

  The Government have made clear that each abandonment programme submitted under the terms of the Petroleum Act 1987 will be considered on its merits, in the light of all the circumstances prevailing at the time, and taking full account of environmental and fishing interests. The standards taken into account when a decision is made regarding the removal of disused offshore installations and structures will be consistent with the guidelines adopted by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). Application of the IMO guidelines means that the majority of platforms on the UKCS will be entirely removed.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list all the television advertising campaigns and all other publicity campaigns costing over £100,000 to be carried out by his Department in February, March, April, May, or June of the current year.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department has a continuing programme of publicity to promote energy efficiency, the United Kingdom offshore supplies industry and renewable sources of energy. Within the energy efficiency programme, both the joint campaign with the Department of the Environment on the environment and home energy efficiency and the "Making a Corporate Commitment" campaign will cost over £100,000 between February and June this year. No television advertising is envisaged during this period.

  Wind Power
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he holds on plans by electricity companies to extend wind power facilities; if he will list the sites that are under consideration for the development of wind farms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Information is held by the Department of Energy on plans by the electricity companies to extend wind power facilities through registration of these schemes under the non-fossil fuel obligation. In the tranches of NFFO announced to date, only three projects (out of 57) have been registered by an electricity company. These are:

  Carmarthen bay

  National Power

  Richborough

  PowerGen

  Cold Northcott

  National Power

  Full lists of sites that have contracted for wind projects under the NFFO are in the Library of the House. Other plans for new wind power facilities are a matter for the companies concerned.

  Employment Survey
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what meetings he has had with representatives of the oil industry, the oil industry trade unions and the police services in connection with his Department's oil and gas facilities employment survey; what are the objectives of this survey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Officials from my Department meet regularly with the relevant representatives of the oil industry and security agencies to discuss this and other wider security issues.

  It is Government policy to carry out a counter-terrorist check on anyone who is going to be allowed to be unescorted in or on an installation of national importance. The Government would be failing in their duty if they did not take appropriate measures to protect these installations and the work force from deliberate man-made or accidental disasters.

  Power Stations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list all the power stations in England and Wales of 300 MW or over which are located in residential areas.
  404
  Mr. Wakeham
  The table lists those powers stations currently operating in England and Wales of 300 MW or over, with the name of the county in which each is situated. My Department's records do not show which, if any, are located in residential areas: these stations were in many cases constructed many years ago, so that records relating to the grant of consent would not give the information requested.

  National Power plc

  Power station

  Location

  Willington "A"

  Derbyshire

  Blyth "A"

  Northumberland

  Staythorpe

  Nottinghamshire

  Aberthaw "A"

  South Glamorgan

  Skelton Grange

  Yorkshire

  Rugeley "A"

  Staffordshire

  Uskmouth

  Gwent

  Willington "B"

  Derbyshire

  West Thurrock

  Essex

  Blyth "B"

  Northumberland

  Thorpe Marsh

  South Yorkshire

  West Burton

  Nottinghamshire

  Eggborough

  North Humberside

  Tilbury

  Essex

  Fawley

  Hampshire

  Ironbridge

  Shropshire

  Pembroke

  Dyfed

  Aberthaw "B"

  South Glamorgan

  Rugeley "B"

  Staffordshire

  Didcot

  Oxfordshire

  Drax

  North Yorkshire

  Littlebrook

  Kent

  PowerGen plc

  Power station

  Location

  Hams Hall

  Warwickshire

  Castle Donington

  Derbyshire

  Drakelow "B"

  Derbyshire

  High Marnham

  Nottinghamshire

  Richborough

  Kent

  Drakelow "C"

  Derbyshire

  Ferrybridge "C"

  West Yorkshire

  Ratcliffe

  Nottinghamshire

  Cottam

  Nottinghamshire

  Kingsnorth

  Kent

  Fiddler's Ferry

  Cheshire

  Grain

  Kent

  Ince

  Cheshire

  Nuclear Electric

  Power station

  Location

  Dungeness "A"

  Kent

  Hinkley Point "A"

  Somerset

  Oldbury

  Avon

  Sizewell "A"

  Suffolk

  Transfynydd

  Gwynydd

  Wylfa

  Gwynydd

  Dungeness "B"

  Kent

  Hartlepool

  Cleveland

  Heysham 1

  Lancashire

  Heysham 2

  Lancashire

  Hinkley Point "B"

  Somerset

ENVIRONMENT

  Projects, Stockton
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources and projects have been directed to the Blue Hall, Ragworth, Portrack and Tilery areas of Stockton-on-Tees in each year since 1980.
  405
  Mr. Key
  The table provides details of approved expenditure under the urban programme and estate action since 1987–88.

  £

  1987–88

  Urban Programme

  Portrack Tilery

  Landscaping Portrack

  22,000

  Black Path Park

  50,000

  Riverside Landscaping

  36,000

  Blue Hall

  Blue Hall Housing Centre

  152,000

  1988–89

  Urban Programme

  Portrack/Tilery

  Portrack Landscape Master Plan

  2,000

  Security/Environmental Grants

  50,000

  Blue Hall

  Health Visiting Project

  52,000

  1989–90

  Urban Programme

  Portrack Tilery

  All Weather Playing Surface

  176,000

  Security/Environmental Grants

  50,000

  Green Dragon Museum Enhancement

  56,000

  Portrack Lane Shops

  29,000

  Blue Hall

  Blue Hall Street Lighting Improvements

  84,000

  Blue Hall Catering

  22,400

  1990–91

  Urban Programme

  Portrack/Tilery

  High Street Commercial Improvement Zone

  35,000

  Norton Road Commercial Improvement Zone

  75,000

  Townscape Works

  8,000

  Security/Environmental Grants

  70,000

  Blue Hall

  Tenants Participation

  31,000

  St. Michael After School

  116,000

  New Blue Hall Community Project

  62,000

  Blue Hall/Ragworth

  Conservation Work in the Community

  115,000

  Health Needs

  5,500

  Estate Action

  Portrack Flats

  250,000

  1991–92

  Urban Programme

  Portrack/Tilery

  High Street Commercial Improvement Zone

  50,000

  Norton Road Commercial Improvement Zone

  50,000

  Source

  Relative contribution per cent.

  per cent

  Estimated quantity released into the environment each year, g TCDD1

  Municipal incinerators

  20·00

  1,500

  Domestic coal fires

  11·00

  800

  Vehicle exhausts

  7·00

  500

  Coal-fired industrial plant and power

  5·00

  200 coal-fired industrial plant

  stations

  160 coal-fired power stations

  Chemical incinerators

  0·06

  a few grams

  Hospital incinerators

  0·40

  30

  Other sources: fires, metallurgical processes, etc

  26·40

  6·4

  6 Cigarettes

  450 Stubble burning

  13 Accidental fires

  406

  £

  Ext. Improvements to Key Building

  70,000

  One Stop Advice Centre

  300,000

  Tenants Management Co-op

  71,000

  Portrack Flats Concierge Wardens

  135,000

  Victoria Estate Landscaping

  134,800

  Blue Hall

  Prevent Unwanted Pets

  5,000

  Ragworth

  Ragworth Community Centre

  249,000

  Estate Action

  Portrack Flats

  275,000

  Energy Efficiency Scheme

  Ragworth Estate

  190,000

  Note: These figures do not cover local authority expenditure in these areas from the housing investment programme and other capital programmes.

  Information regarding investment prior to 1987 is not available in the form requested. Stockton on Tees BC became an urban programme authority in 1987. The estate action programme commenced in 1986.

  Dioxins
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the calculations and data upon which figure 2, Food Surveillance Paper No. 31, "Estimated relative contribution to total TCDD released into the atmosphere from sources of dioxins and furans in the United Kingdom" is based.

  Mr. Trippier
  Figure 2 in Food Surveillance Paper 31, "Dioxins in Food" is taken from information in Chapter 3 of the Department of the Environment's Pollution Paper 27, "Dioxins in the Environment" published in 1989. The figure shows the estimated relative combined contributions from both known combustion sources and other sources, such as manufacture, processing and use of chlorinated aromatic and other chemicals and chlorine bleached materials and metallurgical processes. It thus refers to releases to the environment, not just atmosphere.

  Unfortunately an arithmetical error has affected the numbers shown in Figure 2, although not the relative importance given to each source. The correct figures taken from Pollution Paper 27 are given in the table. I would stress, however, that the figures are relatively crude estimates although based on the best information available at the time.
  407

  Source

  Relative contribution per cent.

  Per cent

  Estimated quantity released into the environment each year, g TCDD1

  20 metallurgical processes etc.

  Manufacturer and use of organic chemicals

  30

  ' Figures from Pollution Paper 27, Dioxins in the Environment.

  Child Refugees
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial support his Department is providing to West Sussex local authorities for the care of child refugees who arrived at Gatwick airport.

  Mr. Key
  I have been asked to reply. Support for local authorities' revenue expenditure is provided through revenue support grant; authorities in West Sussex will receive a total of £149·739 million in this way in 1992–93. The grant is not hypothecated to particular local services.

  Council Vacancies
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to require the chairman of a parish or town council to advise each member of the council of a vacancy for a councillor.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have been asked to reply.

  A parish council must give immediate public notice of a vacancy by posting a notice in some conspicuous place or places within its area. I have no plans to add to that requirement.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reductions or remissions in liability for non-domestic rates have been made by local authorities using their powers under section 49 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.

  Mr. Key
  Local authorities in England used their powers under section 49 of the 1988 Act to reduce rates bills in 1990–91 by a total of £23,582.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many copies of his departmental annual report 1992 have been printed; at what cost; and what arrangements have been made for distribution of the report.

  Mr. Heseltine
  A total of 3,800 copies of the Department of the Environment 1992 annual report were printed. The costs of printing, publishing and distribution are borne by HMSO which aims to recover its costs from sales revenue. Copies of the report are available from all HMSO bookshops and agents and from HMSO's distribution centre by mail or telephone order.

  Visitor Statistics
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the statistics relating to(a) visitor bed nights and (b) day visitors are compiled for the purpose of preparing standard spending assessments in English resort towns.
  408
  Mr. Key
  Details are given on page 14 of the The Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) (No. 2) Report (England) which is in the Library. No allowance is made in SSAs at present for day visitors; there is no consistent and reliable source of this information for all authorities.

  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what dates the statistics relating to visitor bed nights were collected in 1990–91.

  Mr. Key
  The allowance for overnight visitors within the All Other Services element of standard spending assessments has been updated for 1992–93. It is now based on information from a number of sources: the British Home Tourism Surveys (1980 to 1984), the British Tourism Surveys (1987 and 1988) and the United Kingdom Tourism Survey (UKTS) (1989) for domestic visitors. It is the intention to incorporate in future years information from the UKTS for 1990 and 1991.

  Urban Development, Gosforth
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has yet received a further application from Newcastle upon Tyne city council for permission to develop the Rectory road allotments, south Gosforth; and whether he will undertake to consult the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central on any such application.

  Mr. Yeo
  I understand that Newcastle upon Tyne city council will be submitting an application shortly for consent to dispose of the Rectory road allotments, south Gosforth. Any representations which the hon. Member wishes to make on his own or his constituents' behalf will be taken into account when the application is decided.

  BCCI
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give local authorities credit approval to cover Bank of Credit and Commerce International debts.

  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 18 February at column 76. Any further applications will be considered on their merits.

  Disabled Council Tenants
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from Manchester city council for a supplementary allocation to the housing investment programme for adaptations to the homes of disabled council tenants; what reply he is sending; what action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.
  409
  Mr. Yeo
  The Secretary of State has received a letter on this subject from the chair of the housing committee of Manchester city council. I have replied today and will place a copy of my response in the Library.

  Waste Discharges (River Mersey)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the number of consents to companies to discharge waste in the River Mersey issued for each year since 1979;

  (2) if he will list the number of prosecutions brought together with the number of convictions secured for polluting the River Mersey for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand that information on numbers of discharge consents, or on prosecutions or convictions, is not held centrally by the NRA in respect of individual rivers.

  CITES
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who will be attending the Conference in Trade on Endangered Species meeting in Japan on 2 March as representatives of Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Baldry
  I shall attend the meeting from 9 to 13 March. From 2 March the United Kingdom will also be represented by three officials from the Department, two officials from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and one from each of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Three members of the Hong Kong Conference in Trade on Endangered Species Management Authority will also be on the United Kingdom delegation.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if Her Majesty's Government will resist any attempts to re-open world trade in leopard skins, cheetah skins, black rhino and elephant products due to be discussed at the Conference in Trade on Endangered Species meeting in Japan on 2 March.

  Mr. Baldry
  On the question of elephants, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) on 19 February 1992,Official Report, column 202. The Government are also opposed to any action that could re-open trade in products from rhinoceroses, cheetahs and leopards.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the annual loss of rents and community charge on the vacant properties in the public and private sector in Liverpool during the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Information about rent loss from vacant local authority dwellings is collected on housing revenue account subsidy claim forms submitted by local authorities to the Department. Liverpool city council's mid-year claim form for 1991–92 shows the following estimates:

  rent loss on vacant local authority dwellings in 1990–91, £5,111,100

  rent loss on vacant local authority dwellings in 1991–92, £6,428,400

  410
  The Department does not collect information about rent loss on vacant dwellings in the private sector, nor about losses in respect of community charges on vacant dwellings.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will direct Liverpool city council to refund the cost of wrongfully issued summonses to community charge payers who have paid their bills.

  Mr. Key
  A community chargepayer becomes liable to pay costs only when a liability order has been grated against him by a magistrates' court. In the case of a wrongful summons, it would be the local authority who would bear the cost of the abortive work.

  Housing Investment, Coventry
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of the housing investment programme allocation awarded to Coventry in each financial year since 1978–79; and what the damages amounted to in real terms.

  Mr. Yeo
  Housing investment programme (HIP) allocation and gross capital expenditure figures are as follows:

  £ thousands

  HIP allocation

  Gross expenditure1

  cash value

  at 1991–92 prices

  cash value

  at 1991–92 prices

  1978–79

  12,225

  33,164

  12,020

  32,608

  1979–80

  13,736

  31,937

  15,591

  36,249

  1980–81

  10.551

  20,731

  9,832

  19,318

  1981–82

  7,679

  13,759

  9,236

  16,549

  1982–83

  12,247

  20,485

  13,436

  22,474

  1983–84

  8,070

  12,901

  9,973

  15,943

  1984–85

  8,941

  13,612

  11,148

  16,972

  1985–86

  7,707

  11,120

  18,674

  26,943

  1986–87

  8,288

  11,577

  14,794

  20,665

  1987–88

  8,276

  10,964

  15,428

  20,439

  1988–89

  8,990

  11,112

  19,507

  24,112

  1989–90

  7,381

  8,568

  22,482

  26,097

  New capital finance system2

  1990–91

  9,820

  10,507

  11,702

  12,521

  31991–92

  9,715

  9,715

  not available

  1 Since 1981–82 local authorities have been able to augment the borrowing power of their HIP allocations by using the prescribed proportion of their capital receipts.

  2 From 1990–91, under the new capital finance system, the HIP allocation does not convey borrowing approval directly. The allocation totals are the HIP allocation plus supplementary credit approvals for housing projects.

  3 Provisional estimate of final allocation.

  An initial HIP allocation of £10·2 million—£9·7 million at 1991–92 prices-has been issued for 1992–93 and additional resources-supplementary credit approvals—may be allocated later.

  Leeds Development Corporation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 11 February Official Report, columns 430–31 if he will set out the basis of calculation of the employment statistics for the area covered by the Leeds development corporation.

  Mr. Key
  The employment figures are provided annually as at 1 April by economic consultants. These are
  411
  based on a sample survey of existing firms operating within the development area together with new firms which commenced trading during the 12 months to 31 March.

  Estate Action Programme
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects the estate action programme to he completed on the Phythian street estate, Liverpool; and whether there are any plans to inclucle the Chatsworth street estate, Edge Hill, in a similar programme.

  Mr. Yeo
  I expect the estate action programme at the Phythian street estate in Liverpool to be completed during the financial year 1994–95.

  My right hon. Friend announced on 16 December 1991 that Liverpool city council had been invited to work up a detailed estate action scheme for the Chatsworth estate in Liverpool, with an anticipated start in 1992–93.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the television advertising campaigns and all other publicity campaigns costing over £100,000 to be carried out by his Department in February, March, April, May or June of the current year.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Jointly with the Department of Energy my Department will continue to carry out the campaign "Helping the Earth Begins at Home". This will run for at least two years.

  An information campaign is now in progress to publicise the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act, 1990, relating to the duty of care for the carriage and disposal of waste. Also, in the coming months, I intend to mount campaigns relating to citizens' environmental rights and initiatives for protecting the countryside.

  None of these campaigns involves television advertising.

  Peat Extraction, Thorne Moor
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultation he has had with English Heritage over the arrangement between English Nature and Fisons plc on peat extraction on Thorne moor, Yorkshire.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 20 February 1992]None. Such consultations are a matter for English Nature to undertake as they consider necessary. I am advised that discussions with English Heritage on the future management of the Thorne conservation area will now take place.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the regulations concerning sites of special scientific interest in the light of the arrangements between English Nature and Fisons plc on peat extraction on Thorne moor, Yorkshire.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 20 February 1992]: None. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 12 February 1992, Official Report, column 506.

  Fal Estuary (Pollution)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cost involved in the proposals submitted to his Department by the National Rivers Authority for medium to long-term plans to tackle the pollution in the Fal estuary from the River Carnon; when he expects to take a decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 21 February 1992]: The National Rivers Authority's initial estimates of costs for the main options for tackling the mine discharge into the Carnon river are:

  £ thousands

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Monitoring programme

  342

  180

  —

  Short term treatment

  185

  460

  —

  Medium term treatment by biological anaerobic system: planning and design

  —

  100

  —

  construction and operation

  —

  900

  350

  Estimates have also been submitted for an alternative method of treatment in the medium term costing some £3 million per annum in a full year, and a longer term solution costing some £2·3 million over the first two years plus research and development costs. All these estimates may be subject to substantial amendment as planning and design work proceeds.

  These are estimates of costs and not bids for extra resources. The NRA's head office are currently assessing the extent to which they can make provision for expenditure on Wheal Jane from within their existing budgets for 1991–92 and 1992–93. We expect to receive their assessment for 1991–92 later this month or early next, so that we can consider their grant-in-aid position. As in previous years, we will be reviewing later this year whether the NRA's grant for 1992–93 is adequate. The cost of installing and operating improved medium term treatment arrangements at Wheal Jane will be taken into account at that review.

  For 1993–94 and later years, the NRA's grant will be considered in the normal way as a part of the 1992 public expenditure survey.

  Ozone Layer
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will seek a meeting of the Montreal protocol signatories to discuss the latest reports about the depletion of the ozone layer; what consideration he has given to an earlier phasing out of CFCs because of their known effect on the layer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  [pursuant to his answer, 12 February 1992, c. 504]: I wish to stress that the Government are greatly concerned about the effects of ozone depletion and are committed to phasing out CFCs by the end of 1995 at the latest. Last December, I proposed to the EC Environment Council that the Montreal protocol's phase-out dates be brought forward to the end of 1994 for halons, and the end of 1995 for CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances. I also proposed that the intermediate cut stages should be brought forward to the end of 1993, with an 85 per cent. cut for CFCs and carbon tetrachloride and 50 per cent. cut for halons and methyl chloroform.
  413
  Following my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's letter of 14 February to the President of the EC Environment Council, urging the Community to take a stronger line on the early phase-out of CFCs, the European Commission has now proposed the phase-out of all controlled substances by the end of 1995. This issue was discussed at the informal Environment Council in Estoril, Portugal which I attended last weekend. Commissioner Ripa de Meana set out the Commission's proposals, which were generally welcomed by member states. Formal agreement to the proposed new phase-out dates will need to be given at the meeting of the Environment Council in March.

  My officials are continuing to review our position with industry.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Local Offices
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish his definitions of(a) field offices, (b) inspector outstations and (c) customer access points in relation to the Benefits Agency; if he will list by category the offices within Renfrewshire; and what plans he has to recategorise any of these offices.

  District

  Sheffield East

  Sheffield West

  Type of application

  CCG

  BL

  CL

  CCG

  BL

  CL

  (a) Referred back for determination by social fund officer (SFO)

  42

  22

  2

  11

  5

  1

  (b) Changed by SFO

  6

  6

  0

  4

  2

  0

  (c) Unchanged by SFO

  35

  IS

  2

  3

  1

  1

  Notes:

  1. Data for April 1991 to 14 February 1992.

  2. Changed decisions are defined as those resulting in an award being made to the applicant (b). Included in (b) are partially changed decisions which are not separately recorded. (c) represents decisions where no additional payment is awarded by the SFO on redetermination.

  3. The difference in figures between the total of (b)+(c) and (a) is due to cases where notification of the final decision has not yet been received at the office of the social fund inspectors.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of applications for review to social fund officers for the year 1991–92 to date in the Sheffield East and Sheffield West districts; and for each district how many of those were(a) community care grants, (b) budgeting loans and (c) crisis loans; of those applications what was the total number revised wholly in favour of the applicant; of the total number of applications for review to social fund officers in Sheffield how many were reviewed partially in favour of the applicant; and what number of applications for review by social fund officers in Sheffield had the original decision confirmed, giving all answers by district and by type of application.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, 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.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of claimants who are currently in debt to the social fund in Sheffield and the total amount that is owed by them
  414
  Mr. Jack
  The location of field offices, inspector outstations and customer access points is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, chief executive of the Contributions Agency. She will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for the year 1991–92 to date, how many social fund applications were referred back by social fund inspectors for reconsideration by social fund officers in Sheffield East and Sheffield West district; and for each district how many of those were(a) community care grants, (b) budgeting loans and (c) crisis loans; how many were revised wholly in the applicant's favour; how many were revised partially in favour of the applicant; and how many were unchanged from the social fund officer's original decision, broken down by district and type of application.

  Mr. Scott
  I am informed by the social fund commissioner that all the information cannot be provided in the form requested. The table summarises the data collected on decisions made by the social fund inspectors for the named districts, broken down by payment type, community care grant (CCG), budgeting loan (BL) and crisis loan (CL).

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

  Disability
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all the statutory and departmental committees which advise him and his governmental colleagues on matters concerning the needs of disabled people.

  Mr. Scott
  The needs of disabled people can affect almost any aspect of life in the community, and therefore any advisory body may give advice on the needs of disabled people as part of a wider brief. In this Department, for example, the social security advisory committee looks at social security legislation some of which will affect people with disabilities. Issues affecting the needs of people with disabilities may also be considered through appropriate departmental and interdepartmental machinery as needed. Ministers may also seek advice on an ad hoc basis from non-statutory bodies.

  The major statutory and departmental advisory committees primarily concerned with disability issues are:

  415

  Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

  Building Regulations Advisory Committee

  Advisory Group on Rehabilitation

  Industrial Injuries Advisory Council

  War Pensions Committee

  Attendance Allowance Board

  Disability Living Allowance Board

  Sheltered Employment Consultative Group

  National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities

  The 60 Committees for the Employment of People with Disabilities

  Scotland

  Building Standards Advisory Committee

  Disability Research Committee

  Committee on Special Educational Needs

  Prosthetic Advisory Committee

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have(a) 40 per cent. or more disability and (b) 80 per cent. or more disability and how many in each category are aged (i) 60 to 65, (ii) 65 to 70, (iii) 70 to 75 and (iv) over 75 years in Great Britain.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements his Department has to assess proposals for regulations relating to occupational pensions and national insurance contributions and their effect on existing small firms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Department regularly consults with employers organisations including representatives of small firms. As part of the Government's deregulation initiative, the Department also carries out compliance cost assessments on new proposals in both these and other fields to identify any impact that they may have on businesses of all sizes.

  Additionally, in the case of occupational pensions, there is a statutory duty to refer, with limited exceptions, proposals to make regulations to the Occupational Pensions Board. The board, in considering such proposals and reporting back, consults a number of representative bodies including the Confederation of British Industry.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all the television advertising campaigns and all other publicity campaigns costing over £100,000 to be carried out by his Department in February, March, April, May or June of the current year.

  Mr. Jack
  Campaigns being carried out by the Department during this period are:

  New disability benefits.

  Change in hours rule for family credit and income support.

  Advice to trustees of occupational pension schemes.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost in 1991–92 and 1992–93 of abolishing the 2 per cent. rate of national insurance contributions on earnings below the lower earnings limit.

  Mr. Jack
  We estimate that the loss in revenue would be about £1 billion in both 1991–92 and 1992–93.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Social Fund
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases were referred to the social fund inspectors seeking a review of decisions made by social fund officers in each of the past two years.

  Mr. Hanley
  Social security operational matters are the responsibility of Mr. Alec Wylie, chief executive of the Social Security Agency. He will write to the hon. Gentleman and copies of his reply will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Electors
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total number of electors in each(a) council area in Northern Ireland, (b) each parliamentary constituency in Northern Ireland, (c) the total for Northern Ireland, on the 1992 register of electors and (d) what are the areas of each constituency.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  District Council

  Number of electors1

  Belfast

  209,126

  Derry

  63,309

  Limavady

  19,282

  Coleraine

  37,138

  Ballymoney

  17,610

  Moyle

  10,509

  Larne

  22,318

  Ballymena

  42,091

  Magherafelt

  25,611

  Cookstown

  21,637

  Strabane

  25,319

  Omagh

  30,973

  Fermanagh

  39,112

  Dungannon

  32,354

  Craigavon

  54,520

  Armagh

  36,222

  Newry and Mourne

  58,207

  Banbridge

  24,891

  Down

  40,656

  Lisburn

  69,472

  Antrim

  30,227

  Newtownabbey

  55,155

  Carrickfergus

  24,527

  North Down

  54,464

  Ards

  49,089

  Castlereagh

  47,505

  Total

  1,141,324

  1 Note:

  (a) Figures are taken from the electoral register published in February 1992.

  (b) Shows electors registered to vote in local government elections and young people who, reaching the age of 18 before 16 February 1992, will then be eligible to vote in local government elections.

  Constituency

  Number of electors1

  Size in hectares2

  Belfast East

  53,375

  2,908

  Belfast North

  55,587

  4,162

  Belfast South

  52,556

  2,371

  Belfast West

  55,280

  4,026

  East Antrim

  63,739

  43,055

  East Londonderry

  76,912

  145,839

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  71,472

  266,000

  Foyle

  75,970

  60,694

  Lagan Valley

  73,688

  45,546

  417

  Constituency

  Number of elector1

  Size in hectares2

  Mid Ulster

  70,410

  257,026

  Newry and Armagh

  68,716

  109,721

  North Antrim

  70,217

  154,490

  North Down

  69,604

  10,269

  Strangford

  69,855

  43,313

  South Antrim

  68,292

  69,885

  South Down

  77,371

  147,585

  Upper Bann

  68,422

  48,036

  Total

  1,141,466

  1Note:

  (a) Figures are taken from the electoral register published in February 1992.

  (b) Shows electors registered to vote in parliamentary elections and young people who, reaching the age of 18 before 16 February 1993, will then be eligible to vote in a Parliamentary election.

  2 Including inland water.

  Radioactivity, Glenshane
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by how many acres the designated area at Glenshane, County Londonderry has been reduced by Statutory order No. 527, 1991, what was the original level of radioactive contamination of the area now excluded and the present level of contamination; what was the original level of contamination and the present level of contamination of the area still under restriction; when he expects the remaining area to have its restrictions removed; what other areas in Northern Ireland and of what acreage are still under restrictions; when he expects those restrictions to be removed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  SR 1991 No. 527 reduced the restricted area at Glenshane, Co Londonderry, by approximately 568 acres. The highest level of radiocaesium recorded in sheep in the derestricted area of Glenshane before derestriction was 504 kg. No monitoring has been done in this area since derestriction. The highest level of contamination in sheep found in the area of Glenshane still under restriction, 3,723 kg, was recorded in 1987; the highest level recorded in 1991 was 1,289 kg. This apparent diminution in monitored levels must be interpreted with caution. The 1991 figure was recorded in sheep put forward for monitoring prior to movement out of the restricted area. These sheep are usually grazed on lower, clean pastures before monitoring resulting in lower levels being detected and cannot be taken as a true reflection of change in the situation in the upland areas.

  Approximately 1,305 acres at Belraugh, Co Londonderry and 8,620 acres at Glenwherry, Co Antrim still remain under restriction. It is not possible to predict when the remaining restrictions will be removed. They will be lifted as soon as it is possible to do so without compromising the food chain.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what would be the cost in 1991–92 and 1992–93 of abolishing the 2 per cent. rate of national insurance contributions on earnings below the lower earnings limit.

  Mr. Hanley
  The estimated costs are £23 million and £24 million, respectively.

  Disability Statistics
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have(a) 40 per cent. or more disability and (b) 80 per cent. or more disability; and how many in each category are aged (i) 60 to 65, (ii) 65 to 70, (iii) 70 to 75 and (iv) over 75 years in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  Social security operational matters are the responsibility of Mr. Alec Wylie, chief executive of the Social Security Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies of his reply will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all the television advertising campaigns and all other publicity campaigns costing over £100,000 to be carried out by his Department in February, March, April, May or June of the current year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  Campaign

  Pedestrian safety

  Duration

  May-June

  Type

  Television

  Cost

  £100,000

  Orange Halls (Damage)
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will list all the Orange halls reported to the police as damaged or destroyed by fire since 1 January 1990 and also indicate whether a chief constable's certificate for the purposes of the criminal damage legislation has been issued in respect of any of the above incidents.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 19 February 1992]: The available information is set out in the table:

  Date and Orange halls which sustained serious damage

  1. 14 July 1990 Allistragh, Armagh

  2. 18 August 1990 Alexandra Park, Belfast

  3. 21 August 1990 Alexandra Park, Belfast

  4. 26 August 1990 Tullywhisker, Sion Mills

  5. 4 October 1990 Downpatrick

  6. 16 November 1990 Whitewell, Greencastle

  7. 23 May 1991 Dundrum

  8. 7 July 1991 Ballymoyer, Newtownhamilton

  9. 14 July 1991 Carnagh, Keady

  10. 20 July 1991 Kilmore, Moira

  11. 28 July 1991 Dungonnell, Antrim

  12. 31 August 1991 Donaghmore, Newry

  13. 16 September 1991 Derryadd, Lurgan

  14. 9–12 October 1991 Whitehill, Banbridge

  15. 12 October 1991 Glasgar, Banbridge

  16. 24 December 1991

  419

  Charlemont, Moy

  17. 25 January 1992 Tanaghmore, Markethill

  18. 1 February 1992 Tanvally, Banbridge

  19. 7 February 1992 Glebe Hill, Tandragee

  Chief constable's certificates have been issued in respect of Nos. 5, 10, 12 and 13.

  Agricultural Property (Damage)
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will list the incidents of malicious damage to agricultural property reported to the police since 1 January 1990.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 19 February 1992]: The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

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

War Crimes Act: Administration
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the total expenditure in the current year on the administration of the War Crimes Act; what expenditure is planned for next year; and how many prosecutions have been started.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the estimated cost for the financial year 1991–92 is £1.03 million in England and Wales and £400,000 in Scotland. For the next financial year the estimated cost is £10.2 million in England and Wales and £1.23 million in Scotland. No prosecutions have yet been started.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does it not show that in the recent dispute with another place this House was right?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there is no relationship between the two matters.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, do the estimated costs for next year include the estimated costs of prosecution?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the estimated costs for next year include the sum of £2.5 million for the Crown Prosecution Service.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, as the legislation was passed by another place with large majorities on at least five occasions and was later subject to the
2
Parliament Acts, should not the will of the elected Chamber prevail? Will the Government confirm that the investigations will be continued at all possible speed?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, Parliament has methods for deciding which business should be passed. This business was passed by Parliament and it is the Government's intention to see that Parliament's intention is carried through.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, given that under the Parliament Acts the will of the elected Chamber has prevailed, had we not better wait to see the outcome before we decide who was right on the merits?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I fancy that each of your Lordships will have his own opinion as to who is right. The fact is that Parliament passed the Act and it is now the Government's duty to put Parliament's wishes into effect.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, in view of the dismal experience in Australia and Canada over prosecutions under similar war crimes legislation, does not the Minister believe that the time has come to put an end to the pursuit of retribution that the legislation proposes?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, Parliament in its wisdom decided upon the course of action to be taken. That course of action is being taken. Whether the experience of Canada and Australia has any bearing is another matter. It would not be right to comment upon cases which are tried in other jurisdictions where the framing of the legislation may not necessarily be comparable with ours.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I was one who voted for the passage of the Bill in the House, but £10.2 million for next year seems a great deal of money. Will the Minister tell us upon what it is being spent?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree, it does seem to be a great deal of money: £1.5 million is being spent on

3
the police, as compared with £930,000 this year; £2.5 million on the CPS; £900,000 on the Lord Chancellor's Department; and £5.3 million on legal aid. Those last two figures do not feature in the estimates for the current year.
Lord Annan: My Lords, are not the fees being raised for the benefit of the legal profession?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any correlation between the two in that question either.
Lord Richard: My Lords, as no one has yet been prosecuted, who is receiving £5.3 million in legal aid?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is the provision for next year.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, are any prosecutions pending?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, a great deal of investigation is going on. When the investigation concludes in such a way as to require a prosecution, there will then be a prosecution. We are not in that position.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, how many cases are under investigation at the moment?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, 300 cases were identified by the Hetherington-Chalmers parliamentary inquiry. Since then, a further 43 cases have been brought to the attention of the Metropolitan Police War Crimes Unit. All those cases have been reviewed, and 114 cases are under investigation.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, what was the cost of the Scottish court's recent excursion to Eastern Europe to take evidence?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a civil case which has nothing to do with a criminal case.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, what would the legal position be if a person suing for libel won his case and was the subject of a later charge of being a war criminal?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a hypothetical situation. I would not dream of commenting until we knew the result of a particular case.

Manufacturing Industry: Employment Figures
2.42 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will show the decline in numbers of those employed in the manufacturing industries for the last four quarters for which figures are available, both numerically and in percentage terms.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My
4
Lords, in the four quarters to December 1991, the number of employees in employment in manufacturing industries in Great Britain fell by 97,000, 92,000, 87,000 and 59,000 respectively. Those figures represent falls of 2 per cent., 1.9 per cent., 1.8 per cent. and 1.2 per cent.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, I believe it is rather misleading. I am not suggesting that the Minister is trying to mislead the House, but the figures he has just mentioned are misleading because the annual figures show that the number of jobs in manufacturing industries in Great Britain fell by 334,000 between September 1990 and September 1991. The number of jobs in manufacturing industries in Great Britain fell by 129,000 in the previous 12 months. That represents an increase of between 250 per cent. and 300 per cent. Is that not a dangerous situation and one that is far worse than that suffered by our major competitors? Would not the Government do better to pump some money into industry in an attempt to get the figures down rather than talk about a giveaway Budget?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe the figures I gave are the answer to the Question tabled by the noble Lord on the Order Paper. Having said that, no one underestimates the difficulties that both businesses and individuals are facing in the present economic climate. However, it remains the case that the falling trend in manufacturing employment goes back to the mid-1960s. Falling manufacturing employment as a share of total employment is a common trend among all industrialised countries. Despite the recession in the past three months manufacturing output was still more than one-fifth higher than it was 10 years ago in 1981.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not possible that the theory that one can cure unemployment by pumping money into industry depends on what will come out of the pumping and not what goes into it?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is correct. Manufacturing industry has some good success stories. Output from industry in the office machinery, electrical and instrument sector has increased by 61 per cent. over the past 10 years. However, employment in the industry has dropped by 20 per cent. One has to understand that output can increase but employment can sometimes go down.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that both the Engineering Employers Federation and the TUC have been making recommendations for tax incentives to enable manufacturing industry to pick up again? Will the Minister bring the submissions of both those bodies to the attention of his right honourable friend?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am certain my right honourable friend is aware of those submissions. However, it is not for me to suggest what he might consider.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does not the noble Viscount agree that the rate of decline in investment in manufacturing industry has exceeded the figures of the rate of decline of employment in this period? Does he not also agree that those two factors combined suggest that manufacturing industry in this country faces a serious future? Does that not require the most urgent attention?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe investment was at a record high in 1989. Any fall from that can be measured accordingly. Investment is a matter of concern but I understand that figures will reveal that the UK share of world trade is likely to rise in 1991 for the third year running after decades of decline. Since 1979 the volume of manufactured exports has grown by over 90 per cent. and at a rate of over 5 per cent. a year. That is a good record.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, during the tenure of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, we were constantly told by him at Question Time that the decline in manufacturing industry that was taking place year by year throughout the 1980s would be made good by the contribution of the service industry. Is that still the philosophy of the Government?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I cross swords with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. When he talks about the decline in manufacturing he may be referring to the decline in the employment figures in manufacturing industry. Manufacturing has remained consistently at just under 25 per cent. of GDP throughout the past 10 years. Manufacturing has not declined. Certainly there may have been a loss of 1 million jobs in manufacturing over the decade, but that has been compensated for by an increase of 2 million jobs in the service industry.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is it not the case that the reduction in manpower in the manufacturing sector has made our manufacturing industries more efficient and therefore we have been able to sell more goods?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the latest figures for manufacturing productivity show a sharp improvement over the past few months. In the year to the three months ending December 1991 manufacturing productivity rose by 3.3 per cent.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the CBI has confirmed that Britain is experiencing the worst recession since the last war? Is he further aware that the figures he has just revealed to the House show that over 360,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing last year? During the same period investment in manufacturing fell by 15 per cent. Industrial production in the same period fell by 2.9 per cent. and yet it increased in Japan by 2.3 per cent. and in Germany by 3.2 per cent. Why is it that Britain suffers so badly compared with our international trade competitors?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord tells a very interesting tale. I have to ask myself why it is
6
that improvements in productivity, industrial relations and the general economic environment have made the United Kingdom an attractive destination for overseas investment. America and Japan have the whole of Europe to consider, but between 1988 and 1990 the United Kingdom accounted for 46 per cent. of all US investment in the European Community and 48 per cent. of Japanese investment. If all that the noble Lord said was correct, why do they favour this country as the right place to invest?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, when will the Government abandon as their first priority the aim of making Britain a country in which bankers can live? Why do they not give the appropriate priority, which the people of the country as a whole demand, to the manufacturing and construction sections of British industry?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government's first priority is the defeat of inflation. That is to the benefit not only of industry but also our citizens.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree with the principle that training and retraining should be increased when unemployment rises so that the skill level of the workforce is at least maintained against the tendency of unemployment to reduce it? If so, can he explain why the Government have just decided to reduce expenditure on training by £170 million next year in real terms?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course it is important that the levels of skills should be kept up to date and that re-skilling should take place. However, I do not entirely agree with the noble Lord. In times of high unemployment it is important to get people back to work. Those who have current skills are given every opportunity, through Employment Action and job clubs, to get hack into the workforce rather than learning a new skill.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, why do not the Government take into consideration the social aspects of the issue, such as repossessions and unemployment, which affect thousands or even millions of families? The figures which have been quoted may or may not be accurate—one does not know precisely—but the fundamental issue is that high unemployment and a high rate of repossessions do our country no good at all. The Government refuse to face up to that fact.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is why my first supplementary answer started with the words:
"no one underestimates the difficulties that both businesses and individuals are facing in the present economic climate".
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does not my noble friend find it surprising that such questions should come from the party opposite? Perhaps they indicate only a loss of memory on the part of noble Lords opposite.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I can only answer the Questions put down on the Order Paper.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that by the late 1980s investment in British manufacturing industry had barely

7
recovered to the 1979 level and is now in sharp decline, in contrast with all our European partners such as Germany, France, Italy and other countries in the EC?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, if we look at the whole of the 1980s, between 1980 and 1990 growth in the United Kingdom was faster than in France, Italy or Germany. That compares with the 1960s and 1970s when the United Kingdom was bottom of the EC growth table.

Nuclear Capability
2.53 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they consider it necessary to increase the British nuclear capability when other states, including the United States, are reducing or seeking to dismantle and dispose of their nuclear weapons.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government are committed to the principle of minimum nuclear deterrence. The Trident programme is entirely consistent with that. The prospective reductions in the superpower arsenals will reverse a nuclear arms race in which the United Kingdom was never a participant.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, why do the Government consider it necessary to build up to a destructive power some 3,000 times that of the Hiroshima bomb at a time when the majority of states—including Australia, Canada, Germany and Japan—are without such a weapon? If those countries do not possess nuclear weapons why do the Government feel it necessary at this time to increase our nuclear capability to such a stupendous extent?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the calculation of our minimum deterrent need has to allow for anti-ballistic missile defences. The CIS deploys the world's only operational system. At present it is limited by treaty to 100 launchers, but that may be renegotiated. The intentions of the present Russian Government are not at issue but we have to bear in mind the systems which could be deployed over the next 30 years.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to confirm to the House that our deterrent, in comparison with those of the Americans and the Russians, is negligible?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. We are not in the superpower league. President Bush's proposals imply the United States retaining over 2,000 warheads in 18 submarines, and that is only one of three legs of America's strategic triad. Our four-boat Trident force is our only strategic system and it will ensure that only one submarine, with no more than 128 warheads, is on station. There is no comparison.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us on this side of the House are convinced that for four decades the nuclear stalemate
8
kept the peace and that it is essential in the uncertain times following the dissolution of the Soviet empire to make sure that our independent nuclear deterrent is up to date? Does he agree that if the Labour Party—in whose government the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, served as a distinguished Minister—is in any way ambivalent or doubtful on that point that would be a very good reason for it not to be elected?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend made a very good point. Even assuming that the cuts which have been proposed are agreed, we estimate that the Russians could retain at least 15 times the number of nuclear warheads which the UK will have even after Trident has been brought into service.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Earl confirm that the whole point of the new Trident programme is to be able to penetrate the ABM defences around Moscow? If so—and as I understand it that is the only justification for Trident; otherwise we would be content with the Polaris fleet and the Polaris capability—can the noble Earl conceive of any circumstances in which we would wish to make such a strike without the co-operation of the United States and outside NATO?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord asked a hypothetical question. The increasing likelihood of a revision of the ABM treaty, with the possibility of consequent further improvements in ABM defences, confirms the wisdom of replacing Polaris with a successor force capable of ensuring our minimum deterrent needs.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the Minister mentioned Trident, but why do the Government in addition insist on spending huge sums of money on a new airborne sub-strategic nuclear weapon system, especially when the same role could be performed perfectly well by Trident at no extra cost?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we have discussed that very question in this House on many occasions. Trident is a strategic system. The great advantage of a submarine-based strategic deterrent, provided there are sufficient boats to maintain a continuous patrol, is its ability to remain undetected until its use and hence its virtual invulnerability to pre-emptive attack. Using Trident for a sub-strategic strike would increase the risk of the submarine being detected, thus exposing our strategic capability to the danger of pre-emption.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will we be able to target our nuclear deterrent without the assistance of United States satellites? If not, will it be truly independent?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the UK deterrent is and will remain operationally independent and under the absolute control of Her Majesty's Government. Although we have undertaken that the system will be operated in defence of NATO, we have reserved the right to use it independently of that role if supreme national interests so require.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Earl please answer my question? He did not answer it.

9
It is no good muttering. I want an answer to my question. I asked the noble Earl whether it was possible for our deterrent to be targeted without the assistance of United States satellites. Will he answer that question please?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the United Kingdom has its own national targeting capability. It is inappropriate for me to discuss the details.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, arising from the reply which the noble Earl gave to me about the vulnerability of Trident under sea, does he suggest that Trident under the surface is more vulnerable than the airfields and aircraft whose position is known and which will be built under the Government's plan?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government have taken no decision on the sub-strategic system that we may wish to order once our stock of free-fall bombs has been phased out. What I said was that once a nuclear submarine is used for any type of strike, the position of that submarine becomes all the more apparent. It is therefore more vulnerable.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, although quite a large number of people continue to think—I believe mistakenly—that it is necessary for this country to continue to possess nuclear weapons, an increasing number of people do not think it necessary for this country to keep strategic nuclear weapons? Will he address himself to that point? What is the use of this country possessing a strategic nuclear weapon at a time when other countries are dispensing with it? As my noble friend pointed out, it is inconceivable that this country would operate without the agreement of the United States. Why cannot we leave it to the United States in the unlikely event of a strategic nuclear weapon being required?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's question is common sense. There have been many encouraging changes in the security environment in recent years. But those same changes have brought about their own risks and uncertainties. I believe that it would be quite disastrous for the Government to abandon a long-standing policy held by successive governments.

Asylum Bill: Legislative Timetable
3.2 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is still their intention to proceed with the Asylum Bill.
Earl Ferrers: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, if the Government intend to proceed with the Bill, why have they not fixed a date for the Committee stage in order that this House may proceed with it? Cannot the Government make up their mind or has the impending election not left them time? Why will the Prime Minister not announce the date of the election so that the uncertainty in the country can be ended?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me to tell him the date of the general election. I have no intention of telling him, even if I knew it, and I do not. The noble Lord asked why the Government do not make up their mind. The Government have made up their mind to continue with the Asylum Bill. The reason why it has not appeared on the Order Paper so far is a matter of priorities.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the privilege of asylum in this country has been and is being abused on a large scale? Does he agree that his statement that the Government propose to proceed with the Bill is very welcome?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that assurance and encouragement. The facts are that 4,000 people applied for asylum in 1988; 22,000 applied in 1990 and 45,000 applications were made in 1991. Those figures do not include dependants.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that if the election is held on 9th April it will not be possible to proceed with the Asylum Bill this side of the election? If so, may I congratulate the Government on abandoning that ill-advised measure?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord should avoid the temptation of being too speculative. He will see from the programme of future events that, provided the Opposition are in agreement, the Bill will be placed on the programme of forthcoming events.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, if it was not the Government's intention to have the Bill passed through both Houses, why was it introduced? Why have not the Government suggested a date for us to proceed? Does he agree that it is absolutely absurd that there is a commitment to the Bill yet the Bill is simply not introduced into this House?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord asks why will the Government not make up their mind. As I told him, the Government have made up their mind. They wish to introduce the Bill and see it on the statute book. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that there is a priority for legislation and the Bill has to take its place in the queue. The noble Lord need not worry too much. If the Bill does not get in this side of the election, it will get in the next side of it, because the present Government will be in place.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that some noble Lords are a little puzzled by his replies? A few moments ago he said that it was a matter of priorities. Does that mean that the Education (Schools) Bill deserves, in the Government's view, to take priority over the Asylum Bill, notwithstanding the view of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that the Education (Schools) Bill was a wholly silly Bill and the silliest Bill that any Parliament had ever had to consider?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is puzzled by my answer, but I cannot think why. It was perfectly straightforward. He mentioned my noble friend Lord

11
Beloff, who makes his own speeches and is responsible for them. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, will see the Bill. He need not worry too much.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Education (Schools) Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill will be taken.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
Brought from the Commons on Friday last; printed pursuant to Standing Order 48, and read a first time.

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): 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.

Protection of Badgers Bill [H.L.]
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.

Carriage of Goods by Sea Bill [H.L.]
Lord Goff of Chieveley: 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 commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Goff of Chieveley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education (Schools) Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): 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.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools in England]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert:
("( ) The following provisions of this section shall have effect after the making of an order by the Secretary of State, and no such order shall be made before the laying before Parliament of a comprehensive review of arrangements for the inspection of schools in England and Wales.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 10. Amendment No. 10 is exactly the same amendment but it refers to Wales rather than England. Perhaps I should first indicate that there is great concern in Wales about the Bill. There is a belief that the Welsh system of education is being dragged down by the English system. We hope that the Government will accept amendments that make the Bill more acceptable in both countries. However, if they are unable to agree amendments that make it more acceptable, I give notice that at a later stage we may wish to move amendments that will remove Clauses 5 and 8 from the Bill and treat Wales in the same way as Scotland so that it is not exposed to some of the less attractive aspects of the legislation that is before us.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 1 and 10. A thorough internal review of Her Majesty's Inspectorate was announced by the Secretary of State on 8th May 1991. The review followed the decision by the previous senior chief inspector, Mr. Eric Bolton, to take early retirement and a public advertisement for his successor. It was conducted by three middle-ranking DES officials including one HMI. The review's conclusions were made known to Ministers in July last year. No invitation was made to the local authorities to make submissions to the review team. Nor was the advice of many outside experts sought. The review has never been published although it was leaked to the Independent newspaper which published extracts from it on 14th November 1991.
The Secretary of State sought to justify the decision not to publish the review on the principle that advice from officials to Ministers is confidential. Indeed, that is what he argued in the Second Reading debate in the House of Commons on 19th November 1991. One of the issues that emerged from the leak is the review's recommendation on how many HMIs at national level would be needed. There has been a considerable amount of public debate about the fact that the review recommended that there should be 380 HMIs. The

13
Government have clearly chosen to ignore that recommendation although other recommendations in the review appear to have been accepted.
From what we can gather, the review is a thoroughly had piece of work done in great haste and without any deep thinking. The article in the Independent states:
"Had the report been published it would have been torn to shreds. The reason is simple: it does not even refer to, let alone address, the central argument against the system that the Government is now legislating to create",
namely, that governing bodies can choose their own inspectors. The Independent article continues:
"No important item of legislation should ever be presented to Parliament on such a slender analysis of the options available. The report concentrates completely on advocating Mr. Clarke's preferred approach—so much so, that it seems like a vehicle for confirming and elaborating on a decision which had already been taken".
Not only is the review of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of July 1991 apparently a weak report, with less than two pages devoted to the alternative of expanding Her Majesty's Inspectorate into a national agency inspecting all schools with its own staff, but the fact also remains that the Education (Schools) Bill is unique in being a major piece of legislation that has not been preceded by some form of proper consultation.
Ministers may say that The Citizen's Charter published in July last year was a form of consultation. But once again it would be difficult to say that any consultation on that document was conducted in a serious fashion by Ministers. The deadline for responses to The Citizen's Charter was after the publication of the Bill. In those circumstances how could we possibly call it serious consultation?
The National Association of Governors and Managers, whose members are profoundly affected by the Bill, and the main parents' organisations were not consulted. A matter as important for the nation's education as the monitoring of standards through inspections should have been the subject of consultation. There should have been a Green Paper, if not a White Paper, preceding publication of the Bill giving people time to respond and to say what they felt about it and to put forward alternative suggestions.
Instead, a review was initiated last May and given only two months in which to report. Apparently the review concedes that those who were consulted—there were not many—considered that the body best suited to undertake independent and objective inspections is Her Majesty's Inspectorate. If that is true, is it not amazing that we have before us a Bill which decimates HMI and sets up an untried system which is flawed in principle? The purpose of the amendments is to ensure the publication of the DES review of HMI before the Bill is implemented and before the role of HMI is fundamentally changed. I beg to move.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I, too, wish to speak to the amendment from these Benches. It is a subject which threatens to involve too long a debate for the Committee stage in this Chamber. I therefore shall be as brief as possible.
School inspections should be thorough, expert, constructive and supportive, independent and reasonably frequent. Over the years HMI has fulfilled all
14
those needs except the last. With that exception it has been a centre of excellence. I believe that that is almost universally acknowledged. It has constituted a tradition like the Brigade of Guards or Eton.
Local authority inspections have been variable. They have greatly improved during the past two or three years. My own county, East Sussex, has brought such inspections to a high state of efficiency. The inspectorate pays regular visits. It produces annual reports. It publishes reviews of particular aspects of school work. It offers advice, development and support. It constitutes a partnership between schools, governing bodies and LEAs.
We appreciate that the inspections by HMI have been far too infrequent. But why not build on what we have? Why chuck out the baby with the bath water? Why cut off the head to cure the headache? Why choose a scheme which threatens standards? The inspection teams appear to lack expertise. Such a situation threatens national standards because those teams will lack consistency throughout the country. Why choose a scheme which threatens the integrity of the teams because of the commercial considerations? Why choose a scheme which exposes the inspections to the possibility of bias of one kind or another—educational bias or possibly racial or political bias?
So grave an issue should have been widely debated. As the noble Baroness said, it should have been the subject of a White Paper or even a Green Paper. It is not fitting that the subject should be treated as though it were some trumpery issue. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: We have over 206 amendments to discuss at Committee stage. The heart sinks when the very first amendment that we discuss should be what I regard as a temporising amendment; namely, that before the Bill takes effect the Secretary of State shall write a report which will take a very long time. Other amendments before the Committee today, for instance, Amendments Nos. 10 and 99, are in similar form.
I am sure that a number of noble Lords have many anxieties about various aspects of the Bill. We shall debate them through amendments laid before us. The noble Baroness has touched on important points. However, I hope that Members of the Committee will not consider me cynical if I point out that the noble Baroness is a social scientist and was a very distinguished Professor of Educational Administration before taking up her present more distinguished position. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, who will speak to us on various amendments, is a macroeconomist. I am not sure whether it is to the advantage of progress that before the Bill is implemented we should have a report written by a social scientist or a macroeconomist, or whatever.
The Bill has been through a long Committee stage in the Commons. I believe that there were at least 13 sessions. We shall have the opportunity to debate the main elements in great detail in this Chamber. As in previous Bills that I have had the opportunity to discuss at Committee stage, the heart sinks when the first amendment suggests that a long report should be written before anything is done. I oppose the

15
amendment for that reason rather than for the points of substance, which I am sure the noble Baroness will bring forward in her other amendments which are worth discussing tonight.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I cannot agree with that argument because the Bill, taken together with ministerial statements, sets out to make radical changes in a key area of our educational system. It is vital that we get them right, even if that means spending more time beforehand.
What worries many of us, especially those who have been involved in the educational world, is the speed of the proposed changes, and the apparent lack of careful analysis in their preparation. It seems to me that, for this Bill to be justified, four underlying assumptions must be seen to be true: first, that the situation in our schools is serious; secondly, that LEAs and Her Majesty's Inspectorate are largely to blame for this and should play a reduced role from now on; thirdly, that a heavy formal inspection programme is the solution; and, fourthly, leading on from the first assumption, that the situation is so urgent that it cannot wait for a few months for proper professional consultations and a review of the options. I do not see otherwise how such a major upheaval can be supported.
In the presentation of the Government's case at Second Reading some of these assumptions were put forward, some were not stated, but I believe that none was convincingly backed by argument. In fact, I believe that all four are open to serious challenge. I agree that it is not appropriate to go into all the arguments now. Our point, in tabling this amendment, is that the debate still needs to take place. The unpublished DES review was certainly not an adequate substitute. I shall just try and briefly give a flavour of some of the considerations relating to formal inspections, especially by newly-formed teams, pausing only to comment on the way that the available evidence suggests that the overall situation in schools could fairly be described as "quite good", based as it is on a long and steady period of rising standards followed by an apparent fall in reading levels of a few percentage points at the upper infant stage, whose cause is unknown but tentatively thought to lie outside the schools themselves.
Formal inspection is a cumbersome weapon. Depending on how it is done, it can have advantages which are obvious, such as keeping teachers on their toes, and keeping track of trends and standards. What is not as obvious as it might seem is that formal inspections play an effective role in raising standards. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out on Second Reading that regular testing does not of itself bring about development. Some LEAs have inspectors, while others rely on an advisory service. I do not believe we have any evidence to show that those who have been inspected have done better than those who have been advised. The ILEA had a system of quite heavy inspections, and I do not believe the Government greatly admired its standards for all that.
HMI have always done much more than inspect. A retired inspector has written to me of the importance
16
of the many non-reporting visits, the intimate contact with schools, on which are based the knowledge and understanding which inform the published reports. She has also stressed what a difficult and delicate task inspecting is. I know that it will take a moment but I should like to quote what she said because I think it is important. She said:
"after 30 years' experience I myself could seldom be quite sure that I had made the right assessment … and I believe that many of my former colleagues would say the same. To come anywhere near getting it right one needs constant experience of schools in situations where one is not required to pass … absolute judgments, plus the kind of cross-fertilisation … which comes from frequent discussion with colleagues and teachers from all over the country."
Much of this professionalism, and I might add, credibility, is to be thrown away without proper debate. I can imagine, too, that HMI may have difficulty recruiting people of suitable calibre to a job which will have lost much of its attraction, relying as it will mainly on second-hand news of schools, having lost its close contact with teachers and children. Instead we will have inspection of a kind, inevitably at a less reliable standard, but none of the backup that should go with it if real improvement is the goal. If a school is shown to be in trouble, the LEA will no longer be well placed to go in with a rescue operation of in-service training, and so on: the resources will not be there. In the past a good LEA would have had the central resources and know-how to forestall the problem before it developed. I foresee the possibility of professional stagnation, under the proposed model. It is, as I said at Second Reading, the authoritarian model, and its message will not be lost on an already somewhat demoralised profession. A United States study in 1989 on successful secondary schools made it clear that professionals needed to be committed to change rather than having it forced on them, and concluded that carrots work but sticks do not. If this particular stick comes round every four years the disruption will be considerable: I do not know on what professional advice this figure was based, and how inflexible it will be, but I think it is an unwise one in the case of a full and formal inspection.
On many counts, therefore, there is well-founded concern about what is being proposed. And I have here addressed only one of the four basic assumptions that underlit the Bill. It is, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said on Second Reading, a risky Bill. It is also, I am afraid, an amateurish one. I am no great believer in kowtowing to professions, and I welcome openness and bringing in the lay voice. But there are areas in education where technical knowledge is essential—the methodology of testing, whether individuals or whole schools, and the way of presenting accurately to your public the results you have found, are two areas of relevance to this Bill—and for the Government to proceed with a major reform on the basis that you can dispense with professional advice, whether from prejudice or pique or I know not what, is surely deeply unwise. It is for this reason that I support an amendment which will bring the arguments into the open and introduce, I hope, some much-needed rigour into the debate.
Lord Glenamara: The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said that he thought the two amendments—one referring to England and the other to Wales—were unnecessary. I believe that they are essential because this Government have not done what we expect all governments to do—that is, to justify legislation which they bring before Parliament. I have talked to many people up and down the country and no one can understand why this wretched Bill has been introduced. I understand that a review of the inspectorate has been carried out by the DES but we have not seen the report. No one has seen it because it has not been published. As a result, every educational body in the country has opposed the Bill—every single one. Nobody has supported it.
I listened to the Minister's memorable winding-up of the Second Reading debate. I stayed for the first 35 minutes but I could not stay for the last 10 minutes. I read the debate afterwards. Nowhere in that debate did she justify these ridiculous changes to the inspectorate. For that reason it is essential that we see the report before the Bill is implemented. The purpose of the two amendments is to enable Parliament to see, to read and to scrutinise the review of the inspectorate before the changes are made. That appears to me to be eminently sensible. Can the Government not accept that? Can they not try to retrieve something from the appalling mess of this Bill and accept these two amendments? That would be a perfectly sensible step and I hope that the Committee will agree to them.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My contribution will be in the nature of a question to the Minister. I hope that she will deal with it in some detail when replying to the debate. I am extremely puzzled about where all these new inspectors will come from. As an LEA education officer I had considerable dealings with inspectors. I found that their expertise, their dedication to the work and everything connected with it was absolutely first rate. During my time I never came across what one might describe as an incompetent HMI. The noble Baroness frowns and I am wondering how much experience she has in this area.
I understand that the Government have said that consultants will be able to provide the HMIs who will be required under the new set-up. During the Second Reading debate my noble friend Lady Blackstone said that she had spoken to a number of consultants who had told her that there was little possibility of their providing such people. I followed that up with my own inquiries and reached the same conclusion; that the provision of those HMIs will not be made. That issue is crucial to the whole business of privatising the inspection of schools. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will explain in detail how this important aspect of the proposal will be met.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness White: The Committee will be aware that the matters which we have been discussing concern Wales as well as England. There was a very long Written Answer in the other place from the Secretary
18
of State for Wales, but a Written Answer is not an adequate response to Welsh anxieties about these matters.
I do not know whether there was a formal guillotine but I understand that the Welsh side of the matter was hardly discussed. That is what our colleagues in the other place tell us. What does the noble Baroness who is to reply to the debate know about the situation in Wales? I find it difficult to believe that she knows anything at all.
Lord Elton: My noble friend Lord Renfrew was right to call this a temporising measure because, regardless of the speeches that are being made, we are being asked to provide an occasion for a Second Reading debate as regards the introduction of the Bill's provisions. We appear to be doing so by having a third Second Reading debate now.
The Bill was read a second time and we should now be trying to ensure that it reaches the statute book in the best order possible. We should not leave that as a legacy for some future Parliament and perhaps another House of Parliament. I hope that the Committee will resist the amendment and that we can get on with discussing the other amendments.
Baroness Blatch: This amendment would delay our important reform until a review of the arrangements of school inspection had been presented to Parliament. I am not sure whether Members opposite would publish a review before their policy document. We have all heard unequivocal statements: "We will establish a standards council", "We will do this for school inspection", "We will do that for school inspection". However, nobody has said that that will be subject to a review, subject to a review of parents or subject to anything.
The need for reform is unarguable. We have said that for a long time. Parents have said it. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, does not believe it, but there are people outside who think it is important to know what is going on in our schools.
The noble Baroness and Members of the Committee opposite must accept that the problems of local school inspection and the activities of HMI are well documented. We now need not reviews but action.
There has been a review. The Audit Commission report in 1989 set out a sorry picture of local authority inspection in practice. HMI is monitoring progress. Indeed, there has been progress and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, referred to his own authority which has made enormous strides in that respect. But as was mentioned at Second Reading, only one third of LEAs have inspection systems in place which offer the prospect of reliable reports. The picture is reported in more detail in the Senior Chief Inspector's report for 1990–91. I do not think we need to second guess HMI's view with a further review.
As for HMI's own work, the SCI's report covers that too. It makes clear both the strengths and limitations of HMI's current role. Seven thousand establishments were visited but only 150 benefited from written reports about their work as a basis for their own planning. The others yielded valuable

19
information which was fed into HMI's database and used in compiling general publications. But they did not receive detailed written feedback.
Those facts about the current system are well known. They demonstrate the need for reform, to which all parties are firmly committed. The only issue is how that reform is to be managed. We have set out our proposals in the Parent's Charter and in this Bill which has had full parliamentary discussion. As regards the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady White, the Bill was not guillotined in Commons Committee and its use at Report stage doubled the time available for debate from that previously agreed. Once the Bill is law it should be implemented forthwith.
I know Members of the Committee opposite want to press their case for publication of the internal reviews which my right honourable friends commissioned last year. But we made clear from the start that these were internal reviews—not for publication—designed to assist policy making. All parties take advice when deciding policy. They have served their purpose, and the policy we have decided upon is embodied in this Bill which has been and is being fully debated.
I do not think the Labour Party or anyone else would wish to deny the need for confidential advice to Ministers as they formulate policy. It is a necessary part of the business of government. The important thing is to hold the policy itself up to scrutiny as this House is now doing.
I have also been tackled on the lack of a White Paper about our proposals. The policy was set out in the Citizen's Charter, and further fleshed out in the Parent's Charter. I accept that time for formal comment was brief. But the Committee is aware that this must be a short parliamentary session and we needed to make progress to introduce the Bill. Time for debate has however been full. I remind the Committee that we allocated more time than the Opposition chose to use in Committee in another place. Extensive public comment has informed our discussions. So I do not think I need apologise for any lack of public scrutiny of the Bill's proposals.
The noble Baroness made reference to the National Association of Governors and Managers. That association was invited to comment on the Bill, as were all LEAs and other interested bodies in a letter of 2nd October 1991 which invited replies by 15th November. Those bodies did comment and we have been in contact with them.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, set out four points which he said should form the basis or rationale for the changes. He asked whether the position is serious. One of the interesting problems that that goes on to raise is that we simply do not know. We know that there are problems and that standards could be higher. But there is no inspection system which tells us in a way which is common across the education system exactly what is going on in our schools. That must be a starting point.
The noble Earl went on to ask whether the LEAs and HMI are to blame. We have enough evidence to
20
know that the LEAs did not have a routinely systematic method of inspection. It was patchy and extremely variable. When it was good, it was very, very good, but, sadly, those instances were all too rare.
The noble Earl asked whether formal inspection is a solution. A formal inspection at least tells us what is going on in our schools. That must be a starting point from which one can target resources and efforts to improve the situation.
The noble Earl also asked why the matter is so urgent. It will be at least five years—taking the implementation of the Bill and a four—year rolling programme—before each school is inspected just once. The sooner we get on with that the better. I argue that all four counts are a reasonable basis for going on with the Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, also said that inspection is extremely negative. He referred to it as a stick and in other derogatory ways. Schools should look upon inspection as being extremely positive rather than negative. Inspection tells us what is going on and then gives us the opportunity of a sound information database needed to build on strength and address weaknesses. That is a positive way to look at inspection. It should not be looked upon as a penal activity.
There is a gross misunderstanding about the Bill and about the need to know what is going on in our schools. The proposals before us will ensure that inspections are regular and systematic. Information will be made available to a much wider audience; that is, parents, the public, schools, governing bodies and, indeed, Parliament. That will be extremely healthy for our schools. It will be a great service for our young people. I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Before the noble Baroness sits down will she deal with the questions I posed?
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord asked the interesting question, where the employees of HMI are to come from. I am sure that later this afternoon he will argue that we do not have enough inspectors and will ask what will happen to those HMIs who will not form part of the core personnel. There will be a large number of people who are well qualified to apply for registration under the registration system. There are many more people in the education world who will feel sufficiently competent to come forward and apply for registration. We are confident that the system will work. The noble Lord clearly does not share our confidence.
Lord Glenamara: We are not objecting to inspections. The whole speech was made on the basis that we object to inspections, which we do not. We object to inspections being made by unqualified laymen. That is what we are objecting to. Will the noble Baroness tell us where the mandate is for introducing that rather fundamental change? Was that part of the Conservative Party manifesto? What is the mandate for it?
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may pose the question back to the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara: from where does he get his evidence that unqualified laymen will be involved in inspecting our schools?
Lord Glenamara: Can the noble Baroness tell me where in the Bill the qualifications are laid down?
Baroness Blatch: Happily, we truly believe in the independence of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector and HMI. It will be for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector to lay down the qualifications of those people who will be registered to inspect our schools. We have every confidence in the professionalism of HMI. There is grave suspicion in the minds of noble Lords opposite.
Baroness Phillips: Speaking as an ex-teacher, why do we have to have a Bill? When did we stop being inspected? I have not taught since about 1960. We had inspectors and teachers who gave reports. The Government are acting as if they have suddenly come up with a bright idea. To say that reports are not presented to governors is nonsense. For a long time there has been nothing secret in our schools except in the private sector where inspectors cannot go anyway. Unfortunately, I was not present at Second Reading, but I believe that the Bill is a total nonsense because we shall have unqualified people going into schools and making comments. When I was teaching, one thing that I resented was being inspected by somebody who had never done the job that I was trying to do. I would always ask, "Where did you teach?" That will be a relevant question for the kind of people who will now visit schools. I believe it is a slur on the profession that we have to introduce a Bill to get inspectors and HMIs to do a job which is already being done.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she confirm that it is anticipated that there will be 6,000 inspections a year, the reports of which will be published and available generally? The noble Baroness has said that at present there are only about 150 full inspections per year. It is perfectly reasonable to ask who will undertake those inspections. They will be undertaken by registered inspectors who will be well qualified. The same question would arise if they were undertaken by the inspectorate. There will be a significant increase in the number of inspections, and they will be published. I hope that the noble Baroness will confirm those figures.
Baroness Phillips: As the noble Lord has put that question, perhaps I may ask why we have got down to such a small number of inspections. In my view it is due to the Government. Just as they have cut back on the health service, so they have cut back in education, and in the end nobody knows what they are doing. We would have a much better system of education if we left it to the practitioners who know what they are doing. I would quote the words of a friend of mine, a headmaster. He said that if we changed the system often enough the working class would remain illiterate. I sometimes think that there is truth in that old story. In the old days one had regular inspections. One also had fire drills, safety drills and prayers which
22
one does not have today. That does not mean the inspectors are not there to do their job. Teachers and head teachers have nothing to hide. If they wanted to put this in the paper—which is presumably what the noble Lord meant—they would do it.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may say in reply to the noble Baroness, first, that the inspections were not as regular as the noble Baroness's memory serves her. Secondly, we have not cut back on HMI. What has broken down is the system. Inspections were carried out between HMI (who did all too few inspections) and the LEAs. I have given enough evidence to show that the LEAs have not had a consistent approach to inspections. To take the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, some authorities have done an exemplary job but others have done no inspections at all. It was this Government, not any other, that made HMI inspections public. What we are doing now is to combine the skills and professionalism of HMI under a chief inspector who will use a qualified registration system of practitioners, all of whom will be qualified under the system laid down by the chief inspector. We will guarantee a rolling programme of approximately 6,000 inspections every year against common criteria.
Indeed, my final point relates to common criteria. All too often schools were inspected by inspectors and it was not known by what criteria they were being judged. Very often subjectivity crept into the reports and good schools and teachers were at a loss to know how judgments were made. Under this system the criteria will be in the public domain, reports will be constant against a common format and parents, teachers, governors and children will be much better informed of what is going on and being achieved in our schools.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness David: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, was aware that during the last year for which HMIs reported (1989–90) inspection visits were made to 3,274 maintained primary schools, 2,436 maintained secondary schools, 529 independent schools and 692 further and higher education institutions. Perhaps those visits are of more value than a regular four-yearly inspection by people who will not have the qualifications of HMIs.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: The visiting system is valuable and one hopes that it will continue. But I would ask the noble Baroness in reply how many of the inspections to which she made reference were published.
Baroness David: I believe they were made known to the governors of the schools concerned.
Lord Elton: Are we not comparing apples and oranges? The inspections to which the noble Baroness has referred are partial or specialist inspections and the inspections referred to by my noble friend are full inspections, which are entirely different and much more important.
Viscount Eccles: I was sorry that I was out of the country at the time of Second Reading, but I need not have been sorry at all because we are having a Second Reading debate now. When the Chamber has decided on the principle of the Bill we ought to get on with the Committee stage. There have not been inspections on any scale for a very long time. It was 45 years ago when I was the Minister and had the pleasure of knowing the HMI. They were very nice people but they did not often inspect. When they did inspect nobody ever read their reports, but they visited and advised very well—exactly what I believe the noble Baroness, Lady David, said at Second Reading. That is something that they must go on doing.
However, there is a totally new situation, which I suppose is the reason we have this Bill. Parents and employers now want to know what is happening in the schools. In order to tell them what is happening we are trying to mount something like 6,000 full inspections a year. That will not be at all easy. It will not be possible for a very long time, and I am doubtful how valuable it will be when it is done. Still, we have to try, and the Bill tells us how it will be attempted. In my view, to have a report on the whole system before we get on with the Committee stage is, in parliamentary terms, wrong.
Baroness Faithfull: I am the governor of two schools. I am bound to say that one has not been inspected for 15 years and the other has not been inspected for 12 years and received an inspection only when the governors asked for it.
Lord Shepherd: The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, reproved the Committee, with some justification. He then indulged in a Second Reading speech. I intervene with great temerity to draw the Committee's attention to the amendment before us. It is not a wide-ranging issue. It is a simple question as to whether there should be a comprehensive review of the arrangements for the inspection of schools in England and Wales before an order is laid before your Lordships' Chamber and another place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, speaks as always not only with charm but with considerable confidence. I remember she spoke the other day in response to a question with supreme confidence about the council tax and that we were able to save money in terms of valuations using private sector valuers for that purpose. I see in today's paper that some 60 per cent. of the valuations so far submitted have been rejected because they are considered to be completely inadequate by the authorities.
I do not use that example. I simply say to the Committee that one must take all Ministers' speeches, from whichever party they arise, with a pinch of salt. They have their brief and will speak to it. I agree with my noble friend Lord Glenamara and support an extension and improvement of the inspection of our schools if that is the way to achieve a higher standard and quality of output. My anxiety is that we are now entering a new field of inspection, some areas of which are completely and utterly unknown.
The noble Baroness said that we are dealing with the Bill in a tight parliamentary timetable. I am sure
24
that not only on this Bill but on other Bills with which we have to deal the Government will be asking the Chamber to move with a degree of expedition. It is right that Parliament in that position should do so. Equally, it follows that if one is seeking expedition, one needs to take into account that matters may not be as fully scrutinised as perhaps they otherwise would be with more leisurely proceedings.
I make only one suggestion with regard to Amendment No. 1 and I do not know whether the noble Baroness on the Front Bench will agree. I suggest the removal of the word, "comprehensive". It may be thought that that suggestion would abnormally delay the proceedings. But the Chamber is surely not asking too much by saying that the Government should produce a report to the two Houses of Parliament prior to making the orders which implement the legislation that we are approving in broad principle and design. As we know in this Chamber, an order is not subject to any form of amendment; it must be taken as a whole or rejected, and in most cases it is not rejected. I would not have thought that that was asking too much of the Government in the present situation.
Baroness Young: The noble Lord is perhaps being less than fair to my noble friend the Minister who is responding to the debate. When my noble friend rose to speak earlier she answered quite specifically the points raised, and I believe did so fairly.
Most people taking part in the debate have had some experience with education, some of us regrettably perhaps longer ago than we might have wished. Nevertheless, it is a subject which we regard as important and we try to follow events as they unfold. It is important that the underlying case for the Bill, which in a sense is complementary to the education Act in 1988, should be understood.
Nobody is abolishing the inspectorate. The chief inspectors will remain; a number of other inspectors will remain and a number of other people will have to be registered. We are not asking just any old person who cares to put up his or her hand and to say, "I should like to be a school inspector", to come along and do so. They will need to be chosen and selected carefully and trained properly. Having been trained, they will go into schools. Schools now have to publish their aims—which is a good thing—so that inspectors can see how far what they are doing correlates with what they intended to do. That is a valuable practice.
I too have been approached by heads of schools and former HMIs who believe that some kind of outside inspection, with a proper amount of educational input, will be invaluable for schools in the future and helpful to schools, governors, parents, employers and others.
Baroness Blackstone: We have come to expect a robust response from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to amendments in Committee. She was extremely robust in her response just now. But I must say that she both misrepresented the position of the Labour Party and misled the Committee on one or two other points. I am sure that she will forgive me if I draw them to her attention.

25
However, before doing so I should like to refer to what my noble friend Lord Shepherd said. He is absolutely right. These amendments are perfectly appropriate for the first day of Committee on a major Bill. There is no sense in which this debate has anything to do with having another Second Reading of the Bill. The point is that the Government have undertaken a secret review of inspecting schools; a report has been prepared; it has been extensively leaked in a newspaper, and yet we are not allowed to see it before the Bill is enacted.
The amendments suggest that that review on this important matter, comprehensive or not—or indeed another review if the Government prefer if they are ashamed of what the first review says in some way—should be laid before Parliament. As the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, said, it is far better on an issue of such importance to get things right than to rush into things without there being adequate consideration and public discussion.
I want to assert yet again that I have no wish to temporise. That is the last thing that is appropriate when making policy. If we want to improve our systems of schooling in this country—and we all agree that we do—we must get on and do it. But we must do it in a way that is sensible and try to build some consensus about what is sensible. I regret to say that there is no consensus on the Bill. If we had a chance to see the review we would perhaps see the arguments made by those advising Ministers.
In no way do I or any of my colleagues on these Benches object to confidential advice being give to Ministers. Of course that must be possible. But after such advice has been given and when Ministers have decided what they wish to do, it is normal on a major issue of this sort, on something which is not in any way subject to national security, to consult those who will be most directly affected. That has not happened in this case.
The noble Baroness said that LEAs were consulted in a letter sent out in October. She said also that the National Association of Governors and Managers was consulted in the same letter. I have seen a copy of that letter. It is addressed to LEAs. The National Association of Governors and Managers is not listed among those to whom it was addressed. Moreover, the National Association of Governors and Managers assured me not once but on several occasions that it was not consulted. Will the Minister confirm that, although there was some consultation as regards the Parent's Charter, this Bill was published before that consultation period came to an end? If that is the case we cannot say that there was even genuine consultation on the Parent's Charter aspect of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: The issue concerning the Parent's Charter was that there should be a systematic and regular method of inspection. There is a Bill before Parliament and it was certainly in print.
Baroness Blackstone: Had it been published?
4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I did say that the Bill was in print. We must not become pedantic about words. I said that the Bill was in print, which means that it was available. It has been considered in another place with no time limit. The Bill was not guillotined until the very last night and even then twice the amount of time that had previously been agreed had been allotted. Every opportunity was given in the other place. We believe that there has been enough analysis both in the public domain and as advice to my right honourable friend. We believe that this is a measure which has wide support and this is our opportunity. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness that it is right that we should be discussing the amendment on the Marshalled List. However, we believe that we should not time-waste with any more reviews. Enough is known to show that there is a need for regular and consistent inspection of all our schools and not just of some of them. For that reason we intend to press ahead with this provision.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for confirming that this Bill was published before the consultation period on the Parent's Charter had even been completed. That is a disgraceful way of operating in government.
I wish to return to one or two of the other issues which have been raised. The noble Baroness claimed that the Labour Party would be perfectly happy to introduce legislation of this kind without first publishing a review. She then made reference to our proposals for an education standards council, suggesting that we have said in that document that we shall do this and that. Perhaps I may remind the Minister that we have consulted extensively on that document. We have given an opportunity for local authorities, educational experts, inspectors, local authorities, parents, governors and managers to comment on those proposals, unlike the proposals contained in this Bill.
The proposals in that document will be in our manifesto. When the country goes to the polls the public will be able to judge whether it believes that the proposals are desirable or not. There were no proposals in the 1987 manifesto of this Government as regards the kind of things that this Bill intends to do. There was not a single mention or a signal. Perhaps I may take up something which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said. She suggested that this Bill is complementary to the 1988 Act. In the many days of debate that we had during its passage through this House of the Education Reform Bill 1988 I do not remember any suggestion that we were going dramatically to change the system of inspecting our schools along the lines proposed in this Bill.
The Minister has also said that the audit review criticised some aspects of local authority inspection. It did and we accepted those criticisms, which is why we believe that there is a need for change. However, there is nothing in the audit review suggesting the ludicrous proposals which are in the Bill before us. To suggest that that justifies not consulting or undertaking any kind of preliminary review which is then made public is untenable. I read in today's Guardian that the Prime

27
Minister has come round to believing in freedom of information. I do not know whether that is a rumour or whether he really has performed a complete volte-face. If he has, and he is intending to introduce freedom of information, perhaps the first thing he might consider is publishing the review upon which we are told these proposals are based.
Perhaps I may say a brief word to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. He is someone with enormous experience of education. Perhaps I may quote to him something he said in 1959. He said:
"My Department has the unique advantage of the countrywide experience of Her Majesty's Inspectors. Nowhere in the Kingdom is there such a rich source of information or such a constant exchange of ideas on all that goes on in our schools".
Does the noble Viscount deny that he said that in 1959? I was also interested in that he conceded something which no one else on the Government Front Bench has conceded; namely, that it will take a very long time under this system to get 6,000 inspections taking place in our schools. The Government are claiming that we shall have 6,000 inspections straight away. However, I must agree with the noble Viscount on this matter: it will be very difficult to implement the proposals that we have before us. We shall see many schools not getting an inspection every four years. I had not intended to divide the Committee on this pair of amendments, but, having heard some of the things which have been said and the completely inadequate reply given by the noble Baroness, I have no option but to divide the Committee.
Baroness Blatch: I shall not do anything to detract from the noble Baroness pressing for the opinion of the Committee, but perhaps I may put two matters to her. This Government's record for putting information to parents, governors and teachers is unequalled by any other previous government. I should like to pose a question to the noble Baroness. She said that we know all the details of the proposals which will be alternative to those which we have before the Committee. Will the equivalent of the chief inspector be accountable to the Secretary of State for what is going on in our schools or will the quango which will be equivalent to the chief inspector be accountable? Will it be the quango which gives information and which will be the adviser and the information channel to the Secretary of State? Alternatively, will it be the equivalent of the HMI? Whatever the answer, it will be a very interesting one for the purposes of working out the status of HMI and its independence or the status of the quango and its opportunity to put a subjective judgment on the information coming from the HMI.
Baroness Blackstone: I can give a very simple reply. The inspectorate will be fully independent under the proposals that the Labour Party is putting forward and which will be put before the electorate.
Lord Glenamara: The House will have an opportunity to debate our proposals during the next
28
few months when our Bill comes up for Second Reading and when a Bill comes forward which will repeal the Bill now under discussion.
4.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 127.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jeger, B.

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Annan, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kennet, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Kissin, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beloff, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNair, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bottomley, L.

Molloy, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Crook, L.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Desai, L.

Phillips, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donoughue, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Ennals, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L. [Teller.]

Ezra, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkender, B.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Ross of Newport, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Fitt, L.

Seear, B.

Foot, L.

Serota, B.

Galpern, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Shannon, E.

Glenamara, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Stallard, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Stedman, B.

Hampden, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hamwee, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hanworth, V.

Thurlow, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hayter, L.

Underhill, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Warnock, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Wharton, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Alport, L.

Butterworth, L.

Astor, V.

Caithness, E.

Auckland, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Balfour, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Barber, L.

Carnock, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Bellwin, L.

Cockfield, L.

Bessborough, E.

Crathorne, L.

Birdwood, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Blatch, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Blyth, L.

De Freyne, L.

Borthwick, L.

Denham, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Eccles, V.

29

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elles, B.

Moyne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Munster, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Nelson, E.

Elton, L.

Northbourne, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Onslow, E.

Faithfull, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Ferrers, E.

Palmer, L.

Fortescue, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gainford, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pender, L.

Geddes, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Gisborough, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Goschen, V.

Prentice, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Quinton, L.

Gridley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Rennell, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Richardson, L.

Havers, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

HolmPatrick, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hood, V.

Savile, L.

Hooper, B.

Seccombe, B.

Howe, E.

Selkirk, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Skidelsky of Tilton, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Slim, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Strange, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Joseph, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Killearn, L.

Kimball, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller]

Knollys, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Sudeley, L.

Long, V.

Terrington, L.

Lyell, L.

Teviot, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trumpington, B.

Mancroft, L.

Ullswater, V.

Marlesford, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Marsh, L.

Waddington, L.

Merrivale, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Mersey, V.

Windlesham, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wise, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Wolfson, L.

Morris, L.

Young, B.

Mountevans, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 6, after ("the") insert ("independent").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 7, 48 and 73. Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors, both for England and Wales, must be independent. I believe that the Government accept that and that they are anxious to secure that independence. If that is so, the Government will have little difficulty in accepting Amendments Nos. 2 and 48. Amendments Nos. 7 and 73 raise the major issue of directions by the Secretary of State.
Clause 2(5) requires the chief inspectors to,
"have regard to such aspects of government policy as the Secretary of State may direct".
Such a direction, regrettably, could prevent Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors from providing the Government with independent advice. It is therefore in conflict with the Government's apparent wish to
30
promote the inspectorate's independence. The inclusion of reference to government policy is, as I said at Second Reading, unprecedented in legislation in this country for the very good reason that government policy is not a legal concept and therefore sits uncomfortably in a proposed Act of Parliament. We are back on the same territory that we debated in the Further and Higher Education Bill, where the Government were trying to give the Secretary of State powers to direct the universities. In this Bill, they are at it again, playing the same game, now trying to give the Secretary of State powers which could constrain the chief inspectors.
Let me elaborate a little further, starting with Amendment No. 2 and the identical amendment applied to Wales, Amendment No. 7. The preservation of the inspectorate's independence is vital. The inspectorate must be perceived as independent by the teaching profession, by parents and by the public at large if it is to maintain its credibility. By putting the word "independent" on to the face of the Bill, there will be clearly established, in statutes, the independence of Her Majesty's Inspectorate. It would help to make it clear that the Government have no intention of being partisan, and it would reinforce the commitments the Government have already made about the chief inspectors' independence. The Minister will no doubt repeat that this afternoon when he replies.
Amendments Nos. 48 and 75 delete Clause 2(5), which gives the Secretary of State power to direct Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors to have regard to such aspects of government policy that the Secretary of State may choose to emphasise. Everyone will be aware that there has been a great deal of anxiety about Clause 2(5) among outside commentators, among existing and retired inspectors and among Government Back-Benchers in another place. I am sure that many Members of this House will share those anxieties. If the clause is left in the Bill, the chief inspectors will have nothing like the independence which the Government claim they will have. That means that if they start exercising their independence in a way that the Government dislike, the Secretary of State can start directing them by reference to government policy, which is a vague concept which can be construed in any way that some future Secretary of State might determine. An irresponsible Secretary of State—and I am in no way suggesting that the present Secretary of State is irresponsible—following some whim or other, could quite easily claim that a whim is government policy because he had decided that it should be government policy. After all, Secretaries of State are policy makers.
When the Minister comes to reply, I hope that she will not defend the inclusion of this dangerous and unnecessary clause by saying that it is simply a matter of directing Her Majesty's chief inspectors' attention to specific government policies, as was said by the Minister of State in Committee in another place. Surely anyone appointed to these important posts would be well aware of government policy. They would have access to a huge amount of information about what constituted government policy. They

31
could read government reports and they could read Ministers' speeches in draft as well as after they were made. They would have access to Hansard and newspapers and they would be in regular touch with senior officials as well as with Ministers themselves. Unless the Government wish to exert unacceptable control over the chief inspectors, thereby jeopardising their independence, the subsection is otiose.
Nor will Members of the Committee be reassured that the power would rarely be used and that it is merely a failsafe power of last resort, as we heard when similar attempts were made in the Further and Higher Education Bill to give the Secretary of State powers of direction. If the Government really want independent inspectors they will drop Clause 2(5) and accept the other amendments in this group. If the Secretary of State wishes to be accountable for the work of Her Majesty's Inspectorate, that should clearly be written into the Bill by making the appropriate powers over the work of the inspectorate through statutory instruments that can be debated in Parliament. As it stands, this power allows backdoor and covert manipulation of Her Majesty's Inspectorate. I beg to move.
Lord Beloff: After the rather long debate on the first amendment perhaps we can have a very abbreviated debate on this one because it seems to me that it simply echoes what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said in reply to various interventions during the first debate. She claimed then that we had to rely for the new system on the independence of the new chief inspectors. Whenever we asked how those people were to be appointed and trained and what would be their qualifications we were told to trust the independent chief inspectors. I cannot believe that a few minutes after saying that the Minister will repudiate her own words and not accept the amendment.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: We still do not like Clause 2(5). In particular, we do not like the words,
"such aspects of government policy as the Secretary of State may direct".
HMI has traditionally had regard to government policy. I know that on occasions the frankness of its reports has been an embarrassment to the Government. For example, HMI has criticised the dilapidated state of our schools over the past few years, the shortage of books and equipment and the fact that sections of society in certain parts of the country have fallen far short of the achievement they should have reached. That is really a social problem. On the other hand, the HMI review of July 1991 said that the inspectorate had contributed significantly on policy matters, that it had advised on 80 applications for schools to opt out, that it was largely responsible for the revision of the maths and science syllabuses for the national curriculum and that it had advised on truancy. In other words, it has supported government policy in numerous ways as well as being critical of it.
I support the inclusion of the word "independent" and I think that the clause has an unfortunate resonance, particularly with the words,
"such aspects of government policy as the Secretary of State may direct".
32
I support the amendment.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: We are all agreed that the independence of the inspectorate and the independence of Her Majesty's chief inspectors are matters of paramount importance, but I think we are also agreed that the ability of the inspectorate to influence policy and to ensure that policy is based on real evidence of what is happening in schools and colleges is of equal importance. One of the unique features of the British education system has been the input of HMI practical experience and knowledge of what is happening on the ground into the making of government policy. It seems to me that the two subsections (5) which the amendments address simply ensure that that can continue.
As the Committee will know, I had intimate experience of the inspectorate from the 1970s until the mid-1980s. Under the various governments who had control during that period it was always the custom of the Secretary of State to make clear to the inspectorate the particular concerns in his or her mind at that time to ensure that the balance of inspection reflected those concerns and that that important direct practical evidence of what was going on was fed back into policy. I suggest that the careful wording of the subsections (5) in the two clauses makes it clear that that practice is intended to continue in a proper way and that the advice of the inspectorate and the work that it does will still be directed towards aspects of government policy. It would be extremely unfortunate if that were to be lost. I therefore wholeheartedly support the way the clauses are written and I wish to reject the amendment.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Nevertheless, it could be used as a muzzle. If all that has been said is so, I do not see why it should be in the Bill at all. It could be used as a muzzle. If the Secretary of State decided to direct that the chief inspector should have regard, for example, to the Government's financial policies, the inspector would see himself barred from giving an educational judgment that the restriction on, say, capital spending was producing an unfortunate balance in that dilapidated classrooms were affecting the quality of teaching and staff morale. That is perfectly possible. It is a dangerous clause and I see no reason for it to be in the Bill
Lord Elton: I think that the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, would be much more alarmed if the Secretary of State could tell the chief inspector to disregard certain things. Having to have regard is a perfectly proper consideration. I ask Members of the Committee opposite to put themselves in the position—the unlikely position—of a Secretary of State for Education in a future Labour Government. That government might have a distinct policy on equal opportunities in terms of black/white relations but the Secretary of State would not be in a position to direct the inspectorate to have regard to that policy in carrying out its inspections.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Amendment No. 2 would set a rather curious precedent for legislation. Your Lordships' House deals with many measures under

33
which appointments are made. One does not normally spell out separately that those appointed are the "independent" so and so. There is, so far as I can recall, no use of the word "independent" when a judge is appointed. It is assumed that he is independent. Therefore if one puts into the Bill the word "independent" all kinds of questions on other legislation could be raised. It is therefore not only unnecessary but dangerous.
Lord Peston: I wish to make one or two comments on this matter. When the Minister replied to the Second Reading debate she said at least one thing which I did not know. I was most indebted to her for that. She said that the independence of Her Majesty's Inspectorate had no legal foundation. I am quoting from memory, but she said that the present HMI position had precedent but no legal foundation. She said that it was by custom and that it had evolved since 1839. I did not know that. I then read the definitive article on the subject. It is entitled Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools, 1839–1989: the Question of Independence and appears in the Journal of Educational Administration and History. It is written by Messrs Goodings and Dunford and I take it that it is the locus classicus on this subject. It is certainly an extraordinarily interesting article and makes that point and a number of others.
The inspectorate appears to be independent by custom. When we say that it does not have a legal foundation that does not mean that the inspectorate is not independent; on the contrary. I entirely accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. So far as I know—and I am not an expert on such matters—there are no statements in law which say that Her Majesty's judges must be independent; it is taken for granted. I do not know that for a fact, but I am willing to accept that what the noble Lord said is right.
On the other hand, I should be a little taken aback if I were to read a statement in any document which dealt with the way that judges deal with the law and which said that, in exercising their functions, the judges of this country,
"shall have regard to such aspects of government policy as the Secretary of State may direct".
That would be as appalling an interference with our legal system as anything that anyone could dream up. The whole point about the issue is not to say that the inspectors should not "have regard" to such matters—indeed, I would regard that as monstrous with respect to this or any other government—the objection is that it is set out in the Bill, precisely in the sense indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in the point that he made. One is not saying that they should take no regard of policy; in fact, I would regard it as ridiculous if they did not do so. But I would go further, and probably further than the Minister: I do not believe that the inspectorate should contradict in public the stated policy of the Government.
However, there is a fine line in this connection that is referred to in the article which I mentioned between expressing warnings—such as, "Do you know where you are heading? Is it where you want to go?" I regard that as being the role of the inspector. The Secretary
34
of State can then say, "Yes, I do want to do something stupid, if you push me." There is a distinction between uttering warnings and contradicting the Government. I do not think that should happen. With respect to independence, I believe that we can go one of two ways. It is the point of the amendment; and I am surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, does not agree with it. We can accept the argument of my noble friend and actually write the word "independent" into the Bill. I think that that, in many ways, would be the sensible way forward. Alternatively, although Amendments Nos. 48 and 73 have not been tabled as alternatives, we can delete this rather dreadful subsection (5) on Page 2 of the Bill.
In a way, if subsection (5) was not in the Bill I would be less worried—as indeed would my noble friend—with the appearance of the word "independent" in the legislation. We would then have the custom as we have it now. Perhaps I may put the argument simply to the noble Baroness. The Government should not be surprised at the anxiety as regards a subsection like subsection (5). There has been no suggestion that Ministers—I can see at least two former education secretaries in the Chamber, one of whom I was very close to at one time—have worried about that particular matter in the past; indeed, that has not been what has worried them. That is why I, and almost all the professionals, feel rather strongly about subsection (5). It causes one to smell a rat. What is it about?
It is possible that the noble Baroness will become shirty with me and say that it is yet another of my rhetorical questions. But what is it that has bothered the Secretary of State that requires him to put that requirement in the legislation? I cannot think of anything. I have had a little experience in such matters. Therefore, in a sense, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has made my speech for me. With respect to independence, I am happy for the status quo to remain. But, in that case, I do want subsection (5) to remain in the Bill.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: The intervention of the noble Baroness has made me even more worried about inserting the word "independent" in the Bill. It shocked me to know that inspectors went into the schools or colleges and carried out their tasks, with reference to what governments had told them to do. Surely they went to look at the standard of education; that is, the whole standard of the college or school which they visited. I find that fact totally surprising and shocking. Whatever government is in power, it is the duty of the inspector to look at a totally different set of facts.
I have a question for certain Members of the Committee opposite, two of whom are missing. Where is the rule about not taking part in Committee stage? If you make a slightly longer speech—I have never made a long speech at any time since I have been a Member of this Chamber—why are you then accused of making a Second Reading speech? If the Committee stage was conducted upstairs, we would argue across the table; that is what committees are

35
about. Why should we let all this legislation go through just to suit the Government? We are looking seriously at the issues involved.
It was not my intention to intervene until I heard the speech of the noble Baroness. I find it very disturbing that HMIs visited different schools and colleges, in some of which I have taught, guided by government principles. That is why we have the marvellous phrase in the Bill as to whether or not the finances are being properly spent. What does that mean? Will the HMIs inspect the lavatories and then say there should be more outside lavatories because they are cheaper than inside lavatories? Surely the duty of the inspector is to be independent.
Many members of my family have been distinguished members of the Civil Service. The one thing that they have always been proud of is their independence; indeed, they never even revealed their political beliefs to anyone. That is what an inspector should be. He should be totally independent of the government who appointed him. That is what the Bill appears to contravene.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: In her reply, I wonder whether the Minister can give an assurance on the matter. I, too, have some anxiety. It does not concern the first amendment, which seeks to insert the word "independent" in the Bill; it concerns Clause 2(5). As presently drafted, the subsection refers to the Chief Inspector for England "exercising his functions". That presumably means all the functions of the Chief Inspector for England and would, I suppose, also mean that when giving guidance to inspectors he will, for example, be able to particularise certain "aspects of Government policy". That causes some of us to be anxious. All the way through our concern has been to preserve what the present HMI has achieved; namely, the fearless independence which we greatly admire and respect and which was one of the bulwarks—to put it dangerously in this company—against the professionalism of the educators. I fear that people will refer back to me on that remark. But we need protection in some measure against those educationists.
I do not believe that the subsection is necessary. I say that because if the Secretary of State wishes to draw attention to Government policy, he will do so whether or not the subsection is included in the Bill. It causes us anxiety that the inspectorate will not be as independent as the noble Baroness assured us it would be when she replied to the last debate. Therefore, I shall be most grateful if she will clarify what the clause means and why it is necessary.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may deal first with the question just put by the right reverend Prelate. At the end of the debate, it will be interesting to measure the degree of independence which we believe in on this side of the Chamber. If one looks at the amendments on the Marshalled List, one can see just how much Members of the Committee opposite believe in independence. Many amendments tabled today are wholly in conflict and wholly inconsistent with the amendment now before the Committee which asks for
36
the word "independent" to be put on the face of the Bill. I say that because following amendments would fetter that independence.
I can give Members of the Committee the absolute assurance that what we are talking about here is setting up Her Majesty's Chief Inspector who will have the power to introduce without parliamentary interference—and there is a later amendment which seeks to impose parliamentary interference—a registration scheme determining the qualifications required for someone to be registered as a competent inspector to inspect schools. We shall have a chief inspector who will have the power to determine the criteria against which schools will be inspected and we shall have a chief inspector who will inform the Secretary of State on HMI's findings as regards what is found in schools which, again, will be measured against the criteria determined by the inspectorate. In addition, the chief inspector will be empowered to provide unsolicited information to the Secretary of State. That could take on board the anxieties expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, and the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
One of the things that chief inspectors will be free to do, for example, is to take account of the state of buildings, or the lack of resources, if that is what they believe is what is having a material impact on the delivery of education in our schools. If it is material evidence, they will not have to be asked for it; they will be free to give it. The information will be in the public domain. I do not think that I can spell out the word "independence" in the way that we mean independence. So long as what chief inspectors are doing is within the remit that is on the face of the Bill, they will be able to continue.
My noble friend Lord Elton hit the spot when he defended the wording in Clause 2(5). From time to time any Secretary of State of any party may wish to know how a particular policy is impacting on the schools. It may be science in the curriculum, race relations in our schools—or anything. A Secretary of State must be free to say, "In doing your job as set out in the legislation, and with all your independence, have regard to particular aspects of policy as that impacts on education". I believe that that is what Members of the Committee opposite would do.
I agree with my noble friend—I believe that it was my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter—who said that there would be more worry about a Secretary of State listing matters to which the inspectors must not have regard, as opposed to that to which they must have regard.
I understand that Amendments Nos. 2 and 7 are largely paving amendments to Amendments Nos. 48 and 73. However, I should perhaps explain that a statutory office is by nature independent in the general sense, but independence is guaranteed not by the use of the word but by the detailed provisions on the face of the Bill. Noble Lords will see that my right honourable friends have been careful in establishing the powers and duties of the chief inspectors in Clauses 2 and 4 of the Bill to strike an appropriate balance to ensure the chief inspectors have the

37
necessary independence for the exercise of their functions while having proper regard to the overall context in which they must work.
Turning now to Amendments Nos. 48 and 73, I believe that these amendments are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what Clause 2(5) and Clause 6(5) are intended to achieve —and, indeed, do achieve in law. I have heard concern on all sides about this, so I will explain as fully as possible.
The power of direction of HMCI in these clauses is not an unlimited one: it is in fact extremely limited. It merely allows the Secretary of State to draw to the attention of HMCI aspects of government policy which are relevant to HMCI's functions, and ensures that HMCI takes these into account in exercising his functions. The clauses do not allow the Secretary of State to tell HMCI what he can or cannot do, nor do they restrict what he may or may not say. I believe that that was the understanding of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who said that the Secretary of State can tell HMCI what to do. He does not have that power under the Bill, and nor do we have any desire to give him that power. But if the Secretary of State has asked HMCI for advice on a particular matter, it would surely be sensible for him also to draw HMCI's attention to any relevant government policy and to ask him to take it into account, so that the advice tendered is as useful as possible.
There is absolutely no intention here to circumscribe HMCI's independence. Indeed, the clause is a reflection of the greater independence being given to HMCI. It establishes a new relationship between HMI and the Secretary of State.
At present, HMI are all servants of the Secretary of State—he has unlimited power to direct them in any way he wishes. But as the Committee well knows, successive Secretaries of State have made it their policy to allow considerable freedom and independence to HMI—a point that was revisited by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. It is quite absurd to suggest that we would couple our decision to give this freedom a statutory basis with a power of direction which could be used to tie HMI's hands.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, sought on Second Reading to suggest that either the duty to "have regard" meant nothing —in which case we could do without this subsection—or it meant that HMI were effectively under the Secretary of State's control. That was a very misleading parody of the truth. The true position is at neither of those imaginary extremes. "Having regard" to a matter or policy is a well-recognised legal concept. It will require the HMCI to consider the policy drawn to his attention and act in knowledge of its existence. He cannot simply ignore the policy out of hand—he must give it due consideration. But having had such "regard" to the policy he can act or speak exactly as he sees fit—his freedom is not curtailed in any way.
There are many precedents for the power to make directions in statute. We could easily have included an unrestricted power to direct HMCI, but chose not to do so. We could have used the formulations used for public watchdogs such as the Director General of Fair Trading giving the Secretary of State a power to direct
38
the considerations to which the director should have particular regard in setting his priorities or exercising his functions. We chose not to do so. The power we did choose is probably the most limited possible, consistent with establishing an appropriate relationship between HMI and the Secretary of State with his wider policy responsibilities.
I do not believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, answered my question about who was responsible for informing the Secretary of State. A reading of Raising the Standard shows beyond doubt that Her Majesty's Inspectorate's independence would be wholly compromised by that document. The noble Baroness asserts that the Labour Party's proposals would protect the independence of HMI, but let us take a look at those proposals. They state:
"we believe that those in HMI responsible for monitoring and inspection should come under the aegis of an ESC"—
that is, an Education Standards Commission. However, what does "under the aegis" mean? It looks obscure and it is meant to be. Does it mean that HMI will be in hock to the new statutory body, which is to be based on a quango, or that it is to be wholly independent? If it is to be independent, offering advice to the Secretary of State as it sees fit, what is the point of the quango?
The answer is given away in paragraph 34 of that document which, we are told, is to be translated into the Labour Party manifesto. It states that professional advice to Ministers will come either:
"from that group of HMI who would work, pro tem, as professional advisers within the DES;"—
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will allow me to intervene?
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I could just finish this point. It continues:
"in part by having access to advice direct from the ESC and its officials."
Ministers are not to get advice from HMI—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, has again risen to his feet, but perhaps he will let me finish this point. According to the document, Ministers are not to get advice from HMI on monitoring or inspections; it will come from a quango appointed by Ministers and their officials. Who are these officials? What will they know? How should they be interposed between Ministers and Her Majesty's Inspectorate?
4.45 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: Perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may be allowed the courtesy of finishing the point and then the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, can comment on my whole point.
The amendment raises a fundamental debate about independence. We have set up a wholly acceptable system, with Her Majesty's Chief Inspector being given real independence. Later today we shall come to amendments that will fetter that real independence of HMCI. I have just read out a legitimate alternative to the system that we have established. My point in raising that was to state that we believe not only in the independence of the inspector, but that we have

39
introduced a Bill to guarantee that. That is where I rest my case. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, to comment on it.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I am bound to say that I listened to the latter part of the Minister's speech with absolute amazement. What on earth did it have to do with the amendment? I gather that there has been some reproach about Second Reading speeches being made. The Government wish to proceed with the Bill with due speed, but we have just heard not merely an abuse of Second Reading procedures, but an abuse of any procedures—and I say that advisedly to the Minister. It is astonishing that she should use a narrow but important amendment to discuss something that is apparently in the Opposition's election manifesto. If I may say so with great respect, that is not the purpose or the function of Committee stage or of an amendment that is directed to the specific point of whether the chief inspector should be directed in some way or other —and it is not precise—by the Secretary of State. That is the point.
It is the Minister's duty either to defend or to attack what is in the amendment—not to go into other questions. I am sorry to have to say this to the Minister, but it appears that the Government would like to devise one rule for themselves on such matters, and another for the Opposition. The Minister will not make progress with the Bill if she starts doing such things at such an early stage in Committee.
Baroness Blatch: When we saw the amendments on the Marshalled List, it became obvious that we would not make fast progress. However, perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, that everything that I have said in response to the amendment is entirely relevant to the issue of the independence of Her Majesty's Inspectorate—
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: Not to the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I repeat, to the amendment.
The case for independence is well made in the Bill, but the case for independence that has been made by Members of the Committee opposite in the amendment is not only wholly inconsistent with the amendments that we shall consider later, but also with what Members of the Committee opposite have put into the public arena as their alternative to HMCI.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: As somebody not in any way concerned with Labour Party policy on this as I belong to a different party, I should like to support my late leader. In a long period in this House I do not think I have ever heard such a long disquisition which was entirely irrelevant to the debate.
Baroness Blackstone: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff for what he said, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, too. I too was rather shocked by the way the Minister used the response to a specific amendment to attack the policies of the Labour Party in a related area but bearing no relation whatsoever to the specific amendment. When we are in government and in fact
40
bringing a Bill to this House that will allow us to take our proposals further and to legislate, we shall be happy to answer questions on those proposals but not on an amendment to this Bill.
I come back now to the amendment. As my noble friend Lord Peston has said, any chief inspector should take account of government policy on equal opportunities, as was raised earlier, or indeed on any other matter. But it is unreal to imagine that an extremely senior educationist and official of the Government, even though independent, would ignore government policies. What we on this side of the Committee, and I think a number of other noble Lords around the Committee, cannot understand is why there is a need for this new clause. As the right reverend Prelate said, it is the particularising of certain aspects of government policy that causes concern.
Why are we departing from the status quo in this respect? I do not believe that the Minister has answered that question. She spent some time suggesting that later amendments would fetter the independence of the inspectorate. When we get to later amendments we shall tell her why she is completely wrong on that. Again it does not seem to me entirely appropriate to talk in a general way about later amendments rather than answering the issues that relate to the particular amendment.
However, I was grateful to the noble Baroness for clarifying the matter of unsolicited information and saying that this can be provided. I accept that, and I think that it is highly desirable. But why I am still concerned by what the noble Baroness said is that this clause does not simply ask chief inspectors to consider. It gives the Secretary of State powers of direction. The noble Baroness told us a bit about what the clause intends, but again we must be concerned in this Committee not with just what the clause intends but with what it says.
It may not be the intention of this Secretary of State, or indeed of other Secretaries of State, to tie the hands of the chief inspectors, but the problem is that this clause could allow them to do so. We have heard from the Minister that there is no intention to circumscribe. If there is no intention, why is this clause needed? I regret to say that we have not had a satisfactory reply to the concerns expressed from all around the Committee on this clause, and therefore I must divide the Committee.
4.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 97; Not-Contents, 130.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Addington, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Airedale, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Bottomley, L.

Ardwick, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Aylestone, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Beloff, L.

Crook, L.

Birk, B.

David, B.

41

Dean of Beswick, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Desai, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Molloy, L.

Ennals, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Ezra, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Falkender, B.

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V.

Ogmore, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Palmer, L.

Foot, L.

Peston, L.

Galpern, L.

Phillips, B.

Glenamara, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Richard, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Richardson, L.

Grey, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Robson of Kiddington, B

Hampden, V.

Rochester, L.

Hampton, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Hamwee, B.

Russell, E.

Hanworth, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Seear, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Serota, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Shackleton, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hughes, L.

Stedman, B.

Jay, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L

Jeger, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Underhill, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Lichfield, Bp.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Listowel, E.

Warnock, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wharton, B.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

White, B.

McNair, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Alport, L.

Elton, L.

Annan, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Arran, E.

Ferrers, E.

Astor, V.

Gainford, L.

Auckland, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Balfour, E.

Geddes, L.

Barber, L.

Gisborough, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Goschen, V.

Bellwin, L.

Gridley, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Birdwood, L.

Blatch, B.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Blyth, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Boardman, L.

Henley, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hertford, M.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Brightman, L.

Hood, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Hooper, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Howe, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Butterworth, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Caithness, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Carnock, L.

Joseph, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Killearn, L.

Cockfield, L.

Kimball, L.

Coleraine, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Long, V.

Denham, L.

Lyell, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Eccles, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

42

Mancroft, L.

Rennell, L.

Margadale, L.

Renton, L.

Marlesford, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Marsh, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mersey, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, LY.

Monk Bretton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Savile, L.

Morris, L.

Seccombe, B.

Mottistone, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Moyne, L.

Skidelsky of Tilton, L.

Munster, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Nelson, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Newall, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Northbourne, L.

Onslow, E.

Sudeley, L.

Orkney, E.

Teviot, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Pender, L.

Trumpington, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Ullswater, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Waddington, L.

Prentice, L.

Windlesham, L.

Quinton, L.

Wise, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wolfson, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.2 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("Schools") and insert ("Education").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 22, 47, 52 and 72. The amendment deletes the word "schools" and inserts "education" in its place in Clauses 1 and 5. The subsection would then read:
"Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint a person to the office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education in England",
and Clause 5 relates to Wales.
The reason for the amendments is that the Secretary of State should be advised about the whole of the education service, including the quality assessment committees for further and higher education proposed in the Further and Higher Education Bill, the youth service and adult education, by one body. The most appropriate body is HMI.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 52 would change in Clause 2(1):
"the quality of the education provided by schools in England",
to:
"the quality of the education provided by all forms of educational provision".
The amendments would not just restate Section 77(1) of the Education Act 1944, they would widen its scope by referring to provision rather than establishments. The former term would embrace units and centres, educational outreach and other informal education. The Bill, as presently drafted, would narrow the focus of HMI and insert more breaks into the educational continuum.
Concepts of quality in education are likely to be universal, although there will be differences of assessment and response related to the various levels of education. HMCI would be the most appropriate custodian of the principles of rigorous, dispassionate and consistent inspection. HMI's report would

43
continue to inform and disseminate good practice around every type of public educational activity. The breadth of focus would counteract the natural tendency to narrowness and introspection of many schools. Many divisions in education have been opened up, including the split between LEA-maintained and grant-maintained schools, and the removal of polytechnics from LEAs. Although the Further and Higher Education Bill would bring the universities and polytechnics together, there will remain a division—a new binary line has been referred to—between them and the rest of the higher education qualities. Yet the Secretary of State still has the apparent unitary duty to promote the education of the people (Section 1 of the 1944 Act). Continuing the concept of an HM Inspectorate across all education would greatly assist the unified discharge of that duty.
The Further and Higher Education Bill, as the Committee will doubtless remember, was amended on Report by the insertion of a new clause to give Her Majesty's Chief Inspector the same powers of inspection in relation to education institutions, other than schools, maintained or assisted by LEAs, as the present Bill gives in relation to schools. It would also give in respect of such institutions the general duty set out in the provisions of the present Bill to keep the Secretary of State informed about the quality of education provided, educational standards achieved, and whether the financial resources made available to those institutions were managed efficiently.
It would be logical in the present Bill, therefore, to give HMCI a duty to cover the whole of education. The separation of a school's inspectorate from the inspection of the rest of the education system weakens HMI as a whole. Acceptance of the amendments would avoid that weakness and strengthen the inspectorate's position. The amendments are reasonable. I hope that the Committee is ready to accept them. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments No. 22 and 52. It is well known that the Opposition have a policy that they would like to see a unified national single body for the assessment of quality in education. That is a legitimate objective. However, it is to be doubted whether it is a legitimate objective within the framework of a Bill entitled the Education (Schools) Bill. There have been no amendments to change the title or the initial provision:
"An Act to make provision with respect to the inspection of schools",
and so forth. To modify Clause 2(1) (a) to provide:
"The Chief Inspector for England shall have the general duty of keeping the Secretary of State informed about the quality of the education provided in all forms of educational provision",
is going a long way.
To give the chief inspector the duty to inform the Secretary of State about the quality of provision in universities or further education institutions through amendment of a clause in the Education (Schools) Bill is a backward and inappropriate way of proceeding. I am sure that we appreciate that that is the Opposition's general wish and intention, and if they
44
are elected into government in the near future—I make no comment about the likelihood of that eventuality—they will be able to take an early opportunity to introduce a Bill setting up their unified quality assessment quango. That would be an appropriate procedure, but to suggest in this Bill that by amendment we could make the Chief Inspector for England responsible for keeping an eye on universities and further education institutions would be a strange provision.
Baroness David: I did not mention universities.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: With due respect, we are talking about the quality of education for all forms of educational provision. I would claim that the universities are one part of this nation's educational provision. That is the reason I oppose the amendment.
Baroness David: I apologise to the Committee. I forgot to mention the other two amendments which have been linked. Amendments Nos. 47 and 72 were not grouped over the weekend, but they have been grouped today. I mentioned them at the outset but then forgot to speak to them. It might be sensible if I spoke to them before the Minister replies. Presumably they were grouped in her response, and so it will be easier for her if I say something about them now.
Amendment No. 72 is the Welsh equivalent of Amendment No. 47. The effect of Amendment No. 47 would be to give HMCI the leading role of co-ordinating fair comparisons between sixth forms in the schools sector and the small amount of LEA-maintained post-16 provision that is not being moved into the new FE sector by the Further and Higher Education Bill and academic and vocational post-16 provision in the new FE sector. At present there is no provision in that Bill or this for co-ordination between the two sectors of inspection and published information.
I shall now say a few words about the background to this matter. Inspections of institutions in the new FE sector are to be conducted by quality assessment committees of each funding council, except for Wales where Clause 9(4) of the Further and Higher Education Bill provides for the possible involvement of HMCI if asked by the FE funding council for Wales. There is no mention of the role of HMCI in the new FE sector. Amendment No. 72 may be unnecessary for Wales because of that provision if it is to be assumed that HMCI would in all cases be able to operate in two sectors with a view to promoting fair comparisons between them.
Amendment No. 47 for England is certainly necessary. Provision has already been made in what is now Clause 55 of the Further and Higher Education Bill for HMCI to inspect and report on LEA maintained institutions other than schools. Under this Bill and the Further and Higher Education Bill taken together there will be a messy set of arrangements for inspecting post-16 provision and publishing information from those inspections.
This amendment aims to secure at least a minimum of co-ordination so that students can make fair comparisons between post-16 education in schools

45
sixth forms and FE colleges. The amendment urges closer liaison between HMCI for schools and the quality assessment committees of FE funding councils. The leading partner would be HMCI, which would also in case of difficulties have ultimate recourse to giving advice to the Secretary of State. Can the Minister tell us how many members of the present HMI will be used in the quality assessment committees? I believe there are about 170 inspectors who may be allocated to further education inspections. I hope the Minister can tell us how many of the inspectors will be involved in the quality assessment committees. As I have said, it is rather confusing at present to determine how the assessment will work when these different bodies will do the same work in schools sixth forms, the FE sector and sixth form colleges. A slightly different arrangement has already been made in respect of Wales.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before my noble friend replies, the Committee should understand what these amendments are designed to cover. The noble Baroness intervened at the end of the speech of my noble friend who is sitting behind me to say she had not mentioned universities. That is true as a matter of historic fact. However, it is perfectly plain that unless one is to argue that the universities are nothing to do with education—that would be a remarkable proposition, even coming from the Opposition Front Bench—it seems to me that this amendment would ensure that the inspectors of schools covered universities. I hesitate to speculate on the storms which such intervention on their part would provoke in certain of the universities. Many Members of this House have direct connections with universities and they would no doubt be in a position to say something about that matter.
If it is intended to move the inspectorate of schools to cover the universities, that is a remarkable proposition. It is a still more remarkable proposition to put in the course of moving an amendment without referring to the universities at all and when priding oneself on the fact that one has not referred to the universities. We want to know whether the noble Baroness in moving this amendment wishes to extend the cover and scope of the schools inspectorate to the universities. If that is the case, a considerable argument for that remarkable extension is required.
Lord Peston: Under the Bill the inspectorate will no longer be the schools inspectorate: it will be the inspectorate. It will not be limited to schools in a technical sense, as I understand the position. However, that is by the way. I ask the noble Lord to understand that even up to the present day Her Majesty's Inspectors can inspect polytechnics which hope to be universities in the near future. The idea that has been put forward is not quite as far-fetched as the noble Lord implied. I speak as a university teacher and as someone who knows something about school inspection. I am not at all certain that some of our universities would not benefit from the kind of inspections that schools have been subject to. Having said all of that to make a little mischief, I do not believe remotely that my noble friend's amendment
46
can be read that way. However, if Members of the Committee wish to read it that way, I should say that we can alter that provision purely by means of redrafting the amendment.
I hope we can conduct our proceedings in ways that are relevant to the material before us. What is fundamental is the range of areas that the new inspectorate should occupy itself with. It is a perfectly good technical point to say education includes universities, but that is slightly beside the point of the content of my noble friend's speech. The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, did not say he agreed with my noble friend provided the drafting was changed. He said he did not like the idea that was proposed anyway. However, we should be debating the idea of this matter, that is the range of considerations the inspectorate should be engaged in. I did not intend to intervene here but we should not indulge in toing and froing on other matters when what we should be doing is trying to discuss the essence of this subject and where we differ on it. It is important to clarify where we differ on this matter. I believe my noble friend's contribution made it clear where we stand on this issue.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Is the noble Lord arguing then that the amendment does not bite on the universities?
5.15 p.m.
Baroness White: I hope I may intervene here. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has realised that the grouping of these amendments is, to my mind, rather unfortunate. It is confusing to group Amendment No. 47 and Amendment No. 72—the Welsh equivalent—with the other amendment. If the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has read Amendment No. 47 and/or Amendment No. 72, he will realise that the provision he has drawn attention to is perfectly well spelt out in those two amendments.
Lord Peston: I hope I may respond to the noble Lord. I have admitted that a perfectly good debating point is made if one says that education includes all aspects of education. I entirely accept that education includes the universities. There is nothing between us on that point. I am simply saying that my noble friend is entitled to expect the Committee to listen to the content of her speech. She should be given the benefit of the doubt as regards Members of the Committee interpreting what she has said. After all, the Minister has asked us to accept the intentions of the Government. Therefore I say with respect that it is not a terribly helpful contribution to start making debating points when we are trying to discuss the range of activities the inspectorate should be engaged in. My noble friend is not pressing the point about universities being inspected by the inspectorate. I freely admit I made a similar debating point when I asked why that should not be the case. However, that is not what the amendment is about.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I would not wish to be accused of pedantry. The truth is that often in reading

47
amendments one has to work hard to infer what they mean. That is not a new experience. It is quite clear that Amendment No. 22 includes universities within its scope.
It is perfectly reasonable for the Opposition to say that, on reflection, they may wish to reword the amendment. I perfectly understand that. However, the interpretation is not inconsistent with what I understand to be the policy of the Opposition, which is that they want a unified quango which will undertake assessment. I am not proposing to discuss that matter. I simply wish to explain that that seems to me a perfectly logical inference. I am certainly happy to understand it is not the intention to extend this matter so far through this amendment. From that I infer that this amendment will be withdrawn.
We have Report stage before us where a more precise amendment can be tabled. However, I do not think we have to address ourselves simply to what the noble Baroness, Lady David, said. We must also address ourselves to what her amendment states. I am sorry if that seems pedantic. It is not intended to be. I am sure this is a matter to which we can return later. I fully understand from the explanation that has been given that a different distinction was intended.
Baroness Blackstone: I hope I may clarify the matter. It is not the policy of the Opposition that Her Majesty's Inspectorate should inspect universities. I wish to make that absolutely clear. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that inspectors who have to advise the Secretary of State about education as a whole should be able to inspect further education colleges, which after all are teaching 16 to 19 year-old students who are covering similar courses in many cases to those that are being taught in schools and are taking the same examinations. There is a strong case for inspectors being able to compare and contrast the quality of work being carried out in both types of institution and for Her Majesty's Inspectorate, which has always had a duty to inspect the youth and community service, to be able to continue to do so. We want that clarified in the Bill.
In addition, Her Majesty's Inspectorate has always had a duty to inspect adult education, by which I mean not adult education at university level, but lower level adult education courses. The purpose of the amendments is to make sure that Her Majesty's Inspectorate can continue to have an overview of the education system other than in the universities where, in our view, it would not be appropriate for it to be involved.
Lord Walton of Detchant: Perhaps I may make a very brief point. I wholly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said about the necessity of withdrawing Amendment No. 22. If new amendments are introduced at Report stage in relation to the powers of the chief inspector to examine any institutions in the higher education field, whatever they may be, or in further education, it is important that it is recognised that there are certain educational courses in such institutions which are controlled by statutory bodies which have the authority to examine
48
the standards of the education which is provided. I sympathise with some of the intentions underlying the amendments, but Amendment No. 22 would not be acceptable to anyone in higher education at present.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may say that we on these Benches are recipients of the groupings and simply had to accept them as they were presented to us. I should also like to say in defence of my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renfrew that my admiration for people who apply so much time and energy to understanding such amendments, which, in isolation, often appear to be gobbledegook, knows no bounds. Until noble Lords speak to those amendments in this Chamber all we have to go on is the literal wording of the amendment. It is the literal wording that one has to accept.
It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to deal with the matter in a general way. However, at the end of the day what we are talking about, and what will be culled from the debates and from the determinations of Parliament, is the wording which will appear in the legislation and which will have a real impact on people. It is important that we see the amendments in that light.
On the subject of the scope of the Bill, perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that the Bill simply cannot be extended at this stage to cover aspects other than school education. Giving additional functions to HMI in respect of adult and community education, which the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has just said is important, must, for that very reason, be dealt with in the Further and Higher Education Bill. I find it surprising that it was not recalled at this stage that adult and community education will continue to receive attention from HMI and the youth service.
In relation to the transfer of HMI to funding councils and the number of inspectors involved, as is well known, 140 inspectors deal with the further and higher education sectors other than teacher training. It will be a matter for the funding councils to determine which of those will be involved in co-operation and co-ordination between the sectors. It is also true to say that the quality assurance arms of the higher and further education funding councils will deal with inspection in those sectors.
The Further and Higher Education Bill which was recently before this House makes provision for advice to the Secretary of State on quality and standards in further and higher education and for the new funding councils to have the information they need to inform their work. It would be quite inappropriate for us to overturn those provisions, now being considered in another place, by giving the chief inspectors a duty which extended into all sectors of education.
At this point perhaps I may apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady White. I have referred so often to the chief inspector in the course of our debates but much of the time, although not exclusively, I am referring to the Chief Inspector for Wales as well as the Chief Inspector for England. I apologise to the noble Baroness for that.
Baroness White: That apology is accepted, needless to say. However, can the Minister also give an

49
indication as to whether the figures given, such as the reference to 140 inspectors, relate to England only or to England and Wales?
Baroness Blatch: If the noble Baroness will bear with me, in this particular instance I shall come to a distinction between England and Wales.
As I said, it would be quite inappropriate for us to overturn those provisions, now being considered in another place, by giving HMCI a duty which extended into all sectors of education. Indeed, it would be outside the scope of the Bill. I have already addressed that point.
The Bill secures that HMI will oversee provision in schools, and in teacher training. Because of the limited scope of the Bill we had to use the Further and Higher Education Bill to give HMI powers in respect of adult education and youth service provision made by local education authorities. That Bill also empowers HMCI to give advice on such other matters relating to further education as the Secretary of State may request. That fully meets the needs. In Wales, where the further and higher education sector is much smaller, it is accepted that it may be right to use HMI to offer advice to the funding councils rather than have them maintain their own inspectorates. That was fully debated earlier and no case was made in this Chamber for a parallel provision for England. The necessary powers in respect of Wales are already included in the Further and Higher Education Bill.
While the division of responsibility is as I have noted, I accept that parents and students will want to be able to compare provision made for pupils aged 16 to 19 on a consistent basis. The main source of comparative information will be the published tables of performance information in both sectors. It is intended that FE colleges and schools should publish information in a way which will allow such comparisons to be made. Care is being taken to ensure that information on the public examination results and destinations of school and college leavers is, in 1992, published so far as practicable in a common format. HMCI will, of course, have that information available to him or her in addition to published inspection reports relating to the two sectors.
Inspection reports on schools with sixth forms will deal with all subject areas covered for the 16 to 19 age group within the school. In the FE sector, we expect the funding councils to operate, as HMI does now, by commissioning subject surveys across the whole sector rather than general inspections of each institution. It will, however, be possible to generate from that material a document equivalent to a general inspection report for an individual institution, thus enabling comparisons to be made across 16 to 19 age group provision as a whole.
I accept that the division of responsibilities will require a degree of co-operation between HMCI and the quality control arms of the councils. Teacher education and provision for 16 to 19 year-olds are obvious areas where they will need to work together, but I do not see that as a great problem.
I do not intend here to rerun debates on whether sixth form colleges should have been transferred to the further education sector. That Bill has been sent from
50
this Chamber with that provision included and we must now accept that. HMCI will have to know about developments across the whole span of education for pupils from 16 to 19 to put his advice to the Secretary of State in context. He can do that without having specific duties in the FE sector.
Reference was made, not only by my noble friends on these Benches but also by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, to the role of HMI in the proposals of the noble Baroness. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that I thought that he was less than fair in his comments when he appealed to Members of the Committee to keep to the amendments. I do not believe that in the debate on this amendment a single word has been spoken which is not relevant to the subject before us.
I shall read again from the Labour Party document, which states:
"The Commission and its inspectorate will cover further education, tertiary and sixth form colleges as well as nursery, primary and secondary schools. We are giving further consideration to its role"—
"it" being HMI—
"in higher education in the context of the Party's already published Quality Assurance proposals for this sector".
That was a perfectly legitimate point for my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renfrew to raise.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness. I did not say that what the noble Lords said was beside the point; I was trying to be as conciliatory as I could. I just felt that they were being a trifle pedantic, which was the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. My noble friend had made the intention behind her amendment very clear and I am keen to proceed with the business. If we are to scrutinise amendments in that pedantic way we shall be here right through the night. That was all I asked. I do not seek to put a stop on what noble Lords may say, but my noble friend said that that is not what she was talking about. I would have felt it slightly less than generous not to have accepted what she said. That was all that I was raising.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: Perhaps I may intervene at this point to say that there is always the risk that the amendment might be carried. That is what worries us.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I could say in defence of all I said earlier that this is the moment to be pedantic. This is precisely what we are doing. We are now refining our debates. We have finished with Second Reading and debates outside the Chamber. We are determining the precise wording of the legislation. Because of that, I defend entirely the right of my noble friends to be as pedantic as they wish. In fact, I invite all Members of the Committee to be pedantic. In the course of these debates we want to get the wording right. I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Elton: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps she will clarify a point. I hope she will forgive me if I misunderstood her or misunderstood what she said at Third Reading. I thought at Third Reading that I was given an assurance that colleges and

51
departments of education which train teachers would be subject to inspection. Do I understand her to say that they will be subject to inspection by a different agency from the one set up by this Bill, or is it the same one?
Baroness Blatch: No. I am not sure that I can find the precise words, but I believe I said that it will be across the schools sector and those parts of higher education which are responsible for teacher training—by HMI.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Until we have the teacher training colleges, we shall not get the schools right.
Baroness Blatch: That is right.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness David: I think I have been misunderstood. I said that the quality assessment committees for further and higher education proposed in the FHE Bill, the youth service and adult education should be looked at by a single body. In fact in replying the noble Baroness said that the chief inspector will have to cover the whole span of 16 to 19 year-olds. That is the area in which we have the greatest anxiety because there will be a quality assessment committee for sixth form colleges, the FE sector—there will apparently be 140 or so HMIs still looking at the FHE sector—and there will be the HMI for schools looking at the schools' sixth forms. So there is a bit of a muddle.
Perhaps the amendments could have been worded better, particularly Amendment No. 22 and the corresponding one for Wales, Amendment No. 52. I am not satisfied that the matter has been settled satisfactorily but it may be best for me to withdraw Amendment No. 3 for the time being and come back with a more precisely worded amendment at Report stage. I do not feel that the situation is satisfactory.
Baroness Blatch: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. Perhaps I may remind her that we cannot extend the scope of the Bill. I believe that I gave very good reasons for saying that it could not be extended. She may have in mind to come back with a form of wording that extends HMI into other sectors of education, but it simply cannot be done in this Bill.
Baroness David: Similar amendments were accepted in the other place, and these amendments were accepted by the Public Bill Office. However, I note what the noble Baroness says. I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall make a recommendation to Her Majesty for such an appointment only if the relevant person has been selected by the Civil Service Commission through open competition.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 9. They are simple amendments which put on the face of the Bill what the Government have already said they
52
would do, when asked about the replacement of the last senior chief inspector, Mr. Eric Bolton. Therefore I hope that Ministers will have no difficulty in accepting them.
As the Committee knows, the Civil Service Commission is an independent body with considerable expertise in the recruitment and selection of senior people to work in central government. As such, it seems to us to be the right body to supervise the appointment of chief inspectors. It is also vital that those appointments should take place after open competition. That guards against the danger of political appointments, which I am sure the Committee would consider highly inappropriate and indeed retrograde with reference to what is agreed should be posts filled by people who are independent and experts rather than parti pris in any political sense.
Once selection has taken place under the auspices of the commission, it is for the Secretary of State to endorse the appointment. However, it would be wrong that the Secretary of State could influence such an appointment by choosing someone who he thought would share his political views or educational philosophy. Were that to happen, the independence of the inspectorate as a whole, not just the chief inspectors, would be jeopardised.
The reason why people are worried that that might happen relates, I regret to say, to the current Secretary of State's recent record in appointing highly partisan individuals to certain senior positions, of which the most recent example is the chairman of the School Examinations and Assessment Council. There are now rumours—I admit that they are no more than rumours—that the Secretary of State intends to appoint the head of the Centre for Policy Studies to be the chief inspector for England. I cannot believe that that is the case, since the person concerned is not only extremely partisan but also unqualified. However, I am sure that if those rumours are untrue, the Minister will deny them when replying.
The principle remains that the Civil Service Commission and open competition is the right way to guard against such appointments not just by this Government but by any government. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The effect of the amendments is to transfer from the Secretary of State to the Civil Service Commission responsibility for the choice of this important official. No doubt that is the intention. But I suggest that they also introduce a certain undesirable degree of rigidity. It may well be possible, particularly when the first appointment is being made, for the Secretary of State rightly to select someone in an established position elsewhere. However, that person may not be prepared to enter into open competition before the Civil Service Commission, although he is an obvious choice for the post. I do not know whom my noble friend may have in mind. The amendment will inhibit somewhat the freedom of choice for what I am sure the noble Baroness agrees is a most important appointment. I would much rather see this passage not included.
Baroness White: Perhaps I may draw the Committee's attention to the Written Answer given by the Secretary of State for Wales on 29th January, in which, inter alia, he says:
"I am strengthening the independence of HMI by creating a separate department headed by HMCI. HMI [Her Majesty's Inspectors] will no longer be members of the Welsh Office"—
therefore under the direct control of the Secretary of State for Wales—
"but will remain civil servants retaining their existing terms and conditions of service".—[official Report, Commons, 29/1/92; col. 577.]
If they are civil servants, surely the machinery for appointing civil servants should be employed.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I hope that I shall please the Committee by being brief. As the noble Baroness said, this is a very simple matter. We had to resist these amendments in another place and do so again because they tie the Secretary of State's hands unhelpfully.
The chief inspectors will head their own non-ministerial departments and as such will be Crown office holders. There are no general rules governing the appointment of Crown office holders and it would certainly be unprecedented to lay down in statute the method of appointment.
The posts of chief inspectors are entirely new positions. My right honourable friends want to be able to choose the best person for each post without being bound to one particular method of selection as against another. There is no guarantee that a particular method will necessarily produce the best person. The last senior chief inspector was appointed by open competition but my right honourable friend failed to find a successor to him by that method. Rounds of readvertisement do not guarantee finding whom you need—indeed they tend to downgrade the post in the sight of possible applicants.
A variety of methods have been used to select people for posts of this kind. The heads of OFTEL and OFGAS and the new Director General of Fair Trading were appointed after executive search. On the other hand, an open competition was chosen for the appointment of the new Director of Public Prosecutions, as it was for her predecessor. But in no case does that provision appear on the face of the Bill. I can reassure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords that the Government will do whatever is necessary to secure the right candidate for those important new posts.
The Department of Education and Science is currently in discussion with a firm of executive search agents which they hope to appoint shortly to draw up a short list of possible candidates for the post of HMCI in England. It is the intention to ask a panel chaired by the first Civil Service Commissioner—I hope that that will reassure the noble Baroness—to interview and select from among that short list a name to recommend to the Secretary of State. That is a procedure that we believe will lead to the identification of a good candidate. Decisions have yet to be taken about the selection of the Welsh chief inspector. A different procedure may be appropriate. That is one reason why we are opposed to any one method of
54
appointment being laid down for all time on the face of the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply, in particular for the information that the posts will be Crown office holders. Although there are no general rules at present, it does not prevent us from establishing general rules with regard to those appointments.
I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that the best person for each post will be appointed. However, in my fairly extensive experience of appointing people to a wide range of posts in the public sector, open competition is usually the best way to attain the best person. Through advertisement it opens up to the largest number of persons who may be interested in such a post the opportunity to apply. That method of appointing people is also generally considered to be the most appropriate with regard to equal opportunities. Women as well as men, and people from the ethnic minority communities as well as white people, can apply. I do not believe that it is inconsistent with open competition also to have a system of executive search. That is indeed what often happens. A post is advertised and anyone who wishes can apply; but an executive search to encourage certain people to apply can be instituted at the same time.
The noble Baroness states that it has been impossible to find a successor to the last senior chief inspector after open competition. I am not surprised that no one wants the job in the light of what the Government now propose to do. Having seen what was coming, I suspect that some people felt that the job was no longer as worth doing as it had been in the past.
However, I shall consider again what the noble Baroness said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert ("having regard to the numbers and experience of inspectors required to carry out their duties, with their individual expertise in nursery, primary, middle, secondary or special educational needs identified.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 5 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 11, the corresponding amendment for Wales.
At Committee stage in another place the debate highlighted the need for the number of HMIs to be adequate to function under the new system of schools inspection. The Secretary of State has stated that he and the senior chief inspector of HMI regard 175 as the best estimate of the number required when HMI assumes its new role in England. HMI's own internal review recommended 380. The review undertaken by the Secretary of State for Wales has not yet reported. If the reduction in HMIs is of a similar size as for England, there are serious doubts that HMI will be able to carry out its responsibilities.
The amendments emphasise the need for the number of HMIs to relate directly to the needs of the education system and maintain the independence of

55
the chief inspector to recommend the numbers and experience required by HMI. We also believe that the experience of inspectors should include the need for them to hold the status of a qualified teacher.
In moving the Bill, the Secretary of State stated categorically that the vast majority of inspectors will be qualified teachers. That is essential if teachers in schools are to have respect and confidence in the new system. The widely acknowledged integrity of HMI to date has derived from its individual experience of classroom practice and work of teachers. It is imperative that the specific experience and expertise of inspectors are also recognised.
The organisation and curriculum of primary, middle and secondary schools vary considerably, with additional expertise in areas such as special educational needs and nursery education. To report on the effectiveness of education inspectors need to be aware of the abilities and expectations of particular age groups of pupils. The needs and opportunities for in-service training vary between each phase of school.
In training, registering and monitoring registered inspectors, HMI should at the very least make sure that those paying for the inspection service are aware of the one or more areas of expertise of the registered inspector. That in turn implies that inspection teams will clearly be identified as capable of carrying out inspections in the particular phase of a school. Some schools may have nursery classes attached; others may not. Some schools will have the special educational needs of some children integrated into their main provision. Those and other factors must be taken into account when an inspection is planned.
I believe that it is important that all the factors referred to in the amendment are considered when inspectors are being recruited. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I add the support of these Benches for the amendment. It is generally feared in the education world that there will be a shortage of expertise with the reduced number of HMI. It is most important when one of the new inspection teams goes to a school that there should be adequate supervision, with specialist knowledge of the specific provisions that the school offers. I was considering in particular special educational needs, which is a very specialist subject.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I add my support for the amendment. I too believe that the specialist training and teaching required for children who are classified as partially deaf or deaf and partially blind should be recognised. If they are being used properly, such skills can only be recognised by experts in the field. Those experts should be part of an inspection team.
It is important to recognise that many schools now have pupils with learning difficulties. Not all schools are able to cope. During a recent debate in this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and other speakers, including myself, referred to the difficulties of schools with children with learning difficulties. Members of the inspection team not only need to
56
understand the problem but they also need to be able to give expert advice and have the ability to report to the Secretary of State the difficulty that the schools may have with regard to shortages of speech therapists and child psychologists. The Secretary of State will then be aware that, while the schools wish to do the best they can for children with special needs, they need more back-up.
Baroness Young: We all understand why the noble Baroness has put the amendment down. The underlying anxiety that runs through the debates on the inspectorate is that the new inspectorate will not be qualified to deal with the variety of educational matters that it will be called upon to inspect.
I do not know what my noble friend will say about the amendment. I suspect that she will say that it is unnecessary. It appears to me that it will be one of the functions of the chief inspectors and the other inspectors to ensure that there are enough suitably-qualified people among the inspectorate to cover all the different types of schools, including special schools. I suspect that many people who become inspectors will have been teachers or will have worked in education and, if not, that they will receive training.
I suspect that the amendment is not necessary and that to lay down the provision in this way is prescriptive. Clearly the inspectors must cover such areas, and I believe that the chief inspector will make it his or her responsibility to ensure that they are covered.
Baroness Warnock: If that is so, I hope that the amendment is at least considered by the Government because the provision ought to be made prescriptive. The Bill should lay down specifically that there should be expertise in all the different areas. It would please me if there were more specification of the type of special educational needs which should be identified. That something can be presumed to happen is put forward too often as a reason for not putting a provision on the face of the Bill. Quite often something does not happen because it is not on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I support the amendment and ask the Government to think carefully about writing it into Clause 1.
Lord Elton: I hope that in reply my noble friend will bear in mind that if we put one measure into a Bill we specifically exclude another. Inclusio unius implies exclusio alterius. The fact that nursery, primary, middle, secondary and special educational needs are identified and no others suggests that all others take second place and may be discounted. That is a dangerous precedent to start. We confront the same argument when setting up advisory boards in this Chamber. Everyone wishes to appoint someone to sit on the board and eventually there are 185 people. One merely has to set out a board with X number of people and leave the specialisms unstated. We are in the same type of country when dealing with this amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may deal, first, with Amendments Nos. 5 and 11. I admit from the outset that I understand the anxieties behind the amendments. However, it is important to make the

57
distinction between HMIs with their individual competence and expertise and the teams who will work with registered inspectors and who will physically visit the schools to inspect different departments, which will include special education among other aspects of education. Once the new system is in full operation we envisage that HMCIs will put forward names to the Privy Council, as the Secretary of State does now, so that Her Majesty may appoint HMIs as necessary. This is part of the chief inspector's new role and he or she will of course want to be satisfied that HMIs have the numbers and spread of expertise necessary to carry out their tasks.
This is the first amendment in respect of which we believe it important to leave the matter to the professionalism of the chief inspector. This is the first amendment that fetters the discretion of the chief inspector.
The numbers of HMIs to be appointed will of course depend on the resources which the chief inspector has available. Like any other head of a government department he or she will negotiate that sum each year with the Treasury in the light of policy priorities. The chief inspectors can certainly ask for what they believe they need and if they do not consider that they have sufficient staff they can say so quite publicly.
As for identifying the expertise of HMIs, some may indeed have a specific expertise in one of the areas mentioned in the amendment but others may be expert in one subject and competent to inspect in various types of school. Others may in future have management expertise and experience. We do not want all HMIs to carry a suffix—HMIP for primary or HMIS for special—which might call into question their ability to operate, as many now do, across phases. I hope that that is not what is envisaged. But I am not sure how the identification of expertise would work otherwise—except, in practice, to inform HMCI in making his decision about whose name to put forward. That surely goes without saying.
This amendment is one of many where Members of the Committee opposite want to offer direction to HMCI where we are content to leave matters to him.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, made an important point and referred to the 1981 report compiled by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I know that that is a most sensitive subject in this Chamber and one about which Members feel passionate, and rightly so. When the new system is up and running it will do more than the workings of any inspectorate has done in the past to tell us exactly how the 1981 Act is working. I believe that all Members of the Committee will consider that the feedback of such sound information to the Secretary of State is most important. The teams of inspectors who visit the schools with the registered inspectors must consist of people who are qualified for the task. If the task is to inspect a science department, a special needs department or whatever, those people must have skills which make them competent to undertake the task.
I turn to Amendment No. 13 tabled by my noble friend Lord Elton—
Lord Elton: My attention has only just been drawn to the fact that my amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 5. The point which my amendment seeks to make is simple and quite different and I wonder whether Members of the Committee will ungroup it.
Baroness Blatch: I am happy for it to be dealt with separately. I hope that in the light of the explanation that I have given Amendment No. 5 will not be pressed.
Baroness David: Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the grouping was nothing to do with me. The noble Baroness suggested that the groupings were our fault, but that is not so. I am certain that it is open to the Government to disapprove of the groupings and to choose to have amendments ungrouped if necessary.
Lord Elton: The fault is entirely mine for not having spotted that my amendment was caught up in the group. That was my job and I am afraid that I did not do it.
Baroness David: I thank the noble Baronesses who have supported me. I listened carefully to the criticisms and to the Minister's speech. I should like to read carefully what she said and consider whether I wish to return on Report with an amendment with the same wording or slightly different wording. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 20, leave out from ("by") to end of line 21 and insert ("a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 6, which is a probing amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 12. Members of the Committee are exercised about the independence of the chief inspector and have given some time to the power of direction of the Secretary of State, which was rightly decided not to be a matter of substance. However, what is a matter of substance is the security of tenure.
When I was a Minister in Her Majesty's Government my department gave a new status to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. The drafting which achieved his independence was more elaborate than that proposed in my amendment, but it had the same result. It was to the effect that the removal of the chief inspector should be by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
Will my noble friend say on whose advice Her Majesty will dismiss the chief inspector as is now proposed in the Bill? The fact that dismissal is by Her Majesty provides no security; it is whose advice Her Majesty takes, and on what occasion, which provides the security. I should be obliged if my noble friend could explain that to the Committee.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that my noble friend will not accept the amendment. It would introduce an elaborate and cumbrous procedure. Equally, it would have a great disadvantage if the necessity to change the appointment arose during the parliamentary recess. Let us suppose, for example, that this matter

59
arose at the end of July. The Government would be powerless to do anything until Parliament returned in October. Therefore, that would be a most inconvenient arrangement.
Moreover, to take up the time of Parliament on a personal issue of this kind is perhaps difficult to justify. On the other hand, if the Minister—and this is what the words in the Bill really mean—were wrongly to remove the incumbent of that office, that Minister would be answerable to Parliament in the ordinary way as soon as Parliament returned in October. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment, and if he does, I hope that my noble friend Lady Blatch will resist it.
Lord Elton: I obviously failed to make clear that this is a probing amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the probe will turn out to be blunt.
Baroness Blatch: As regards Amendment No. 13, I have sympathy with my noble friend's desire to place control over the numbers of HMCI.
Lord Elton: I did not speak to Amendment No. 13. I believe it would be quicker to take that amendment separately.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry. I misheard my noble friend. As regards Amendments Nos. 6 and 12, my noble friend is interested in the powers to remove the chief inspectors from office. Perhaps I may say at the outset that we hope and believe that those powers will not be needed. The Government will naturally try to find the best people to fill the two positions of chief inspector, and we have every confidence that good appointments will be made. However, it would be irresponsible not to make provision for the remote possibility that someone might have to be removed because he is no longer capable of doing the job through incapacity, or that he should not be allowed to continue to do the job because of misconduct. It is important to have that longstop power in the public interest.
I recognise that my noble friend has in his suggested amendments followed the precedent adopted to permit the removal from office of a judge. However, I must say that the cases are not really comparable. The duties of a judge are quite different from those of HMCI, and I cannot accept that what applies to the one must automatically be appropriate to the other. In the case of the chief inspectors, it will be for the relevant Secretary of State to put the case to the Privy Council, which will determine whether dismissal is justified, and recommend appropriately to Her Majesty.
I have stressed already that I expect the powers in these subsections to be used very rarely, if at all. Members of the Committee will notice that the power to remove from office is not absolute. It is dependent upon incapacity or misconduct. It is on that basis that the Privy Council would accept advice and judge whether the decision was appropriate on that basis. That is an extremely powerful protection for HMCI.
60
It provides an adequate safeguard against his removal on political grounds. Of course, if there were any suspicion in the mind of the chief inspector that he was being dismissed on grounds other than those of incapacity or misconduct, he could call for a judicial review.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: As regards the Privy Council, is it more than a formality which the noble Baroness proposes? Normally a meeting of the Privy Council consists of Members of Her Majesty's Government who ratify what is placed before Her Majesty. Is there to be set up a special tribunal of the Privy Council? Is the matter to go to the Clerk of the Privy Council who will adjudicate? What form will that reference to the Privy Council take?
Baroness Blatch: I should be decidedly disturbed if I thought that a recommendation to the Privy Council to dismiss HMCI of either Wales or England were treated in such a cursory manner. I would regard that as being extremely serious business for the Privy Council. It would be for the Privy Council to make the recommendation for dismissal. In those circumstances, I regard it as a matter which should be treated extremely seriously. First, a judgment would have to be made as to whether the Secretary of State's advice to the Privy Council was consistent with dismissal on the grounds of incapacity or misconduct. On that basis, the recommendation would either be rejected or accepted. I would expect it to be rather more than a rubber stamping exercise.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I wonder whether we have this matter straight. First, the grounds for removal are adequate—in my opinion, at least. They are exactly the same grounds as are provided under the Courts Act to every circuit judge on the circuit judge Bench. I should have thought that to give a greater degree of security of tenure than that would be an anomaly. My noble friend Lord Elton says that this is a probing amendment, and therefore I do not criticise its drafting. However, the resolution of both Houses is usually reserved to High Court judges or above.
I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench about this: I am not sure whether my noble friend is right to say that a Privy Council recommendation approved by Her Majesty, otherwise it would not be a Privy Council recommendation, is subject to judicial review. I should like to be reassured about that. I shall not be happy until I receive such a reassurance.
If the chief inspector were subject to dismissal by the Minister, he would be in the same position as is the Lord Chancellor in respect of a circuit judge. He is subject to judicial review, although I have never been judicially reviewed on that ground.
I am not happy because a decision of the Privy Council, as those Members of this Committee who have attended meetings of the Privy Council will be aware, is completed when Her Majesty actually utters the word "approved" to a draft order in council. I am not sure that anything in respect of which Her Majesty has uttered that sacred word would necessarily be

61
subject to judicial review. I wonder whether my noble friend on the Front Bench has taken proper legal advice about that.
Baroness Blatch: I rise with great hesitation to reply to my noble and learned friend. However, I understand that my description of what happens is correct. It seems inconceivable but we are talking about most exceptional circumstances. It seems inconceivable but a situation may arise in which the Privy Council accepts advice from the Secretary of State that the dismissal was on grounds of either incapacity or misconduct; but the chief inspector still believes that he is being dismissed, for example, on political grounds and still feels aggrieved. I understand that it is possible for the aggrieved chief inspector to seek a judicial judgment about whether his dismissal was on the grounds of incapacity or misconduct.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I hope that my noble friend will take this matter further. It is only a question of machinery. There is no difference of principle between my noble friend and myself. If this were the decision of the Minister, I should be in no doubt but that judicial review would be available on precisely the grounds that she says. The words "misconduct or incapacity" have been judicially determined at various times in the past century. It is clear that a Minister, who has an executive power, can be judicially reviewed under the judicial review procedure. However, I very much doubt whether it is constitutional for anything to which Her Majesty has uttered the word "approved" in the Privy Council to be subject to the same procedure. I have never heard of the Queen, in her own courts, being judicially reviewed.
Baroness Blatch: I give an absolute assurance to the Committee that I shall continue to seek advice on this point. One must assume that if the situation reaches the stage at which a recommendation has been made, first, to the Privy Council and, secondly, to Her Majesty to approve the dismissal of the chief inspector, that a number of the stages of the process have already been undergone. It is my understanding—and I shall correct it at a later stage if I am wrong—that it would be for the aggrieved chief inspector to apply to the courts. It would then be for the courts to decide as to whether a judicial review is appropriate. However, I bow to the greater knowledge of my noble and learned friend and I shall return again to this matter.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I am glad to hear what the noble Baroness has said. I think that the idea of having a resolution of both Houses of Parliament is over-egging the pudding. On the other hand, it would be perfectly proper for the procedure of the Privy Council to take place on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, who would be the initiator of the enterprise and would make his recommendation to the Privy Council on the question of misconduct or incapacity. He is certainly parti pris here. One thing about which I should like to be satisfied is whether, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, says,
62
there would be a right of judicial review or what intermediate procedures there would be between the Secretary of State initiating such procedure and Her Majesty giving her approval. If the noble Baroness were to deal with that at Report stage, I think we would all be a little clearer.
Baroness Blatch: I give the noble Lord an absolute assurance that I will follow up the point he makes.
Perhaps I may raise one other point that noble Lords may wish to think about between now and Report stage. One might argue that the government of the day could also be parti pris in coming before Parliament for approval. I am sure that what we all want, including my noble friend, is as impartial a judgment as possible reached on as objective a basis as possible. It should be based entirely on incapacity or misconduct. That is the decision which should be upheld at the end of the day. It is to that end that I shall think about the matter between now and Report stage.
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may raise a smaller but purely practical point. What is the cost of judicial review in a last resort? Are there financial resources for it? It may sound all right but if it is going to cost the earth to have it, it is not a great reality.
Baroness Blatch: I cannot deal with that question specifically, except to say that I do not think it has ever been for Parliament to determine that, because it is a costly process, the individual should be denied the right to invoke the law where appropriate. The debate here is whether it is appropriate.
Lord Peston: The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said that this is only a probing amendment and I should like to use it to probe another matter. Does the expression "Her Majesty does appear" mean that, if it was stated that the person had been removed by Her Majesty on the grounds of misconduct and someone were to ask a question either in this Chamber or in another place about why that person had been removed, in some sense it would be out of order because Her Majesty had decided it? A fortiori would it then be out of order to say that that decision should not have been taken? This is not quite the same as the "judicial review" point but it is relevant to the noble Lord's suggested amendment. I speak with no expertise but it seems to me there is a danger that we could be ruled out of order in asking why a particular person was dismissed. I do not necessarily expect an immediate answer but I believe the matter is worth exploring.
Baroness Blatch: It may not be appropriate for me to answer that point specifically. If I am wrong I shall come back to the noble Lord. My understanding is that we concern ourselves here with mechanisms for doing things and vesting the appropriate authority in different people in different parts of the process to take decisions. I would not have thought it appropriate for either House to involve itself in the personal circumstances of a dismissal; we should be making sure that the system for dealing with such matters is appropriate.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Glenamara: Surely, my noble friend Lord Callaghan was right when he stated that to say a chief inspector could be removed from office only by the Queen in Council was no safeguard against a political dismissal. As the noble Baroness knows, the Privy Council agenda consists of items sent in by government departments. Her Majesty says either "Approved" or "Referred" on the advice of the Government. They are purely political decisions in the Privy Council. What the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is proposing is that it should come to Parliament. I quite agree with the noble Baroness that there are circumstances in which it would be undesirable to discuss in Parliament the reasons for dismissing an inspector, but let us not deceive ourselves by the words "removed by the Queen in Council". This is no safeguard against a political dismissal.
Baroness Blatch: I have given an absolute assurance to the Committee that I shall continue to take advice on the subject and try to safeguard the objectives of the noble Lord's amendment which are that any chief inspector who is subject to what is a very extreme provision should be dealt with objectively and in such a way that would have the confidence of the whole House. I shall come back at the next stage and report on the matter.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: As so often happens, we have started to deviate from the point on the agenda. But since the question has been asked, I would have thought there was nothing that could stop anybody in Parliament asking a question about anything. Kings have been removed because they have tried to interfere with Parliament. I imagine we would not want to go back to that situation.
Lord Elton: In the interval between this and the next stage my noble friend and I will doubtless be thinking about it. My noble and learned friend has usefully focused my concern about the proper protection of this post against improper dismissal. My noble friend will no doubt come back to something else, or I shall, at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools in Wales]:
[Amendments Nos. 7 to 12 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 16, line 5, leave out ("the Treasury as to numbers and") and insert ("the Secretary of State as to numbers and the Treasury as to").
The noble Lord said: We now come to the often heralded and simple amendment which is designed simply to elicit from Her Majesty's Government the means of funding and control of the inspectorate. The Bill says that the Treasury will approve the numbers of the inspectorate and the terms and conditions of service. The Treasury already has a very powerful influence over all departments. It occurred to me that
64
this department, though independent, was much closer to the Secretary of State for Education than to the Treasury when it came to the determination of policy, and it might be in that department that the appropriate amount of money agreed with the Treasury ought to be allocated to different purposes. Therefore, the Treasury might not be the best judge as to the numbers of the inspectorate though it certainly would have a say about terms and conditions of service. This goes back to the question of the Vote out of which the service will be paid for and which Minister will be striving to see that that Vote is adequate in the PES round. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know whether this is one of the probes of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. It is also an amendment which is frequently moved on any number of Bills but normally from the other side of the Chamber. The control of the size of the public service is an issue often raised by noble Lords opposite. In my view, Treasury control of numbers is a great safeguard as to the size of the public service. To undermine Treasury control of numbers in one respect would not only be a bad precedent in itself but would be unsound in principle. One department must be finally responsible for the size of the public service and therefore for its cost. That has always been the Treasury. In my two terms of service in that department I frequently had to deal with such matters, and I hope I dealt with them fairly and properly. To remove that power would be an extremely bad precedent and, I believe, contrary to the efficient working of the organisation about which we are concerned in the Bill. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will resist this with her habitual determination and courage.
Lord Peston: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, about the paramount importance of Treasury control. However, within the spirit of what this Government have been trying to do it may be more appropriate for the chief inspector to be given a budget and then told to do what he likes with it in the interests of the body he had in mind. That would be just as good a method of Treasury control as that suggested by the amendment.
Either the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, or her noble friend Lady Denton mentioned earlier, when we were discussing recruitment to the post, analogies like the Director General of Fair Trading. I thought that was a good analogy. I should like to believe that the Chief Inspector of Schools would be as distinguished and powerful a figure as the Director General of Fair Trading. However, if we look at the underpinning of the Office of Fair Trading, does a similar provision apply to that? In other words, is the Director General of Fair Trading specifically told that he may appoint a certain number of members of staff with the approval of the Treasury?
The analogy was a good one. I would be more convinced in this case if that was the rule, and I therefore ask that question. In talking of regulators, where a similar point applies, I should be interested to know whether they are subject to Treasury control in this same detailed way. That is not to detract from

65
Treasury control per se; it is to ask specifically about the nature of Treasury control because one notices the precise details—numbers and terms of conditions of service and so on. I would therefore be reassured, and no doubt so would the noble Lord, Lord Elton, if we were told that that was the normal practice.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that I can help on Amendment No. 13. I have sympathy with my noble friend's desire to place control over the numbers of HMCI's support staff in the hands of the Secretary of State rather than those of the Treasury. However, perhaps I can explain the position to my noble friend.
In this Bill we are setting up two non-ministerial government departments, one in England and one in Wales. That point was well made by the noble Baroness, Lady White, when she referred to the statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
The chief inspectors will head their own departments, and will need their own administrative and technical support staff in addition to their professional inspection staff. This paragraph of Schedule 1 will require them to negotiate their case for support staff direct with the Treasury. In making their case, they will set out in detail their functions and what they need to discharge them. In practice, my noble friend's amendment would have the effect of adding an extra layer to the control over numbers. It would not remove the Treasury from the picture because it would still play a role through the public expenditure survey and the estimates procedure.
That point was well made by my noble friend. If one takes it to its logical conclusion it would be an adjunct to another department. It would come through the Department of Education and Science and then through the PES round and my noble friend would probably argue that it is better that it should have its own straight line to the Treasury.
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector will have more control than HMI has hitherto had over its staffing and resources. The HMCIs will be their own department's accounting officer. They will also be able to say in their annual report and elsewhere if their functions are at risk from lack of staff or resources.
With regard to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, first, I do not have the specific information and, secondly, it is not relevant now that I have established that it is a separate department with a straight line to the Treasury for resources and that it has the ability and power to make its own case for resources.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to my noble friend who reassures me that this is the way in which all non-ministerial departments are controlled. I am not familiar with them and so that is news to me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 16, line 10, after ("persons") insert (", not fewer than 380,").
The noble Baroness said: The Bill suggests that there is to be a drastic reduction in the number of
66
inspectors from 480 to 175. We wish to ensure that that does not happen and are proposing instead that there should be no fewer than 380. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: In speaking to this group of amendments I particularly want to focus on Amendments Nos. 36 and 62. Their aim is to secure high standards in the longer term. The question we must ask is whether Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors will have sufficient numbers of staff to undertake school inspections indefinitely and to maintain their tradition of high standards.
Without continuing firsthand experience of inspections it would become increasingly difficult to guide and train new registered inspectors. Monitoring the activities of registered inspectors in the conduct of their inspections would be a poor substitute for extensive firsthand experience undertaken by Her Majesty's Inspectorate. Not only would guidance and training be difficult, but also it would be difficult to give well-based advice to Ministers. For example, it would be difficult to keep in touch with the implementation of the national curriculum and with the new forms of assessment. We must recognise that there is still a long way to go in implementing the schemes of assessment that follow on from the Education Reform Act 1988. It would be hard to assess the development of more practical and vocational work in the top ends of our secondary schools to which Ministers are wedded. But again, it is an early stage of development. Perhaps of the greatest importance is that it would be difficult to monitor the new system of school-based training of teachers.
I can give countless other examples and illustrations of why it is important that the national inspectorate continues in the long term to carry out firsthand inspections of schools. But the most important reason is that the inspectors are universally recognised to be the best prepared and best equipped to undertake such work. They should be doing it on a considerable scale to provide models of good practice for registered inspectors.
If it is accepted that we wish the national inspectorate to continue carrying out its inspections at the chalk face rather than simply monitoring other people carrying out inspections, we shall need at least 380 inspectors. That is the figure mentioned in Amendment No. 14.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I have a great deal of sympathy with the intention behind the amendment and agree with almost everything that the noble Baroness said. However, I doubt the wisdom of including in the Bill a specific figure below which one would not fall. That is ultimately an administrative decision and for that reason I am doubtful about the amendment.
However, I should like to take the opportunity of saying that I am embarrassed on this side of the Chamber that there are those—certainly not those opposite, or at least they have not said so—who would perhaps associate some on this side of the Chamber with some of the more severe criticisms made of the inspectorate. Nobody has thought to link us but,

67
notwithstanding, let me take the opportunity of deprecating an article written in the Daily Telegraph on 9th December last headed,
"How H.M. Ideologues have laid waste school education".
It is signed by a lady who claims to be the deputy director of the Centre for Policy Studies and goes on to speak in intemperate language of the inspectorate. Most of us on this side of the Chamber have a high regard for the work of the inspectorate and would not wish to make such criticisms. I should like to make that point clear.
At the same time it is not illogical for us to say that under the arrangements provided there will be some diminution in the numbers of inspectors. Ultimately, if one is setting up a new inspection system through registered inspectors of the kind proposed which will perhaps require thousands of extra inspectors, one has a choice. One can either incorporate those persons within a much enlarged inspectorate—that is not what the Opposition are proposing but it is a relevant issue—which would thereby become a large monolithic body, or one can accept the logic that some diminution in the numbers of inspectors is possible. That is logical but does not in itself imply criticism of the way that the inspectorate operates.
For that reason I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was saying. It is important that the inspectorate should continue to conduct its own inspections, which is provided for in the Bill. That will not be the main vehicle for inspections but there will be that provision. I agree with most of the sentiments which she has expressed. However, I doubt the wisdom of putting into the Bill a figure such as not falling below 380. That is an administrative matter and not appropriate to insert in the Bill.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I am not in any position to express a view about numbers. I know that many people believe that the Government propose too severe a cut. I am a little concerned with the relationship between the inspectors and the local education authority. I believe that my noble friend Lord Beloff raised this point at Second Reading as regards the responsibilities of the local education authority. As I understand it, every local education authority has a direct liaison at the present time with an inspector and they look into all matters. The inspector makes an annual report. I further understand that normally the inspector and the chief inspector of the local education authority meet regularly to consider a whole range of issues relating to the schools.
I would like an assurance from the Minister that nothing which is done will undermine what seems to be a very satisfactory arrangement at the present time carried out by a service—I agree with my noble friend—which has a very high reputation.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: The words of the two Members of the Committee opposite give me an opportunity to say something which I meant to say when we were discussing the first amendment. The
68
problem could have been solved by vastly increasing the size of Her Majesty's Inspectorate to about 2,000, with its expertise. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, also adverted to the same problem.
I also wanted to say that we should build on what already exists. It is awful to be seen decimating the present set-up when a very good system is being built up between the HMI and the local education authorities. The standards of all the local education authorities could be brought up to the standard of East Sussex in due course. That is not beyond the bounds of possibility. The proposal of the Government is going to take time, and probably longer than I have suggested.
Lord Peston: Let me reassure the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that it did not occur to me that most Members of the Committee opposite had a low view of the inspectorate. On the contrary, I believed that most Members who have experience in these matters thought that the inspectorate was good. Perhaps the noble Lord will recall what underlay my speech at Second Reading. It was to the effect that if one accepts that position, can it be explained why the Bill is needed in this form?
The Government, in the person of the noble Baroness, refused to come out to play with me on that issue. She said that my question was rhetorical and not to be answered. However, I still seek the answer. If the inspectorate is as good as Members of the Committee opposite say, and they are right, I can see room for change following the Audit Commission report. But I cannot see how one gets from that position to this Bill. Therefore I am not accusing them of ideology but of illogicality.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I am not sure whether I am supposed to rise to the bait. It is a simple point. We greatly admire the inspectorate but we doubt whether an appropriate solution to the problem of inspection is to increase the inspectorate by about 3,000, multiplied by a factor of almost 10. That would make it a very different organisation.
Lord Peston: The noble Lord and I are in agreement for the second time. I hope that I do not ruin his career on that side of the Chamber. I certainly do not believe in increasing the size of the inspectorate in that way. There are better ways of deploying the inspectorate and some of those ways would not be far from the lines along which the Government are seeking to go. In other words, we are talking about the division of labour, who would do which job and so forth.
The point of this amendment which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and myself and the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend is to try to get nearer to a proper balance on the desirable size of Her Majesty's Inspectorate and what it does and the desirable size for whatever other functions are necessary. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has tabled an amendment which will be dealt with in due course and which will also throw some light on these matters.

69
That is the logic of our position. Overall, we are saying that if one looks closely at Amendment No. 36, which concerns the task, essentially what we are saying is that the numbers should correspond to that task. At this point I become uneasy because all I know about numbers relates to the secret document which has been leaked. I do not care to debate on the basis of leaked documents. I take seriously the fact that no case has been made for keeping the document secret. I would like to have seen it because I am told that it contains the analysis which leads to the number 380.
I am not an expert and I do not know whether 380 is the right number. I read my newspapers and they tell me that that is the number in the document. If I could read it I might discover that the document is no good. If I could read the document I would at least know where I stood. I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. I do not regard it as all that sensible to include a precise number, but that is the easiest way to look at the problem. It is the easiest way to discover what lies behind what the Government are doing, which is what I am concerned about. The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, may say that 380, 400 or 360 do not appeal to him. I am saying there should be more than the number we are told. I would like a proper underpinning of a number set within the Bill, which is how my noble friend's Amendment No. 36 comes into the picture.
I do not believe that there is a great deal between us, but unfortunately the Government insist on creating a divide between us because they refuse to respond to some of the suggestions being made. We end up with rows which are always avoidable in this area if only one could persuade the Government of that. That is the origin of these amendments. I reiterate that I do not in any sense doubt the bona fides of Members of the Committee on the other side of the Chamber on this subject. I take it for granted that they are at least as concerned with Her Majesty's Inspectorate as I and my noble friends are.
Viscount Eccles: There are two quite different functions: one is inspecting schools, and that has broken down. There were only 150 last year. Even in the time of my noble friend Lord Joseph when he tried to revive them, it was said that there should not be a school inspection more often than once in 10 years. What was being done was much more useful. Advice was being given on particular troubles. One sent out the inspectors and said that there was something wrong with a particular department which should be looked at. The advice received was extremely good.
Now there is a suggested commitment of 6,000 inspections a year. Will it be the case that the rump of the old inspectorate will no longer inspect anything— will no longer go out and do what they do so well, which is to bring back expert news about the schools? They will spend their time trying to gather together a large number of inspectors —I cannot say how many but some thousands—in order to carry out 6,000 inspections a year. In my view that is an impossible task.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that we are still in danger of confusing the number of HMIs with the number of
70
registered inspectors who will be overseen by the HMI. I can assure my noble friend Lord Eccles that the valuable work that he describes will continue. HMI will continue to inspect at first hand and at least three-quarters of its manpower will do so under the new arrangements, in addition to monitoring the new inspections. In other words, it will have a monitoring role for the registered inspectors but will also continue with its dipsticking into schools on an ad hoc, subject-by-subject or school-by-school basis. That very valuable work will continue.
The precise way in which Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Schools arrange their work must be a matter for them. I am sure that they will ensure that they have adequate information about the local education authorities as well as about the schools with which they are involved. They will also be dealing with local education authority inspectors who will apply, as anyone else can apply, for registration under the Bill. Therefore the close relationship which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, referred to concerning professional matters will be strengthened.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that what we believe we are doing by this Bill is recognising, in the way that my noble friend Lord Renfrew has done, the work of HMI. We believe that it should be strengthened and given independence to do a professional job. The local education authorities for their part will have their share of the 6,000 a year reports on which they can base their interest.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Rippon that LEAs will retain their responsibility for going into schools if they have good reason to be concerned about the effective, efficient delivery of education. But of course they will now have an independent inspectorate providing them with a great deal of information which will eliminate their need to do so. That will certainly eliminate the number of times where it will be necessary to do so out of real concern.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, that one simply cannot take what is already there and build on it in the way that he suggests. First, one of the consequences would be the unbelievable increase in numbers within the system as it is at the moment. Secondly, remembering how many local authorities fall very far short of the authority of East Sussex, to which he referred, to bring them all into line and to make them deliver would involve the highest possible degree of prescription—and it would not be independent. We believe that independence of the inspectorate is important. We also believe that we should not build on a system that has not worked, but take HMI and create a system that does work.
I shall return now to the amendment. This particular paragraph relates to the appointment by HMCI of inspectors other than HMI to assist them in their inspection work. Such people are not appointed through the Order in Council procedure provided for in Clause 1(2). Section 77(2) of the Education Act 1944 gave the Secretary of State power to authorise persons to assist Her Majesty's Inspectorate in their inspections. Under these provisions, additional or occasional inspectors have been brought in for shorter or longer periods to provide particular expertise which

71
the existing complement of HMI have lacked, to widen their own experience, even on occasion, to fill gaps caused by extended illness. This paragraph of Schedule 1 simply allows for these arrangements to continue under the chief inspector.
These appointments have never been more than a handful of people at a time. They have provided useful additional flexibility; but the intention has never been to add them permanently to Her Majesty's Inspectorate staff. So if the noble Baroness hopes to require a minimum of 380 HMI, appointed through the Order in Council procedure in Clause 1, this amendment does not achieve that.
To return to the question of numbers. Noble Lords opposite are still basing their estimate on misleading newspaper reports of leaked documents rather than on the information and explanations given in another place. The figure of 380 HMI does not take account of the new position with regard to inspections in further and higher education, which was explained when your Lordships considered the Further and Higher Education Bill recently. One hundred and forty of the present 480 HMI inspect further and higher education. In future, responsibility for inspection of further and higher education and of sixth form colleges will transfer to the funding councils. No doubt a number of Her Majesty's Inspectors will transfer to those councils, but that is a matter for them. What is certain, is that these inspectors should not be part of the calculation of the numbers of Her Majesty's Inspectors needed in future for schools. Taking 140 from 480 already brings us below the 380 that noble Lords opposite claim are needed as the absolute minimum for schools inspection.
Nor does the figure of 380 take account of the fact that we are setting up entirely new inspection arrangements that will provide for a vast increase in the numbers of schools inspected each year. We have to look at what HMI will be needed to do in future when they will be running a much improved inspection system which will not only produce published reports for parents, but will also produce a huge amount of high quality evidence. Six thousand reports a year will be produced in standard form. These will feed into HMI's own judgments about the standards and quality of education in our schools. It is impossible to argue that HMI inspection effort will also be needed at exactly the same level as now.
As said in our debate at Second Reading, our preliminary judgment about the future complement of HMI is based on advice from the senior chief inspector on that question—because he is best able to advise on the practicalities. The senior chief inspector and we have looked at the way in which the new arrangements will operate in steady state, and the functions which will need to be carried out by HMI. I stress that these are estimates and will have to be subjected to detailed scrutiny once the chief inspectors are in post and have decided how they intend to operate. The figure of 175 is not set for all time.
Once the initial rush of registration and training is over, the system will require the full-time equivalent of around 40 inspectors for monitoring the work of
72
registered inspectors. We are satisfied that real and effective monitoring is quite possible with that number. We are not intending that HMI should go in with every inspection. That would be totally wasteful and unnecessary. But HMI would, for example, be able to accompany each registered inspector on an inspection at least once a year.
Our motive is not to economise. Where HMI are needed for specific tasks, they will be there in sufficient numbers. But many aspects of HMI's work at present—however described—in fact amount to the gathering of intelligence to inform advice to the Secretary of State. That intelligence gathering in future will be largely the function of the army of registered inspectors and their teams, so that area of HMI activity which has provided the baseline of information about the system in the past, will be significantly reduced in future.
However, HMI will not be any the less informed. Under the Bill, the chief inspector has specific duties to keep the whole school system under review and to provide advice as requested or as they think fit on any aspect of it. About three-quarters of the inspectorate will be available to carry out the chief inspector's own inspection programme, which will allow around 3,000 schools to be visited and some 30,000 classes to be observed by the inspectorate themselves. So the inspectorate will have a large stake in the expanded programme of inspection and that will provide an important check against the findings of the registered inspectors.
The chief inspector's own inspection evidence will also supplement the registered inspectors' work to enable HMI to continue to write reports and publications on particular aspects of educational provision, will contribute to the evidence for the annual report, and will underpin advice to the Secretary of State. All that can be managed, and managed effectively, within the figures we have suggested.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 36 and 62 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. With these amendments we are back to telling the independent chief inspectors how to carry out their job. There is no need for these amendments to give the chief inspector powers to carry out inspections for the purposes specified. They have unrestricted powers of inspection under Clauses 3 and 7 and can exercise them in pursuit of any of their statutory functions. I am sure they will do so as necessary.
Since the chief inspectors have the power to carry out inspections to establish good practice, I can see no point in giving them, as these amendments would, an additional duty on the face of the Bill to use that power as they see fit. I expect that the inspectorate will in practice continue as now to develop good practice in inspection, while at the same time collecting evidence about the school system. That will make for the best use of their time. They will also be accompanying registered inspectors to look at how they do their work. That is specifically catered for in Clauses 3 and 7. Such monitoring activity may also lead them to offer further advice on standards or good inspection practice.

73
All this useful activity is perfectly possible under the Bill as drafted. I think we can allow the inspectorate to carry out all their work in as professional a way as possible and when necessary, without further words in the Bill to remind them of their powers. I hope the amendments will not be pressed.
Baroness Seear: I thank the Minister for that reply. I apologise to the Committee if I was caught on the wrong foot when the amendment was called. I do not think that the point has been fully met. There is nothing particularly sacred about the figure of 380. But we on these Benches are very anxious that at this time of radical change in education, and with the universal desire in the country to raise the level of education—with so much experimentation in curriculum and teacher training going on—it is vitally important that the Secretary of State should get the best possible advice. Nobody imagines that the Government will have got everything right straight away. That would be absurd. We need to be convinced, and so far we are not, that 175 HMI will be able to do that job.
The noble Baroness said that the inspectorate will get reports from the registered inspectors. When it comes to getting information about, and an insight into, what is going on in schools in order to inform the Secretary of State, it is not the same thing to get it at second hand. Those inspectors, those top grade people, need to be able to keep their feet in the trough and be continuously in touch. That is the only way one can know. Those who have done work of this kind know that unless one goes back to the grass roots to find out what is happening one becomes out of date and one's advice is not as good as it ought to be.
The noble Baroness is relying on second-hand information coming to the inspectors which will govern what those in HMI say to the Secretary of State. In relying on those reports from the registered inspectors there are two snags. First, it is not the same as getting one's own information. It never can be. Secondly, we are not yet convinced—and we remain to be convinced—that the people recruited will have the insight, sensitivity and knowledge to be able to put their finger on what needs to be done in educational development.
That is the core point. That is what has to be passed on to the Secretary of State. The reports to the Secretary of State can only be as good as the advice that comes from the registered inspectors. We have yet to be convinced that the people who come forward as registered inspectors will be an adequate substitute for or be able to do the same kind of job as the existing high quality inspectors. Therefore the quality of the advice is bound to fall.
I do not propose to press the amendment today but I ask the noble Baroness to think about these points because they are crucial. I rather agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, on the way the inspectors could get that information. Very often they would get it better by looking at a particular problem area in a school than by carrying out a full-dress inspection. They need that day-to-day or at least month-to-month contact. If the noble Baroness can come back at a later
74
stage to say that she has thought about and appreciates these points and has some suggestions to make about them, that would be of great help. At the moment I wish to withdraw the amendment. Perhaps we can talk about it between now and Report stage. Otherwise we shall have to come back with a modification of the present amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I can give her an assurance that I shall go on thinking about all these amendments between now and Report stage and as the Bill progresses through the House. I said that about three-quarters of the inspectorate will be available to carry out their own inspection programme in addition to the monitoring of the 6,000 reports a year. So they will be in receipt of all that information. They will also do some accompanying of registered inspectors in the course of that work. They will also visit around 3,000 schools and observe about 30,000 classes in the course of a year. That will be very valuable additional work which will provide the kind of information for which I think the noble Baroness is looking.
Baroness Seear: Does the noble Baroness really think that all those things can be done in addition to selecting, training and supervising the inspectors? It seems very optimistic to think that they will be able to spend that amount of time in the schools.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, can clarify a point for me. I was trying hard to keep up with her fast-moving case. I understood her to say that three-quarters of the inspectorate would be available to do their own inspections. I understand that, but they have only a right to inspect; they have no duty to do it. The noble Baroness knows that three-quarters of the inspectorate will be available to do inspections. She has also assured the Committee that the inspectorate will be fully independent and therefore will make its own decisions. I am not quite sure that it is on the face of the Bill that three-quarters of the inspectorate will be doing inspections. I am a little confused as to how these two things fit together.
Lord Elton: Before my noble friend replies, I wonder whether we can be put into a clearer position as to where we have reached. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, had withdrawn the amendment. I thought that my noble friend the Minister intervened, fictionally, but really, before the noble Baroness sat down. I thought that the end of her intervention then concluded the matter and that we were into the next amendment. I do not want to be difficult but I think we are spending too long on this matter.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): The noble Lord is quite correct. I gave the noble Baroness the chance to comment on the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I should have thought that it was now time to ask the Committee whether the amendment may be withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 16, line 22, at end insert ("within nationally determined Civil Service pay scales and conditions of service agreements.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 16 to 19. Having looked at the groupings, noble Lords will notice that Amendment No. 17 is incompatible with Amendments Nos. 18 and 19. I shall proceed as if Amendment No. 17 were not on the Marshalled List, because Amendment No. 17 leaves out lines 23 to 35 and Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 discuss matters in that part of the Bill. I shall therefore refer to Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 and 18 and 19.
With regard to Amendments Nos. 15 and 16, I think I now need some clarification which originally I did not need. I had thought that Her Majesty's chief inspectors would be civil servants. My noble friend Lady White read a letter from the Secretary of State for Wales which also seemed to suggest that Her Majesty's chief inspectors would be civil servants. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, when replying for the Government on the question of competition for the post, seemed to imply that Her Majesty's chief inspectors would not be civil servants. If it is the case that from now on Her Majesty's chief inspectors will not be civil servants, to some extent Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are easily dealt with because the posts then become completely irrelevant. There is no point in arguing that the posts should be determined by Civil Service payscales and so on if one is talking about someone who is not a civil servant. Am I correct in assuming that from now on Her Majesty's chief inspectors will be civil servants?
I do not want to enlarge on that but the analogy was used in regard to the Director General of Fair Trading. It had not occurred to me that the Director General of Fair Trading is a civil servant. Again, I could be wrong on that. Perhaps the Committee will bear with me a little longer. If the chief inspectors are civil servants, it follows that the various rules of appointment under the Civil Service, pay arrangements and so on will apply. That is what Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 provide. The noble Baroness may be able to deal with those very briefly indeed.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19, although grouped, deal with a different matter. They relate to ceasing to hold office. I have a legal question. Does ceasing to hold office logically include removal from office as defined in Clause 1 (4) (c)? We discussed that some time ago. In other words, is one of the ways of ceasing to hold office being removed from office? I ask that question because, if the answer is yes, presumably the conditions under paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 1 will apply in the case of someone being removed from office and will be concerned with compensating him or her as well as whoever else it applies to. Is ceasing to hold office regarded within the meaning of the Bill and by the lawyers as including those who are removed from office?
My second point is a technical one. I am advised by my legal advisers that the expression,
"special circumstances which make it right that",
76
has no meaning in law and therefore that the Bill is flawed in its drafting. One cannot write in that expression. What one has to write in is the expression "where appropriate".
I am anxious not to be caught in the crossfire between experts; namely, my experts who will tell me that I am right and those of the noble Baroness who will tell her that she is right. I put it to Members of the Committee that certainly the people I have consulted, who claim to know about such things, simply say that that piece of drafting is wrong. I can go no further than that because I have no expertise in the matter.
The purpose of Amendment No. 19 is, I believe, obvious. If someone ceases to hold office and if, where appropriate, the Secretary of State deems that that person should receive compensation, it seems to me—especially as we are now dealing with public funds—that it is entirely right that he should give a public explanation as to why a sum of money is being paid and why it is a precise sum, and not another sum, is being paid. The amendments fit together and in both cases they are extremely important in terms of good management of the public sector. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The amendments raise technical issues about the terms and conditions of service of the new chief inspector posts. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, wishes to treat the chief inspectors as civil servants—at least he asked for clarification in the matter.
Lord Peston: I was simply asking whether they are in fact civil servants. If they are not, we can dismiss that aspect of the matter with no trouble at all.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I believe that reference has already been made to them this afternoon as being Crown servants. The holders of such posts will be Crown servants. Their pay and conditions of service, including pension arrangements, will be determined in the same way as that of other Crown servants holding similar positions. In other words, my right honourable friends will determine, with the approval of the Treasury, what the chief inspectors should receive by way of remuneration, travelling and other allowances (including any pension or gratuity) and what the level of any pension contributions by them should be.
So far as concerns pensions arrangements, I understand that the chief inspectors would in principle be eligible to have their service in that post covered by the principle civil servants' pension scheme. That is a matter for my right honourable friend to determine in agreement with the Treasury. We do not need to put any more on the face of the Bill than appears in Schedule 1 paragraph 3 in relation to end of service grants and pension gratuity or other allowances.
In reply to the question about someone ceasing to hold office and what it means, I understand that it means "for any reason whatever". There is nothing sinister here. The provisions are standard provisions for Crown servants who hold office directly under the Crown and who are not simply advisers to Ministers as is the case with civil servants. Noble Lords need

77
have no fear of any impropriety because decisions on such matters have to be agreed with the Treasury and will be subject to scrutiny by the Comptroller and Auditor General in the normal way.
I turn finally to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on compensation. I hope that we shall not spend too long on this aspect. As the Bill says, the provisions are intended for special circumstances. As I have already made clear, we hope that they will never have to be used; but, nevertheless, they remain necessary. I can understand that the noble Lord with his well-known penchant for figures would be interested to know how and why a particular sum of compensation - that is, should we ever come to that situation—was calculated. However, the noble Lord has overlooked some important points.
It would not be right to require public reporting to Parliament of amounts of compensation paid to individuals whose particular private circumstances have had some bearing on the figures arrived at; nor would it be helpful to government because figures given could be quoted against a government—indeed, any government—in any future negotiations and would, therefore, not be in the interests of the taxpayer. But, of course, the Secretary of State cannot act frivolously in such a situation. The Comptroller and Auditor General will automatically have access to the details of any compensation arrangements through his audit role. He will then be able to report to Parliament if he considers that there has been impropriety or extravagance. I think that that should provide quite as good a safeguard as that sought by the noble Lord. However, having said that, I am not sure whether I have gone far enough and sufficiently explained the matter to enable the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Baroness. I found her reply most helpful. However, she did not quite deal with the technical point that I raised. My lawyers have told me that the phrase in paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 1,
"special circumstances which make it right that"
is not correct terminology and so perhaps the Government should further consider the wording. But, on such a technical matter, I am perfectly happy for the noble Baroness to write to me and say, "Yes, it is correct" and I will then write back stating that it is not. We can carry on for a while along those lines. As I was advised that it was not a suitable form of words, I felt it only right to draw it to the attention of the Committee.
As regards the other matters, I do not agree. However, I can see both sides of the argument. If a sum of money is paid by way of compensation and it is public money, I believe that it should be in the public domain—embarrassing though that may be to whoever is involved. I do not think that public service pay-offs to people should be kept secret for whatever reason. But if the Government take a different view, that is a matter for them. My view is that the best way of controlling the use of any public money is to expose its use to the public. However, we can continue to
78
disagree on that aspect. As I said, the noble Baroness's reply was helpful. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments 16 to 19 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage of the Bill should begin again at five minutes past eight.
Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill
7.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the direct payment to lenders of the mortgage interest component of income support. The House will recall that my right honourable friends, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Social Security, made Statements on 19th December 1991 in which they outlined measures to be taken both by government and mortgage lenders with the objective of reducing repossessions of property. I am sure that the House will agree that this is a worthwhile objective. Mortgage rescue schemes are an important element of this initiative so I am glad to see that some lenders have already announced schemes in an advanced state of preparation. I am sure that the House will welcome the developments. The Bill provides a vital complement to giving reassurance to people who might be at risk of losing their homes. Lenders have given assurances that they will not repossess where direct payments are made to cover the mortgage interest.
The Bill enables direct payment of the mortgage interest allowance in income support to be made to qualifying lenders. It extends existing arrangements which rely on suitable cases being referred to an adjudication officer who considers whether it is in the interests of the claimant for direct payments to be made. The identification of such cases has not been easy. However, as my right honourable friend, the Minister of State, announced in November, new procedures were introduced by the benefits agency at the end of last year to seek to ensure that those cases in mortgage arrears would be more readily identified. Those arrangements are a useful interim measure pending the introduction of the more comprehensive scheme embodied in the Bill which will, subject to the passage of the Bill and to the making of the necessary regulations, start from the end of April of this year.
I turn now to the content of the Bill. It will cover those income support claimants who have an amount for mortgage interest included in their income support

79
assessment and who should therefore make the appropriate payments to qualifying lenders. The provisions of the Bill will cover all such claimants but regulations will specify the point at which direct payments are to be started. I hope that the House will agree that, as a significant proportion of unemployed claimants stay on benefit for fewer than 16 weeks, it would not be sensible to disturb their existing mortgage payment arrangements for a period of but a few weeks. After 16 weeks the income support calculation for claimants under 60 years of age includes 100 per cent. of the eligible mortgage interest. It is our intention to provide in regulations for direct payment to start once 100 per cent of the eligible interest is payable in income support. Regulations will also define what are termed relevant benefits from which deductions may be made.
I should make clear that by "qualifying lenders" we mean building societies, banks, insurance companies and other institutional lenders. Local authorities and certain other public bodies with home loan facilities will also be included. Most qualifying lenders are prescribed on the face of the Bill by generic title but provision for others, including some institutional and centralised lenders, and public bodies, will be made in regulations.
The arrangements will cause a significant increase in the administrative costs of the benefits agency which we intend should be met in part by qualifying lenders. We envisage this being achieved by means of a transaction charge levied on the lenders. I am glad to say that the Council of Mortgage Lenders has consented to such an arrangement.
This scheme is an important element in the response from the Government and the lending institutions to the problem of repossessions. It offers a significant and practical contribution to our efforts to increase the security of many people who might otherwise be at risk of losing their home. I have no hesitation in commending this Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Henley.)
7.10 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear introduction of the Bill. Mortgage default is one of the fastest growing causes of homelessness, accounting for perhaps one instance in 10. As a result, we have seen mortgage repossessions rise by 72 per cent. this year over last year, to 75,000. Behind them stand another 90,000 to 100,000 families who are 12 months or more in arrears; 190,000 or so families who are between six and 12 months in arrears and, according to Shelter, perhaps 1 million who are between two and six months in arrears. In other words, 1.3 million of the 9.4 million householders with mortgages—or one in seven—are in difficulties, while one in 100 is being repossessed.
Why? The problem is caused by the interlocking of high housing costs with declining incomes. High housing costs include not only high interest rates, but high repayment rates due to overgenerous lending. In
80
1989, 14 per cent. of borrowers received building society loans of more than three times annual income, compared to 4 per cent. in 1985. Many people also face declining incomes due, above all, to unemployment. In addition, there are fewer pathways out because falling house prices have meant that many people have mortgages that surpass the value of their property so they can neither trade down nor, given the market, sell up.
That tragedy is constructed partly by Government policies. It is the Government who determine the level of interest rates and who have shaped the level of unemployment which, we are told, is "a price well worth paying". It is the Government who have determined that owner-occupation is now virtually the only option available to young couples who are entering the housing market, whatever their income. Last year local authorities were permitted to complete just 6,000 houses and housing associations just 11,000, while repossessions numbered 75,000 properties. Young couples who, 15 years ago, would have started married life in a council house, saved for five years before going on to buy their first home on an 80 per cent. mortgage that was well within their means, are now battered all ways round. They cannot rent, so they have to buy but, because they cannot really afford to buy, they go into arrears and their home is repossessed. For the past four or five years research has been telling us that between 30 and 40 per cent. of all young couples cannot afford to enter owner-occupation, but too many have tried and are now facing repossession.
Tonight we are dealing with the casualties of Government policy. What a pity that the precipice was not fenced at the top by, for example, providing more social rented housing, instead of relying on a few ambulances at the bottom. The Government have, however, provided three kinds of ambulance, which were outlined by the Minister, and it is not our intention to oppose them. As he said, the first is that housing associations are taking short leases on repossessed properties to make them available to homeless families. Eighty housing associations were interested, but the building societies, such as the Bradford and Bingley, are already beginning to walk away from the scheme because the economic rents are too high. Indeed, such a scheme does not stop families being repossessed. How much more sensible it would have been to bring local authorities fully into the scheme, especially when they are required by law to provide temporary accommodation for homeless families. However, I understand that they are deterred even from acquiring former council houses, with the capital receipts coming from the sale of former council houses standing idle.
The second ambulance—and the source of the Bill—is to make income support payments directly to the lenders. Of course, we do not disagree that money that is made available for mortgage payments should be spent on that purpose, which is why we are not opposing the Bill, although I am sure that, on another occasion, the Opposition will seek to amend it. I shall return to that point.

81
Thirdly, we have had the December initiative of the mortgage-to-rent scheme, worth some £750 million for existing owners via housing associations. That looks unlikely to aid more than 5,000 to 10,000 families because the resulting rents are likely to be well over £100 per week and well beyond the coverage of housing benefit. Ironically, the only point at which the local authorities are invited to become involved is to cover the difference between the economic cost and the housing benefit. Although 50 per cent. of the money may be reimbursed, poll tax payers are expected to find the rest.
What about the effectiveness of the ambulances? Phillips and Drew has given us the most detailed forecasts available. It believes that the leases on repossessed properties and the mortgages-to-rents scheme may help between 15,000 and 20,000 families. The direct payment of income support may save 10,000 families, but Phillips and Drew forecasts that there will still be 80,000 plus repossessions in 1992. Perhaps I may ask the Minister what the Government have in mind for those people. Council housing? There is none. Bed and breakfast? The social and financial cost of that is appallingly high. I should like to know what the Government propose and I hope that the Minister will tell us.
Finally, I return to the attachment of income support payments. The Bill presumes, to a degree, that there is a culpable and wilful refusal to hand the money over to the lender. Certainly, the lenders seem to think so. They calculate that only half of the income support payments that should go to to the lender do go to the lender. However, they do not know, because they do not know which of their borrowers are on income support, which of those on income support are in arrears and what proportion of those arrears could have been averted by direct payment.
Although we shall not oppose it, we want to argue that the scheme is flawed for at least four reasons. First, even when after 16 weeks mortgage interest payments are met in full by income support, income support still leaves unmet considerable costs that are associated with mortgages, such as the capital repayment element, which is rolled up; the insurance element of endowment mortgages; maintenance costs and even excessive costs. Therefore, the scheme meets only a proportion—although a substantial proportion—of the housing costs that are experienced by someone on income support.
Secondly, the problem has been created in part because families do not receive full reimbursement of the interest element of their mortgage. Since January 1987, for the first 16 weeks on income support, families get only half of their mortgage interest paid. That penalises at least one-third of those on income support. Let us assume a mortgage of £40,000 and outgoings before mortgage interest relief at source of £400 per month or £100 per week. The family will have to find half of that for the first 16 weeks. That means that out of an income support level of barely over £100, a couple with two young children will have to find £50 gross.
Thirdly, the provisions take no account of the other direct deductions that such families probably face. A
82
Written Answer the other day suggested that one family in seven on income support had deductions of about £9 per week in May 1990 terms, which is probably nearer £12 per week now, for social fund loans, poll tax debts, fuel and water charges and certain fines. If a family with an income of about £100 per week and two dependent children is suddenly thrown onto income support, it will find that for the first 16 weeks well over one-third—and nearly one-half—of its income will go on the mortgage. On top of that, it is likely to face the attachment of a further £9 to £12 per week for other debts. It is not surprising, therefore, that when, after 16 weeks, that family moves on to full payment, the extra money is diverted and juggled into paying off the fuel bills—otherwise the heating will be disconnected—or the poll tax, because household goods will otherwise be lost to bailiffs.
All that is harsh enough but, turning to the fourth area in which we believe that the Bill is flawed, from April 1992 the nightmare of the 16-hour rule begins. From April 1992, full-time work begins not at 24 hours per week, but at 16 hours per week. At that point, families with children will be entitled to family credit, rather than income support. For many families, that will be more generous, and we welcome that, but it will lose some families their passport to mortgage repayments. Those without children will be eligible for nothing at all. Manchester City Council's survey found that one-fifth of all jobs were in the 16 to 24 to 28-hour range. Every one of those low paid, part-time workers will now lose the entitlement to income support and, therefore, to help with the mortgage.
It has not yet hit people. When it does I predict with considerable sadness that we shall see a soaring number of repossessions for those coming into the social security system for the first time. It will be especially damaging for those couples where one partner is in part-time work and the other becomes unemployed. They will experience not only a catastrophic drop in their income but a severe problem in facing their outgoings.
How will they cope? It is even more unfair because of course families on family credit who can claim housing benefit will not be able to get help with their mortgage. The Rowntree research in December 1991 found that a family with two children with a £70 a week mortgage would have to earn over £200 a week to be better off than on income support. That is the size of the sum, and that is the Rowntree research. I put that forward for consideration. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether families in that situation will have a better buy choice? Will they be able to choose between income support with mortgage help or family credit?
Finally, how confident are the Government that DSS offices can expedite such claims? There are notorious delays in arranging direct payments to utilities such as gas or electricity of sometimes many months. There are notorious delays, also of months, when mortgage direct payments have been requested but are "still being handled". As I say, we do not oppose the Bill but we shall seek to amend it. We wish

83
that the Government had lifted their eyes to fencing the precipice and doing something to tackle the underlying problems of homelessness.
7.21 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, when I was giving my mind to this Bill I was vividly reminded of an occasion when I was five. I was taken to visit an eccentric millionaire on whom my father was for the time being completely dependent. It was of course impressed on me with more than usual vigour that I must behave politely. I was taken into the millionaire's picture gallery. It was covered with ornate Rubenesque canvasses, which were not precisely to a five-year-old's taste. I had also been brought up to be truthful. I looked around and finally caught sight of a small picture in the corner, which was a landscape. I said, "I like that one". Looking round the housing landscape, which might have been painted not by Rubens but by Hieronymus Bosch and finding this Bill lurking in the corner, I am prepared to say, "I like that one". It deals with a small part of the problem.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, quoted the UBS Phillips and Drew figures, which seemed to me as good an estimate as we can make. I should like in this context to pay tribute to my right honourable friend Mr. Ashdown for the contribution he has made to getting action taken on this. The mortgage to rent schemes that the building societies and lenders are undertaking are capable of being extremely useful. But we have here an example of the propensity of governments through the centuries to solve problems at other people's expense. Those schemes are happening at the lenders' expense. This Bill is being administered at the lenders' expense.
The lenders necessarily are interested in some quid pro quo, which, as I understand it, is the payment of mortgage interest from the DSS direct to the lender. We on these Benches also support that. But we wonder whether, had it been possible to spend a little more time on the Bill, and indeed if we can spend a bit of time on the Bill in its Committee stage, we might perhaps improve it.
I am not happy with the principle that the lender should be made to pay. I agree with Mr. Blackburn that it was not a building society executive who said, "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working". The Council of Mortgage Lenders' figures published this month suggest that a fairly substantial proportion of the repossessions we are dealing with are the result of the recession. The figures are 20 to 30 per cent. as the result of unemployment, 10 per cent. as the result of another drop in income and 5 per cent. as the result of business failure. This means 35 to 45 per cent. are the result of the recession.
We have no solution in sight for the 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. that are the result of relationship breakdown. That is a problem we shall have to address in future. It is being said that the problem of inability to sell the house is on some occasions preventing divorce. We are all keen on the preservation of marriage, but I am not certain that chaining the couple together in a house they cannot
84
sell is the best way of doing it. In fact I am even moved to wonder whether this might have something to do with the rising figures announced last week for cases of domestic violence.
I am also interested in the reasons why it has been felt necessary to transfer income support directly to the lender. We are told that there were a number of people who were not paying their mortgage out of the income support. We do not have figures on this. As I understand it, we rely on anecdotal evidence. Now I make my living out of the careful, I hope, use of anecdotal evidence. I have no objection to anecdotal evidence but my noble kinsman has never quite taken the same line. Indeed I think it was last week—and I must apologise that I was not present on that occasion—on 18th February at col. 1149 that my noble kinsman said this:
"I suspect that if we put forward policies based on anecdotal evidence we should be, rightly, laughed out of court".
I shall be consistent. I have no intention of laughing my noble kinsman out of court. I think this is a perfectly good case, but it is anecdotal. I hope that he may therefore consider other anecdotal but soundly based cases with a little more sympathy in future.
Another point that causes me doubt about this Bill is that I am not certain whether it is necessary for the procedure to be compulsory when there are no arrears on the mortgage. A citizens advice bureau in South Wales has reported a case that puts my misgivings about this in a nutshell. There were no arrears. By the action of the DSS the mortgage interest element was transferred directly to the lender. The lender thereupon discovered for the first time that the woman was on income support and immediately began proceedings for repossession. That is not exactly the object of the exercise. I shall listen with care to what my noble kinsman says about this. I hope that we shall discuss this in Committee, and I shall be interested in hearing the case on the other side.
If there is a problem about paying income support to the lender, I wonder whether this may be because there is not quite enough to go round in some cases. An article in the Financial Times on 20th December recommended this measure on the ground that it was giving people protection from any temptation to waste the money on food. I wonder whether we might not find in a year's time that we are listening to a lot of medical evidence complaining about malnutrition and asking for us to take action to prevent people from wasting the money on housing. We need to think about this. I should like warmly to support the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, made about deductions, including the 20 per cent. payment for the poll tax.
There are some detailed changes that I should be interested to see. Like the noble Baroness, I would be interested in doing something about the position for the first 16 weeks. I should like to ask my noble kinsman for clarification on the cost of that, because somewhere in Hansard for another place there is a misprint, and I should like to know which one it is. I have seen figures quoted of £35 million and of £75 million as the cost of doing that. I should like to know which it is. I should also like to ask again the question

85
asked by my honourable friend Mr. Kirkwood in another place. He wanted an estimate of how many repossessions we could prevent if we introduced this change. He accepted that the Government were not able to answer then. He hoped that they soon would be, and so do I.
May I again illustrate with a specific case history why I think this change could be beneficial. It is another citizens advice bureau case; a painter-decorator in London whose work is occasional, and at the moment extremely occasional. He has continued to go on income support; he has gone through the first 16 weeks; obtained work again; finished work; and gone back into the first 16 weeks again. Debt builds up rapidly that way. Although my noble kinsman may say that that is just one case, I recall the discussions about the employment patterns of actors during the passage of the Social Security Bill 1989. A similar problem arises there. I am sure that it arises with freelance journalists, workers in the construction industry, and among people who have casual employment. We may find that the problem is a great deal more common that we believed.
I also agree with everything that the noble Baroness said about the part-time rule: people working between 16 and 24 hours a week who will not now receive income support for their mortgages. Those people will be better off if they do not work. I had always understood that the Government were against perverse incentives, but here they have introduced one. Again, I have a specific case which I believe illustrates the principle. A CAB in Essex reported that a single parent with four children completed a course of training and was offered a job paying £7,539 a year, but she lost help with the mortgage, and free school meals for all four of the children. She was £40 a week worse off. Does that make sense?
There is a case for having a specific mortgage benefit rather than tying the benefit to income support; but I suspect that that is something that will have to wait until the next Social Security Bill, if, indeed, we ever have one. I agree strongly with the case for including insurance premiums on an endowment mortgage within the scope of the Bill. That is at the very heart of the mortgage itself. One cannot have a mortgage without it.
I am worried about the pressure of work that the Bill will place on benefit offices, and the possible delay that may result. I should like to ask my noble kinsman whether the finance or the staffing levels of benefit offices will be adjusted to take account of the extra work, or whether benefit offices will merely be asked to be more efficient or, as the rest of us might put it, more inefficient. I welcome the Bill. I should like it on the statute book, but it needs a good Committee stage before it gets there.
7.34 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it is worth going into some of the reasons why horrendously high house prices arrived in the late 1980s. It was due to financial deregulation and a lax money supply. Those two factors combined resulted in high house prices. When there are high house prices, there is high inflation, and
86
that is what happened. Noble Lords opposite have complained about the problem being the fault of the Government, but at the time they were advocating an even looser money supply which would have increased inflation even more, but I will let that pass.
I welcome the Bill. With high mortgages and debt there is now a definite need for debt counselling. Sir Gordon Borrie, in a report in the late 1980s, hinted that that was necessary. As a result of a committee, I believe headed by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, a body called the Money Advice Trust was set up in September 1990. Its purpose is to raise money from the private sector to fund independent debt advice which adds to and complements central and local government support for money advice.
The trust is chaired by Sir George Blunden, former deputy governor of the Bank of England. He has given three main reasons why lenders should contribute to the trust. First, it is clearly in the interests of the lending institutions themselves to help to ensure the availability of an adequate supply of debt counsellors. Secondly, responsibility for many of the problems with which money advisers struggle must fall on the lending institutions, and it is clearly right that those institutions should contribute to the costs of resolving the mess. Thirdly, there is a desire on the part of government and the Office of Fair Trading to see lenders fund money advice.
The trust has a four-point plan to improve the provision of debt advice: regional expert back-up for CABs through a planned national network of money advice units (CABs are the main agencies through which advice on debt problems is given); provision of a national telephone debt advice service; access to self-help packs through a national answerline; and, training of money advice workers. The DSS now pays £750 million in interest payments.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, income support for mortgages.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. The response from the banks and the utilities has been broadly positive with over £1 million collected, of which a quarter is in cash, a quarter in secondments, and half in direct support for money advice projects. That goes towards the £3 million needed by the trust from the financial institutions so that it can fulfil its essential duties. The initial response from the building societies has been poor. Apart from Nationwide Anglia and the Woolwich, commitments to money advice by the societies have been negligible. On 3rd February representatives from leading societies met the chairman, director and trustees of the trust at the DTI. The meeting was chaired by Mr. Edward Leigh, Consumer Affairs Minister. Following the meeting it was hoped that societies would reconsider their decision not to support the trust. In an extinct peerage case in the early 17th century Sir Ranulphe Crewe said:
"Where is Bohun, where is Mowbray, where is Mortimer? Nay, which is more and most of all, where is Plantagenet?"
I paraphrase that to say: where is the Alliance and Leicester? Where is the Cheltenham and Gloucester'? Where is—I have missed my place. Where is another

87
one? Most of all, where is the National Provincial? They should be contributing towards this excellent trust. If I do not receive an encouraging reply from my noble friend I may introduce an amendment in Committee. Otherwise, I support the Bill.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, spoke generally on housing issues and possible problems in that area. I do not intend to follow the generality of her speech but to stick to the subject matter of the Bill and the small part it plays in the larger package announced over the past few months by various other members of the government. My noble kinsman Lord Russell, predictably, made a general attack upon the adequacy of income support. I am sure that he will not be surprised if I say that I do not agree with him on that matter, and repeat that there is no evidence that it is not possible to sustain an adequate diet on income support; but this is not the time or the place to discuss those matters.
Everyone will agree that there is a broad measure of support for the Bill and its intentions. Certain points about the Bill and income support payments for mortgage repayments have been raised with which I shall deal. I shall deal first with the initial 16 weeks and the 50 per cent. of eligible interest covered in those first few weeks about which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and my noble kinsman Lord Russell complained. They alleged that that could be a significant cause of repossessions. I shall repeat what the CML assured us when the changes were made. It assured us that the changes in isolation would not be a factor that would cause repossession. We feel that—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. How would it know that was the case because that first 16 weeks place such a strain on family budgets that they run into debt in other areas? When the money begins to come through, it is perhaps "improperly used"—I say that in quotation marks —to pay off other debts. The Minister speaks confidently on this matter, but I do not see how the council could know about these factors.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot speak for the CML. I can, however, say that it does not feel that in isolation what we are discussing is a cause for repossession.
What I wanted to go on to say was that we feel that the 50 per cent. we have discussed strikes the right balance between helping people through short-term difficulties and—this must be a factor that is relevant—the burden that is placed on the generality of taxpayers by benefit expenditure. I should add that what the noble Baroness fails to remember is that any arrears built up as a result of that 16 weeks can be capitalised and interest on them can be met subsequently. There is, therefore, help available to borrowers for debts they might have built up. However, in the main people in the first 16 weeks of unemployment—or whatever may be the cause of their being on income support —are more likely to
88
have some other resources. They might be payments in lieu of notice or payments in lieu of redundancy, for example, which will allow them to meet many of these bills far better than after the 16-week period is up.
The noble Baroness also commented on the changes in respect of the 16 to 24-hour rule. I think I am right in saying that the noble Baroness partially welcomed these changes for some people on family credit. There will be protection for those who are on income support who would otherwise lose out at the point of change. Again in that case there will not be losers as a result of the Bill or as a result of the change in the hours rule from 24 to 16.
My noble kinsman objected to the charge being made to the Council of Mortgage Lenders. One must look at this again as part of the package. It is something that has been agreed by the Council of Mortgage Lenders as part of the quid pro quo that it would not make any repossessions where income support payments were being made. In return, the council agreed to pay some of the administrative costs as appropriate. The subdivision of the agreed contribution will be carried out, we hope, on an equitable basis. Whatever charging arrangements might be appropriate for future years will be considered later this year in consultation with the lenders.
The noble Baroness asked whether the benefits agency of the Department of Social Security can cope with this issue. I am certainly confident that that will be the case. These extra resources will go a long way to easing any problems the agency might otherwise be likely to suffer.
I welcome the admirable concern that my noble kinsman expressed on the administrative difficulties of the benefits agency. I cannot give an example, but certainly in the past I seem to recall that when I argued that the administrative concerns of the department should be taken into account my noble kinsman did not consider that to be relevant. I am glad that on this occasion he at least points to problems that might arise. I can assure him we are happy that the benefits agency will be able to cope with this.
My noble kinsman also asked whether we could have a new mortgage benefit for all low income families and not just those on income support. I must say that the main source of help for all home owners is the mortgage interest tax relief which is estimated at some £6 billion in 1991–92. A mortgage benefit scheme on top of that would be costly and could easily increase dependence on state assistance both on the part of individuals and for the housing market itself. We are certainly not convinced that that would be the appropriate response to the present market difficulties. Certainly I suspect it could easily have a distortionary effect on the housing market.
The noble Baroness asked whether income support could also help with repayments of capital, if I understood her correctly. She shakes her head. Obviously I misunderstood her and she did not think it was right that help should be given with capital. I am glad I have obtained that agreement from her.
I turn again to my noble kinsman. He asked how many repossessions would be saved if we abolished the

89
16-week rule and paid interest from the first week of a claim. Again I cannot go any further than what the Council of Mortgage Lenders has assured us; that is, that such a measure would not in itself make any difference to the number of repossessions.
I now turn to the points raised by my noble friend Lord Onslow. I very much agree with the need for debt counselling. I appreciate how important it can be in preventing people from getting into difficulties that can lead to repossessions later on. The Government put significant sums of money into the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and its counterpart in Scotland. That will certainly help the CABs give general advice, including money advice. We believe, though that the private sector itself should support money advice counselling. My noble friend mentioned my honourable friend Mr. Leigh in another place. We are keen to see an improvement in the private sector's contribution. No doubt my noble friend will come back to this point in Committee. We do not consider that a statutory obligation on lenders to provide funding for money advice would be appropriate. We prefer that support should continue to be given on a voluntary basis. I very much hope that various people have taken note of what my noble friend had to say and will continue to support such bodies as the Money Advice Trust or any other body that offers debt counselling.
I look forward to a thorough Committee stage on this Bill. No doubt my noble kinsman, my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, will table amendments which we can discuss in greater detail on that occasion. For the moment, as I have said, there is clearly a broad measure of support for this Bill and the purposes it serves. I very much hope the House will give it a Second Reading. I certainly commend it to the House.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I hope he will be kind enough to answer two questions that were raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and myself. First, I seek clarification on the cost of restoring 100 per cent. benefit from the first week as opposed to from 16 weeks, given the confusion in the House of Commons Hansard. Secondly, we obviously support the transitional arrangements —I raised this point—that families on income support will be protected, but in future after the 16 hour per week rule comes in, will families coming into social security for the first time be permitted to have a "better buy" choice between income support or family credit?
Lord Henley: My Lords, in answer to the first question, my understanding is that the figure is something of the order of £45 million. If I have that wrong, I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness to correct the figure. In answer to the second question, I do not think it will be possible to have what the noble Baroness refers to as the "better buy" option. Certainly for those who are on income support at the time of the change there will be protection, but thereafter they would have to rely on family credit.
90
One must, however, stress that family credit levels are considerably higher than the appropriate amount of income support.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.50 to 8.5 p.m.]

Education (Schools) Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 2 [Functions of the Chief Inspector for England]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 1, line 26, after ("(1)") insert:
("It shall be the principal duty of the Chief Inspector for England to give advice as he thinks fit to the Secretary of State on any matter concerning the provision of education by schools in England, including in particular (as regards maintained schools) advice concerning the curriculum mentioned in section 1(2) of the Education Reform Act 1988; and").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 20, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 50. The effect of the amendments would be to strengthen the independence of each chief inspector, giving an overarching power to give advice to the Secretary of State, whether welcome or not, whether solicited or not, and a statutory obligation towards the "balanced and broadly based curriculum" for maintained schools which is laid down in Section 1(2) of the Education Reform Act 1988. Section 1(2) of the 1988 Act states:
"The curriculum for a maintained school satisfies the requirements of this section if it is a balanced and broadly based curriculum which—

(a) promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society; and

(b) prepares such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life".

The Minister of State, during the Committee stage in another place, did not reply to the proposition that the duties of Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Schools should be connected with the provision of a broad and balanced curriculum. The Minister of State's reply to the proposition that the chief inspectors should have a principal duty to give advice was close to being misleading since the provisions of Clause 2(5), which we have already debated, could—without being absolutely binding since it speaks of "having regard to"—serve considerably to constrain the chief inspectors. I hope that today the Minister will be able to give a more satisfactory reply than the one given in another place when a similar amendment was moved.
In speaking to the amendments, perhaps I may begin by saying, first, that the drafting of Clause 2 seems to us to lack a sense of strategic purpose. There is a danger that the office of HMI is to be reduced to a mainly administrative function giving remote control direction to registered inspectors. In our view, the role of giving advice towards the better

91
achievement of the aims of the Education Reform Act, as set out in Section 1(2) of that Act, to which I have just referred, is the proper expression of a long-term strategic role or vision for the chief inspectors.
Secondly, there is an issue of confidence. Clause 2(1) provides a duty of keeping the Secretary of State informed, whereas surely there should be a principal duty to advise as the chief inspectors think fit. It is partly for the chief inspector to press for the achievement of higher standards and partly to reinforce the perceptions of the independent standing of the inspectorate, since it is likely that the effectiveness of the holder of that office, in working within the teaching profession, will be greater if teachers' perceptions of the inspectorate's independence can be reinforced. An effective inspectorate will need to be critical of teachers, at least in some instances, although one would hope not all the time. That criticism would most constructively be received from an authentically independent adviser.
It may be true in practice, as I have no doubt the Minister will say that it is, that in principle nothing in the provisions of the Bill prevent the chief inspectors from giving advice freely. However, there is an issue of confidence and a positive provision should be made on the face of the Bill.
This amendment uniquely raises the question of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector's relationship to the curriculum for schools and the purposes of each school's curriculum. The drafting of Clause 2(1) leaves undefined its most important terms. Clause 2(1) refers to:
"the quality of the education provided by schools … [and] the educational standards achieved in those schools".
But how should the chief inspectors construe quality and standards? Will the chief inspectors be free to decide, or is there an implied reference for maintained schools to the duty of the Secretary of State, under Section 1(1) of the Education Reform Act, to secure that the curriculum for each school satisfies the test of that section? What scope is there for any interpretation of quality and standards by the Secretary of State to which he could give effect by directions under Clause 2(5), which we have already discussed?
The crux of the matter is whether Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors are bound to the aims of broad and balanced curricula for schools or whether their duties are to be guided by the Secretary of State's directions—for example, perhaps toward narrowly construed league tables, which in our view would damage the maintenance of a broad and balanced curriculum? I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The Committee will have seen that my amendment, Amendment No. 21, is grouped with Amendment No. 20 of the noble Baroness and is pointed in the same general direction. To that extent we are in a loose and unfamiliar confederation. However, I draw the Committee's attention to one peculiarity of her amendment, in case she should be minded to press it and not regard it, as I do, as a trial run before Report.
92
The noble Baroness's amendment would ensure that under Clause 2 it shall be the principal duty of the chief inspector to do what is contained in Amendment No. 20. After that it gives the Chief Inspector for England the general duty of keeping the Secretary of State informed about the matters listed. I wonder whether making one function the principal duty and the other function, as it were, a merely general duty is wise or indeed whether it puts them necessarily in the right order. I believe that the chief inspector ought to have a duty to keep the Secretary of State informed, as the Bill now requires, and that on occasion that duty may be at least as great as the duty of keeping him advised.
Nevertheless, having said that, an important function of Her Majesty's Inspectorate and of the chief inspector will be advising the Secretary of State and not merely acting as his reconnaissance force under the command of the general. The chief inspector should in fact be a professional advising the general.
I am always happier when such things are stated on the face of the Bill. It is possible that my noble friend will say that HMCI for England or HMCI for Wales will be empowered to make recommendations to his relevant Secretary of State if he so wishes. I would rather that he had a duty so to do. Apart from anything else, in order to defend the position of the new department of state in the financial arguments that it will have on its own behalf with the Treasury, as we said, the functions of the department of state must be clear to the Treasury.
I do not wish to extend the arguments. I have made clear what I wish to find out. At Report stage I may well be minded to refine the point and ask Her Majesty's Government to accept an amendment. However, I should like first to hear the reply.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Both the noble Baroness and my noble friend suggested ways in which I might answer which have some relevance. I recognise that they are both trying to be helpful in these amendments. My noble friend notes that there are dangers in suggesting that advice is the primary duty of HMCI. I do not believe that the amendments are appropriate. They are certainly not necessary to ensure that the Secretary of State receives advice from HMCI.
The amendments would give the chief inspector the additional duty to give advice to the Secretary of State in addition to the duty to keep the Secretary of State informed about quality and standards of education and about the use of resources by schools. HMCI is already under a duty to provide the Secretary of State with advice as requested and is entirely free to bring any other matters within his remit to the attention of the Secretary of State. HMCI will be free to comment and offer his views—as he or she wishes —on what he finds. If he does so in the form of a report to the Secretary of State, he may publish it.
HMCI certainly has an implicit power to add his own view and advice to anything that he sends to the Secretary of State. Indeed it would be impossible in practice to prevent, even if that were our intention.

93
But, by defining the duty as the provision of information, we ensure that the facts underpinning those views are always made available, while putting no restriction on what the chief inspector may add.
But the Bill does not give the chief inspector a duty—still less the principal duty—to offer advice, as distinct from information, on all matters within the scope of his powers. There is a danger with such a wide duty that we might appear to be setting up the chief inspector as an alternative source of educational policy. That is properly the responsibility of the Secretary of State and it is for the Secretary of State to determine the key areas in which he feels he might need HMI's advice to inform that policy, in the light very often of the chief inspector's own reports. That will be achieved through the ability to request advice in subsection 2(2).
It would be wrong to try to put any particular slant on the HMCIs' activities, as Amendments Nos. 20 and 50 would do. One important focus of their activities will be matters which fall within the scope of Section 1 of the Education Reform Act. The Secretary of State has a central responsibility under that section in respect of the school curriculum. The HMCIs will, by the very nature of their responsibilities, be particularly concerned to assess the operation of the curriculum, including whether it fulfils the requirements of Section 1(2) by being balanced, broadly based, promoting pupils' development and preparing them for adult life. But there are many other statutes—for example, the 1981 Act on special needs—which will require HMI effort and energy. Those should not be put in danger of relegation to second division status. We believe that the right thing to do is leave the HMCIs free to decide their priorities in the light of the needs of the Secretary of State of the day and their own professional judgment about areas where information and advice can most profitably be provided.
I hope that with those comments the noble Baroness and my noble friend will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Seear: The noble Baroness has given her case away. She stated that it was implicit that the inspector could give advice. But we want it to be explicit. That is the whole point. There is a world of difference between giving information and giving advice, certainly if the advice is only implicit. We want the inspector, as the informed professional, to be able to say things to the Secretary of State that the Secretary of State does not wish to hear. That is the way in which the expert, professional knowledge of the inspector can be most readily available. I do not believe that, by saying that it is implicit, the noble Baroness has met the point which we seek to make.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear on the matter.
Baroness Seear: The noble Baroness made herself all too clear. She does not want what we want. That is the whole point. It is not that the noble Baroness did not make herself clear.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Perhaps I may reiterate that there is nothing in the Bill which stops
94
HMCI giving any advice which he or she may wish, as I am sure the person responsible in the situation would do.
Lord Elton: That was a useful clarification. It makes it much easier for me to follow on. That is the precise point that my amendment addresses. My amendment differs from those put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. It does not give a primacy of duty to give advice but it gives an equality of duty.
If I were an intemperate Secretary of State—which I dare say that, after many years of dealing with education, I might well have become—and the inspectorate came to me and said, "It is time you did something about X", I would say, "I didn't ask you for that advice". Members of the inspectorate might say, "It is very important". I would reply, "Will you kindly look at the Act? You have duties under the Act. I am prepared to accept that you have duties. I should be glad if you restricted yourself to them. First, you have a general duty to keep me informed. You have done that last week. Secondly, you have a duty to give me advice when I ask for it. I haven't. Thirdly, you have a duty to do things about registered inspectors and this has nothing to do with that. I am a very busy man. Would you please leave me alone?" I would not be so brusque and tactless as that; I would wrap it all up. But the effect would be the same. I should be comforted by the wording of the Act in not placing any great weight on the advice I was given that I had not asked for.
I do not believe that that is the shape or balance that the Bill ought to have. My noble friend Lord Eccles referred to the professional knowledge and information brought back by Her Majesty's Inspectorate from all over the country. Its members will be the repositories of a vast amount of information which will make clear to them that certain things ought to be done. If the Secretary of State does not feel impelled at least to listen to them and to judge carefully what they say, then I believe that the Act will be the weaker.
My proposal adds no extra charges to public expense. It expands the duties and functions of the inspectorate not one millimetre beyond what my noble friend stated that they already should be. It does not threaten anyone's employment or policies. I hope that my noble friend will consider the matter again before Report stage and feel able to yield at least an inch.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I am confused by what appears to be a contradiction by the Minister. I had intended to raise the point but when the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, raised it I thought the matter had been clarified. At the beginning of the Minister's first speech, she stated that HMCI can give advice if requested. I wrote down the words "if requested". I believe that that simply means that if a request is not made information or advice (whatever one might call it) will not be given. That is where I am confused. If HMCI see something that is manifestly wrong in the educational service—I know that it happens from time to time—surely the initiative should lie with HMCI to advise the Secretary of State without having to be

95
requested. I believe that there was a contradiction in the words that the Minister used. In view of what the last two speakers have said, the issue ought to be clarified. It is important.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I stated that HMCI is already under a duty to provide the Secretary of State with advice as requested, and if requested, and is entirely free to bring any other matters within his remit to the attention of the Secretary of State. Should we have a scenario such as that envisaged by my noble friend featuring an intemperate Secretary of State, such a person could not stop HMCI exercising the power both to give the advice and, importantly, to publish that advice. The absence of a duty to do so is not the key issue.
Lord Elton: The point that I seek to make is this. Advice that is included on the face of the Bill under Clause 2(2) will be treated differently from advice that is not specifically referred to on the face of the Bill. Should not all advice be placed before the Secretary of State with a sufficient degree of recognition in law to enable the Secretary of State not to feel—as I would feel were I Secretary of State—that he could treat it differently? When I was a Minister of State I frequently looked at statutes and thus kept myself out of the High Court on more than one occasion. It is common practice to look at the law to see what one's powers, duties and conventions are. I hope that my noble friend will not feel that she could not spare a little time between now and Report stage to consider the matter again.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I have heard the anxieties that have been expressed. I shall consider the issues further before Report stage.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for agreeing to consider the matter further. I entirely agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said.
There are two issues. The first relates to advice, as against informing. Clearly, to give the chief inspectors a duty to keep the Secretary of State informed is quite different from giving a duty to the chief inspectors to advise the Secretary of State. I repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said. Clause 2(2) makes it absolutely clear on the face of the Bill that the chief inspectors for England and Wales can only advise the Secretary of State when asked to do so. I can see nowhere in the Bill a statement which makes it perfectly clear that both chief inspectors are entirely free to give advice, as the noble Baroness has just claimed. The Bill states that they are not. The Bill states that they can do so when they are asked.
We must consider the matter again. It is a serious problem in the Bill. I was a little surprised to hear the noble Baroness say that to advise rather than to inform involved the chief inspectors becoming an alternative source of educational policy. We are returning to some of the issues that troubled us about the inclusion of Clause 2(5).
Perhaps I may briefly turn to the second issue raised in my amendment. It is important that the chief
96
inspector should be able to give advice on a broad and balanced curriculum. That is a fundamental part of the Education Reform Act. What is taught to pupils in our schools, the content of education, is central. The people who are best placed to advise Ministers on what that content should be are the chief inspectors. But the noble Baroness stated that she did not believe that that ought to be on the face of the Bill because there are many other issues of high priority. Of course I agree. But it seems to me that there is no more fundamental issue of high priority than having a broad and balanced curriculum for all our pupils.
I have no intention of dividing on these matters today. However, we shall not hesitate to do so if there cannot be some satisfactory reply when we reach the next stage of the Bill with, I hope, some proposals from the Government for amendments. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I wish to point out that Clause 2 does not state "Only when asked to do so by the Secretary of State". It states: "When asked to do so". The alternatives are still open and I reiterate that government make policy.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 21:
Page 1, leave out line 27 and insert ("informing and advising the Secretary of State about—").
The noble Lord said: I shall not move my amendment on the basis that the Minister's undertaking to consider matters before Report applies to my amendment.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 26, 53, 55, 102, 106, 187 and 192. I apologise to the Committee for taking a few minutes to do so, but there are two groups of amendments. They relate to values in schools and to making public the ethos and values of schools. The second group of amendments, Nos. 187 and 192, relate to the prospectus of the school. They provide not only that each school should have a prospectus but that it should set out as clearly as possible the kind of school that it is and the ethos and values which it aims to promulgate both through the curriculum and outside it. The remaining six amendments relate to the inspectorate. They aim to provide that when schools are inspected, the inspectors are put under an obligation to report on the ethos and values of the school as well as on its academic achievement.
On Second Reading there was a substantial measure of agreement that those objectives are broadly desirable. I must stress to the Committee that the intention of the amendments is not in any sense to attempt to place any kind of restriction upon the values which are transmitted by the school. They are

97
tabled simply and only to require that the public and the parents are informed about the values of the school.
On Second Reading the noble Baroness was sympathetic towards the objectives. However, she argued that my worries were already covered by existing legislation and by the Bill. I have taken a good deal of trouble to look into that argument. I regret to say that I am not convinced. I believe that it can be substantially sustained only by making special assumptions about the word "education" and/or about the word "curriculum" within the Act. Neither of those words are defined within the Bill or anywhere else on the statute book.
I wish to look first at Amendments Nos. 23, 26, 53, 55, 102 and 106, which deal with inspection. As the Bill stands, the inspectors are required to report on the quality of the education provided. However, the word "education" is not defined. It is possible to argue that education includes all the experiences, attitudes, values and knowledge transmitted by the school in and out of class. The question is whether the inspectors will take that view. There is no guarantee that they will.
On Second Reading the noble Baroness suggested that for a definition of "education" one should look at Section 1 of the 1988 Act. That section refers specifically to the curriculum which, as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is required to be balanced and broadly-based and to promote the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils. Parents also need to be informed about what is going on outside the curriculum.
It has been suggested that the word "curriculum" could be understood to mean everything which goes on in the school. I do not believe that that is a sustainable argument. I ask myself whether extracurricular activities are part of the curriculum. Are the attitudes and examples of the staff part of the curriculum? Is the attitude of the school towards the parents part of the curriculum? I do not believe that it can be argued that they are. In this case and on this important issue it is essential that there should be no possibility of misunderstanding. Therefore, I argue that there is a need for a clause in the Bill which clearly and unequivocally directs inspectors to report on the whole school, including the ethos and values in and out of the classroom.
For the purpose of the wording in the amendments, I have used the categories of development which are listed in the 1988 Act—spiritual, moral and cultural—and I have used those epithets to describe the values that we are talking about. That is not the only description that can be used. It is possible to use, for example, the words "ethos and values"; but in doing so, we introduce a totally new concept. Therefore, it may be better to stick to the words which are already on the face of the earlier Act.
There is another reason why it is important for inspectors to be required to inspect and to report on the spiritual, moral and cultural values of each school. The Government have opted for diversity. Without doubt, sooner or later, some ideological groups—they
98
may be political, religious or something else—will gain sufficient control of some of our schools to influence the values which are transmitted to the pupils. Some of those values may not be what some parents want for their children. Some could be inimical to a pluralistic and liberal democracy; for example, values in relation to equal opportunities, to the role of women and girls in society and to racial issues. Inspectors visiting such schools could be under considerable pressure not to report on such issues unless they are clearly and unambiguously required to do so by law.
I wish to turn briefly to Amendments Nos. 187 and 192. They relate to the prospectus which is a rather complicated subject. The 1980 Act gives to the Secretary of State powers to lay down regulations on matters that schools must cover in their prospectus. There is a good deal of regulation in subsequent Acts. Some regulations have been made but they are patchy. Some subjects, such as sex education, are well covered; but other subjects are not. I take my information from the Heads' Legal Guide 1989 so it could possibly be out of date. By way of example, I point out that discipline and punishment are items which must he described under the regulations. However, discipline and punishment are the only elements referred to in relation to the behaviour of pupils, to the standards of behaviour expected by pupils and to the type of school community which the school represents. Again, there is no reference to the disclosure of the school's attitude to competition.
I am privileged to be a governor of a school in the independent sector which has an extremely high success rate in examination passes and university entrance. It is a competitive and meritocratic school, and I am proud of it. However, I should not recommend it for a pupil who might be traumatised or who might find difficulty in keeping pace. The point that I am making is, as in horses for courses, the parents need to know what kind of school it is.
There is no reference in the regulations to the school's attitude to parents. Some parents want to leave it to the professionals. Others wish to be partners in their children's education. Again, I suggest that parents need to know.
Finally, I have picked out three issues almost at random. I could have picked out more. The general point is that if parents are to have the right to choose their child's school, they need to have as full a picture as possible of the kind of school it is; that is, its ethos and values as well as its academic success. These amendments would lay an obligation on the governors or the other authorities responsible for the school to provide that information. I beg to move.
Baroness Strange: I support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 26, 53, 55, 102, 106 and 187, which are all grouped together.
One of the Government's main aims in bringing forward this education Bill is to ensure the greatest possible choice for parents. It seems to me that that is a very basic right and freedom. All parents wish to do the best possible for their children and, of course, all parents have different ideas as to how their children should be brought up. When considering the school,

99
there is the consideration of access, how easy it is to get to a particular school, whether it is within walking distance or within convenient reach of the school bus. There is the question of the state of the school buildings, safety regulations and the quality of school meals. All those are physical requirements which naturally concern parents.
However, a school is there to teach and to impart knowledge. For that, parents must see that the school follows the national curriculum. That is the level of the mind. Human beings also have another dimension: they have a dimension of spirit. Parents may be Christian, Jewish, Moslems or have no faith at all. However, they will wish their children to be educated in the same way. Whatever their views, it is the right of parents to know what are the spiritual, moral and cultural values of the school so that they can choose a school which approximates best to what they wish for their own children.
It could be argued that the Bill already caters for that and it is not necessary to spell it out in such detail. However, I believe it is necessary and that that will help to resolve differences of spiritual values because the school will state clearly where it stands.
Bus stops have their destinations marked on them. Medicine bottles are marked for sore throats, headaches or whatever they aim to cure. Restaurants have a bill of fare displayed outside. Surely for something so vital as the spiritual, moral and cultural values for our children, there should be clear and specific statements of what those are in each and every school. I support the amendments.
8.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I support this group of amendments to which my name is attached. I approach them from perhaps a slightly different angle. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, these amendments provide for the inspectorate to comment, in particular, on the spiritual, moral and cultural aspect not just of the curriculum but of the whole ethos of the school.
I welcome that. However, inevitably, we need to see that in relation to the provisions for the inspection of religious education, or, as it is called in the Bill, denominational education. It may be that people would fear that those two impinge on one another.
Clause 14 makes it quite clear that denominational education is to be inspected separately under rather separate provisions. That is right. It would not be acceptable to those who sponsor and provide the voluntary schools if they were not at liberty to inspect the religious education and to judge whether that is in accordance with the precepts of the particular providing body, whether Christian, Jewish or any other faith.
We must recognise that if religious education is a feature of a voluntary school, it will affect the whole of the perception of the curriculum. I hope that it will not dominate it, but it will have an effect because our philosophical or religious understanding is bound to have an effect on how we appreciate, for example, history or literature.
100
I have no objection to people teaching religious education with conviction and with enthusiasm. Indeed, any teacher needs to have those attitudes, whatever subject is being taught. However, in religious education in particular we must ensure that young people are given the space to form their own judgments about what they are being taught and to make their own evaluations. There is no case for indoctrination, which means requiring people to come to certain views and conclusions. There is an extremely vital distinction between indoctrination and education. As R. M. Hare said, the educator tries to turn children into adults; the indoctrinator seeks to make them perpetual children.
I want to see religious education inspected vigorously and fearlessly. If the Bill becomes law, roughly speaking, in its present terms, I should wish to encourage, at any rate, Church of England schools to try to find inspectorate teams which have an understanding of the religious dimension as the Church of England understands it. Moreover, they could arrange that the inspection of the curriculum under the normal provisions and the inspection of religious education take place simultaneously and by the same group of people because I believe that there is an integrity right across the board in the way that we understand the education.
However, we must recognise also that in respect of the content of the religious education and also the whole ethos and the way in which it is all handled across the curriculum, the secular inspectorate—if I may use these terms—should be able and free to comment that the religious element appears to be verging on the indoctrination rather than the straight education. As one of those concerned with voluntary schools, I should welcome any such criticism from the inspectorate if it was well founded because religious education providers would need to take that on board.
Therefore, I see this group of amendments as being complementary to the religious education provisions in Clause 14 and to be a strengthening of our whole perception of the spiritual, moral and cultural dimension. For those reasons I support the amendments.
Lord Beloff: I should like to be able to support the sponsors of the amendment. The difficulty seems to me that they have not taken into account fully the central feature of the Bill; namely, that inspections and who inspects will be determined as a result of competitive tender. What kind of tenders will be put forward to say that a particular team is more spiritually or culturally suitable than any other team? Will its members have to show special cultural or ethical characteristics?
It used to be said that the reason why the Clarendon Press in Oxford produced error-free texts was that there was always a number of unfrocked clergymen who could be employed as proof readers. I do not know if that class exists in our more liberal and ecumenical society, but does anything correspond to the class of unfrocked priests who may be recruited by the inspection teams?
We may have the highest ideals for the curriculum for moral and spiritual development. However, at the

101
heart of the Bill we have a mere commercial transaction, those matters are likely to bear very dead fruit.
Lord Rochester: Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, I am not a devotee of the concept of parental choice in school selection, if only because that choice is denied to so many parents; nor am I at all happy about the way the Government are proposing to reorganise the arrangements for school inspection. But with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for whose views I have considerable respect, we must accept that the arrangements for inspection are at the heart of this Bill, and what we now have to do is to make the best use of them that we can.
The Bill is rightly concerned with the academic performance of schools but it has nothing to say about the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical values that schools are obliged to promote under the 1988 Act. I am diffident in speaking about some of these values because I am all too conscious of my own shortcomings in upholding some of them. Nevertheless, I think that parents are entitled to know how schools are fulfilling this statutory duty.
As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, acknowledged, there is a problem as to how the required values are to be defined. At Second Reading he gave some examples of how it might be done. To judge from the way in which schools in Cheshire (where I live) have already managed to meet the requirements of the 1988 Act in this respect, I believe that what might well be regarded as best practice could now be built upon nationally by means of amendments of the kind proposed. In Cheshire it is commonplace for a school to produce for internal use a development plan in which the school states what it conceives its core purposes to be. This often includes values of the kind referred to in these amendments. Similarly, its prospectus will include a statement of what the school stands for, and that information is thus made available to parents.
For example, a school in my locality quotes in its prospectus the view expressed in the Warnock Report—and I am glad to see the noble Baroness in her place—that one of the long-term aims in the education of all children should be to enlarge the child's knowledge, experience, imagination and understanding and thus his awareness of moral values and capacity for enjoyment. Similarly, Cheshire's education authority—which I believe is generally acknowledged to be one of the best in the land—states one of its aims to be,
"to nurture the spiritual, social and moral development of young people by encouraging active consideration of human behaviour and relationships with others".
The practice of declaring basic organisational objectives is followed by many well run businesses for the benefit of their shareholders, employees and customers. For instance, the company for which I used to work stated in its last annual report:
"ICI seeks to ensure that all its activities are acceptable to the communities of which it is part and that the environmental impact of its operations is kept to a practicable minimum".
That company set out specific objectives which it had formulated to improve its environmental performance. For my part, I see every reason why schools should adhere to the same practice in declaring the
102
values for which they stand and the means by which those values are to be promoted. That is clearly the purpose of Amendment No. 187 which I should particularly like to support.
Of course problems may arise, for example in the case of an inner city school which has to cope with a population of mixed races or even ethnic tensions. It may well be that the wording of these amendments will need to be altered to deal adequately with those difficulties. However, today we are debating the principle underlying the amendments, and I join other noble Lords in urging the Government to respond to them sympathetically.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I too should like to support these amendments. Indeed, the only reason I did not put my name to them was that I was beaten to the draw by my noble friend Lady Strange. I then hoped that some noble Lord or noble Baroness from the Benches opposite might add his or her support and I did not want to take up the last remaining slot on the Marshalled List. I say this also because it is clear that the amendments are in no sense party political, nor do they attempt to favour any particular religion or branch of religion. Indeed, they can even be said not to favour the religious at the expense of the secular. For instance, Amendments Nos. 26 and 55 merely require the new chief inspector to keep the Secretary of State informed about the spiritual, moral and cultural values of schools, whatever those values may be.
With the greatest respect to my noble friend the Minister, at Second Reading she made one error in her otherwise sustained and brilliant summing up of the debate. She said the Government did not think that amendments along these lines were necessary because their scope was already covered by Section 1 of the 1988 Education Reform Act and therefore that Clauses 2 and 9 of the Bill would require inspectors to report not only on the mental and physical development of pupils but also on their spiritual, moral and cultural development. The trouble is that Clauses 2 and 9 of the Bill do not seem to mention Section 1 of the 1988 Education Reform Act, although I accept that that is the Act, with its attendant national curriculum, which forms the background to the Bill.
So I am afraid I am not entirely convinced that my noble friend was right when she said that Clauses 2 and 9 of the Bill do definitely require inspectors to address these aspects of the curriculum as well as the other more academic subjects. Indeed, my noble friend went on to say at Second Reading that the new inspectors would not be limited to looking only at the formal curriculum and they would also be able to report on the so-called hidden curriculum, which includes the values covered by these amendments. I am afraid that that is all beginning to sound rather optional.
I was confirmed in this doubt by something my noble friend said this afternoon. I say that because I suppose it can be claimed that the chief inspector is directed to report on the matters covered by this amendment by Clauses 2(5) and 6(5) because the 1988 Act is part of government policy. When my noble friend was debating the effect of Clause 2(5) and Clause 6(5) she was at pains to emphasise that chief

103
inspectors only had to have regard to such aspects of government policy as the Secretary of State might direct. That does not sound as though these values will necessarily be covered. As I understood it, it was an important part of the Government's explanation of Clause 2(5) and Clause 6(5) that they were not prescriptive.
It seems that these amendments would remove any doubt as to whether inspectors will have to report on the spiritual, cultural and moral ethos of schools. I would go further and say I am afraid that if this amendment is not on the face of the Bill and if there is any gap left at all, the required reporting may not take place. That would be a great disadvantage to everyone—to those of all religious persuasions and to secular humanists alike. After all, the 1988 Education Reform Act rightly seems to put the spiritual, moral and cultural development of pupils before their mental and physical development. Most of the debate on this area of the Bill will understandably be concerned about their mental development. It will be about league tables, and the academic curriculum; it will be about socio-economic backgrounds, raw data and so on. But all those things have to be set against the background of the deeper values which parents hold and which they wish their children to develop. Above all, parents must be told what the deeper values of a school are or they will never know whether they want their children to go there. That is why I support the amendments.
9 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: I support some of the amendments but not all and I hope that they will not necessarily be considered together. There is an enormous difference between, on the one hand, asking a school to explain its plans for the spiritual development of children and, on the other, asking the inspectors to report on what they think the school's provision is for the imaginative and moral development of the children in that school. I fear that most schools, if asked to produce an outline of what they hope to offer their children, will say much the same, except that some may say it within the context of the Jewish, Roman Catholic or Moslem faith. When it comes to plans for children's development, all schools tend to say something about the "development of the full potential of the-child". I have yet to see any school not say something rather meaningless like that.
However, if teams of inspectors are not able to report on the bad when they see it—and of course on the good, but it is much easier to identify the bad in this context—and they are not entitled to be listened to when they make their reports, then their powers will be unduly limited. For my part, I am not interested in whether parents are informed about a school's plans for their children. As I say, all schools probably say much the same. I am interested in parents having access to inspectors' reports which may comment unfavourably on some aspects of the school; for instance, a proneness to bullying, an indifference within the school to people from other ethnic backgrounds or the predominance of a specific ethnic
104
background in the school. That is important and should fall within the powers of the inspectors. The Secretary of State should be obliged to listen to those reports.
I should therefore prefer to separate the amendments which refer to the last part of the Bill, which is a matter of no importance, from those which refer to the first part which concerns the powers of the inspectorate. On that I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Elton: Any prospectus of a school which is silent on matters of its moral and spiritual standards is deficient in a crucial and important area. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that it is more than likely most schools will put honeyed words in such a prospectus. However, the first thing is to get them there and the second is for the inspectors to see whether they add up to more than honey.
It is worth saying at this stage that, even if there are provisions that mean in some tortuous way that the requirements to provide that information and to enforce inspectors' reports on it exist, the time is ripe for it to be said again by the Government of this country, of whichever party. It is not only the process of senescence which makes me feel that things are not as they used to be in the spiritual and moral tone of the country. One only needs to look at the mores relating to marriage or financial probity to see that standards have considerably declined. Those are the standards imposed by people who were once school children and who gained many of their life views in the classroom.
My second point in regard to the group of amendments is that, like the right reverend Prelate, I see that they abut on the question of the teaching of denominational religions as described in the Bill. However, it is not improper to consider the two separately. I hope to return today week with a couple of amendments relating to the relevant part of the Bill—Clause 14 and Part II of Schedule 1. It is nevertheless possible, without any power of entry into any lesson taught by any teacher who is taking a period of religious instruction—denominational or otherwise—to obtain a clear idea of what the spiritual and moral standards of the school are. Some emanate from the classroom but most emanate from the staff as a whole and are not necessarily even consciously taught by them.
Educationists refer to something called "affective curriculum". The affective curriculum, in layman's language, means things that are taught by mistake or unconsciously. A great deal is taught in schools by mistake or unconsciously and is much more readily perceived by people on the outside than by those who have been inside the school for a long time. Schools can develop their own inward culture which becomes more and more divorced from that of the country at large.
I hope that the Minister will look kindly on the amendments, which may not be perfect. They are right in intent and almost right in drafting. I hope that the Minister will agree that a matter of this importance should be included on the face of the Bill and not be left to the operation of existing but forgotten machinery.
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps I may make a short, practical, down to earth contribution to the debate. I support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in his amendment.
Some years ago I worked as a care committee worker for the then London County Council in Bermondsey and Islington. As such, parents would often tell me that they wanted a special kind of school for their child. They wanted to know which school had the qualities they had in mind. I would ask what they required and time and again they would say, "My son is not clever. I do not want him to go to a clever school. I want him to go to a school where he is happy and will not get into trouble. Where is that?". I would suggest the school around the corner but they would say, "No, those children are too clever. They abscond every day and still manage to reach the top of the class. I do not want my son to be out of school. I want him to be in school. I want him to be happy and I do not mind whether he is clever or not".
Somehow or other we must put into the prospectus in a practical way help that parents can understand.
Lord Peston: We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, and the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Guildford for tabling these amendments.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, in agreeing largely with what he had to say, that the only reason that my name is not attached to the amendments is that I was hoping the Government would find it possible to accept them or agree to come back to them. In that regard I did not believe that it would be helpful to add my name. That does not mean that I am not very much in support of what has been said here.
I entirely accept the philosophical disjunction which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has put before us; namely, that on the one hand it seems very odd that we are asked to consider spiritual, moral and cultural values, and on the other we are asked to go in for competition in the area of inspection. He knows better than I that when one is dealing with a Bill one does the best one can in the circumstances. What one is trying to do is improve matters relative to what they would be otherwise.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Although I would prefer words such as "ethos" and "philosophy", it is more sensible to stick to language which is already in legislation, assuming that it means precisely the ethos and philosophy of the school. I hope that we are all reasonably pluralistic. I believe that was the point that the right reverend Prelate made—that is to say, that we do not want to lay down only this set of cultural values. We are interested in the idea that the school should have some knowledge of cultural values of almost any kind as long as it has grasped the point. I believe that is what we are being directed towards.
I very much support what is being said here. That is connected with the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Blackstone concerning a balanced curriculum. We should not be talked out of the argument that there is no need to put the provision on the face of the Bill. After all, the efficient management
106
of financial resources appears as a specific duty in the Bill. If that is so, then we should not be talked out of including spiritual, moral and cultural values. It is not a question of either the noble Lord, Lord Elton, or myself becoming prematurely senescent. It is simply that if we believe something is tremendously important, especially within this Chamber, I do not believe that we should persuade ourselves that it is inappropriate to include it in an Act of Parliament.
I know all the clever arguments about why not do this or that. However, occasionally we should say that a particular matter is important to us and we would like to see it on the face of the Bill. We believe that the Government might indulge us to some extent. I like the words suggested, but if the Government prefer to produce their own I am willing to wait to the Report stage to hear them. This is an area where Members of the Committee have a moral duty to intervene and say that we would like this provision as one of the duties of the inspectorate.
Baroness Seear: I have great difficulty over these amendments. Nobody is going to disagree with the idea that in theory one should support them. The problem is this: how on earth are the inspectors going to make a proper assessment? How can one avoid individual bias being introduced to an evaluation of these qualities in the schools? It is not like financial matters or a subject which is being examined. I sat here trying to imagine what I would look at if I were trying to carry out an inspection myself. How can one find out about these matters? How can one be sure that, with one's own set of values—which one cannot pretend not to have—one would not be picking out certain things which are particularly relevant to oneself? It is the objectivity of dealing with these matters which bothers me and not that we should not be trying to make such an inspection. Would it be a really objective inspection? It is not of the same order as inspecting the other aspects of the curriculum. I may be wrong, but I find this matter very difficult.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may rise a second time and speak again. For once I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I do not visit schools as often as I used to. It does not take very much to discover that a school has no objectives other than getting some children through examinations without thinking too much about them. There is no ethos, culture or philosophy present at all. I honestly do not believe that this is a very difficult problem. I should have thought that assessing financial management was a good deal harder. I have been in schools which seem to be cultural and, more importantly, philosophical deserts, yet they achieve quite good examination results. I do not believe the problem is as difficult as the noble Baroness says.
That is why I originally liked the word "ethos". It does not take very much to establish the ethos of a school. I do not believe that the average inspector would find it that hard to say that a school is all right; it has the right ethos. On the other hand, it would not be difficult for him to ascertain that a particular school seems to be doing other things and it simply does not feel right. That is the point at issue here. I am not

107
worried about prejudice and I speak as someone whose views on a number of these matters are different from those which I have heard from other Members of the Committee. I am not worried. I believe that one can tell what is going on in a school. Perhaps we can debate this subject on another occasion.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am in the happy position of treasuring the moments spent in listening to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, waxing lyrical about spiritual and moral dimensions to education. I have some interesting memories of the discussions about the 1988 Act. I should like to deal with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and his desire to add what he deems are new purposes to the work of the inspectorate and registered inspectors reporting on spiritual, moral and cultural values.
Despite what my noble friend Lord Pearson has said, I am advised that it is not necessary to introduce a specific requirement to report on schools' values in this way. These are already covered under the duty of the inspectors to report on educational quality. Educational quality is a broad concept which completely embraces the 1988 Act's requirements for the curriculum, which these amendments reflect—that it should be balanced and broadly based, promoting spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development in preparing pupils for adult life.
I am sure noble Lords who have read HMI reports will be aware that these aspects of the school's life—to use a shorthand term, the "ethos" of the school—are now fully dealt with in HMI reports, which lay considerable importance on the way in which schools work as communities and the values they demonstrate. I am confident a new chief inspector will build such requirements into his guidance to all registered inspectors. I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I believe that one can comment in a very objective way about the ethos of a school in this way.
I have been impressed with the points made by all noble Lords from all sides of the Committee. Indeed, all noble Lords will know from what I said at Second Reading and what I am about to say now that I am sympathetic to the objectives behind these amendments. I should like to think more about the matter and about these amendments before Report stage and possibly to consider bringing back amendments in a similar vein.
I should like to make two points in doing that. We might be better advised to stick to the 1988 Act formulation and ask inspectors to report on the spiritual, moral and cultural development of pupils. They will in doing so report on the values of the school; but I think the 1988 Act formulation sits more happily with the notion of inspectors basing their reports on evidence drawn from observation of pupils' progress, rather than what they are told about the school's value system.
I should also like to consider whether we should extend this section to include the social development of pupils—also reflected in Section 1 of the Education Reform Act. That might be the way of tackling some
108
of the worries of my noble friend Lord Elton to ensure that behavioural and other aspects of the school are fully covered in reports. I would be happy to discuss that thought with him if he would find it helpful. I hope in the light of that assurance the amendments to Clauses 2 and 9 will not be pressed this evening.
I turn now to the noble Lord's desire to see that information is published covering the values adopted by schools. I imagine that the noble Lord would intend the information which would be required under Amendment No. 187 to be published in a school's prospectus, as information specific to a particular school. No extra power to require this information is necessary—the Secretary of State can already make regulations under the 1980 Act covering the content of prospectuses.
Schools are already required to publish a statement of their curriculum aims, and to summarise that in their prospectus—in most cases that already sets out the school's values very clearly. I have to say to noble Lords, with a note of scepticism, that putting that in aims and objectives is one thing, but actually being objectively measured against those aims and objectives is very much another matter. That is one of the thrusts behind these amendments. But we are certainly prepared to consider extending that duty to cover values more explicitly, along the lines of the noble Lord's earlier amendment. The mechanism for doing that would be by regulations. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment at this stage.
I have more difficulty with Amendment No. 192 which relates to the information which may be required to be collected and published under Clause 16. Clause 16 is intended to allow for the publication of comparative summary tables. I cannot at present imagine how the complex nature of each school's values can be summarised in a way suitable for inclusion in such tables. That was a point touched on by my noble friend Lord Beloff. I am sure that the right place for this information, as for the other contextual information about the school, will remain the prospectus. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will think again about that amendment.
In response to a point made by the right reverend Prelate about combined inspections, it is worth again recording that the Bill was amended in another place to allow more readily for the kind of combined inspections which the right reverend Prelate favours. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was anxious about the 1988 Act and the requirements of that Act for schools to provide for the spiritual, moral and cultural development of pupils. Before schools were required to state aims and objectives, there was a difficulty. Now, once those aims and objectives have been stated one can go in in the first instance to see whether a school measures up to their own aims and objectives. But more than that, the 1988 Act is quite specific about the moral, cultural and spiritual development of pupils. It is possible for an HMI, through the registered inspectors, to make an objective comment in that way. My anxiety still remains for providing that kind of comment in league tables, comparing one

109
school with another on a yardstick. That might be more difficult. On the basis that between now and Report stage I am certainly prepared to be industrious on these matters, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Northbourne: I am much encouraged by what the noble Baroness has said, particularly by her acknowledgment of the fact that, although, arguably, counsel may have given the opinion that the provision is not necessary, nonetheless it might still be better to write it down. That is what I hope we shall be able to do at the next stage of the Bill.
The noble Baroness made one point to which I should like to refer. I acknowledge that current HMI reports normally treat these issues, but we are now into a new ball game both in terms of schools opting out and of the restructuring of HMI. There again is the reason why I should like to see the provision on the face of the Bill. With those remarks, and reserving the right to bring the matter back if necessary, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 2, at end insert ("and the staff employed to work in those schools").
The noble Lord said: This amendment will improve the balance of Her Majesty's chief inspectors' functions. At present, Clause 2 refers only to the quality of education, educational standards and the efficient management of financial resources. I say "only" but I do not say that those matters are not of great importance. The words "employed to work" will cover both teaching and non-teaching staff.
When a similar amendment was moved in another place the Minister, Mr. Eggar, said that there was no intention to encourage HMCI not to comment on these matters, though he described those matters as "important". That was his word. He justified that view by saying that it was impossible to list all the matters that HMCI might wish to cover. Of course it is impossible to cover every aspect, but this amendment stresses that financial and human resources must be managed efficiently and that it is most important—fundamentally important—that it should be in the Bill.
We are questioning whether, without an explicit duty, the office of HMCI will have the appropriate expertise to inspect the quality of school management. Why should financial resources be singled out when this other aspect is equally important? The management of financial resources is obviously very important, but this amendment focuses on human resources—teaching and non-teaching staff—being efficiently managed.
Staff management is such a well established practice these days that it is astonishing that the Government do not give it its proper place in such an important measure as the Bill. Concern about the quality and efficiency of management in schools has been expressed for some time. The latest report of Her Majesty's senior chief inspector for England for 1990–91 has commented strongly on it. It should be
110
remembered that HMI's main strength lies in classroom observation of teaching and learning. It is highly likely that the new duty of HMCI to ensure the efficient use of financial resources will require additional staff with new expertise.
We believe, similarly, that significant expertise in other management areas should also be brought into the office of HMCI. The first report of the School Teachers' Review Body has also drawn attention to the importance of management's role in obtaining maximum benefit from the performance of all school staffs. Therefore, everyone seems to be in step on the matter except the Government. It is difficult to see how the Bill's aim, among other aims, about the efficient management of financial resources can be detached from the efficient management of human resources. That being so, it is surely sensible—and, indeed, necessary—to spell it out. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: I am sure that we all listened very closely to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington. However, on reading Clause 2, is it not clear that there are other qualities about which the chief inspector will have a general duty to keep the Secretary of State informed; namely,
"the quality of the education … educational standards … and financial resources"?
If he is looking at all those matters, the chief inspector will inevitably be looking at the staff in schools. I am sure that the noble Lord will be the first to acknowledge that the quality of education provided in a school will be largely measured by the staff, both teaching and non-teaching. That is what keeps it going. The same would apply to the educational standards.
As regards the financial resources, I should have thought that the major expenditure of any school would be on the staff. That must be right. Therefore, although it is not explicit on the face of the Bill, it must surely be implicit in these three paragraphs in Clause 2(1). Although I take the point that has been made, I think that the amendment is probably unnecessary. However, I shall listen to what my noble friend the Minister has to say on the matter.
Lord Elton: In replying to my noble friend, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will bear in mind that the management of staff does, as my noble friend suggested, have a close bearing on the quality of the education delivered. It is not only a question of seeing that the right staff are in the right room for the right length of time, and that the right length of time is taken for preparation, and so on; it is also the question of the much more delicate, difficult and important aspect of management involved in building a staff which feels that it has a stake in the management of the school and in the policies and standards which the school is evolving and enforcing. Very different results can be obtained from the same staff under different leadership, according to whether the leadership is entirely dictatorial or laissez-faire, or whether it involves getting the staff as a whole to develop a policy and indeed to support each other in enforcing that policy.

111
I only interject that point because I hope that my noble friend is taking advice and will carry a message back to the department that that is an aspect of school management which is now seen to be of very great importance though it has not, I believe, traditionally been seen as being so important in the past.
Baroness Blatch: The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, which was supported, and spoken to, by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, would require the chief inspectors to report on how well staff are managed. The Bill requires them to keep the Secretary of State informed about the quality, standards and efficiency of school education. Many factors will affect those aspects of education—for example, the way in which staff are managed, the availability of resources, the quality of the teaching staff and the state of the buildings. We really cannot spell out each of those aspects on the face of the Bill.
It is absolutely inconceivable that one could make judgments about the quality of education without including the aspects mentioned in the amendment. I must assure the noble Baroness that HMI will be able to report on any and every factor which contributes to the performance that it observes, including the nature and quality, as well as the efficiency, of staff management.
Certainly, we would expect the chief inspector, as HMI now does, to keep under close scrutiny how the staff, both teaching and non-teaching, are being used. That point was well made by my noble friend Lady Young. The quality of teachers and how they are managed within a school, and the leadership provided by the head, have been shown consistently to be crucial factors in determining the success of schools. I think that we can rely on the chief inspector to keep my right honourable friend well informed on all those matters.
Of course we hold teachers in high esteem. We are not implying otherwise by not accepting the amendment. Our reforms have demonstrated our concern to raise standards in various ways. We have given schools clear goals to work towards in the national curriculum and greater independence to manage, to which teachers have responded well. It is only this Government who have been prepared to make teachers' pay and conditions the subject of independent review and we have shown in this latest award that we are prepared to stand by what that review says. It has taken time to repair the damage which irresponsible leadership inflicted on teachers' standing with the public, but there is now greater acceptance than ever before of the need to raise the standards of our children's education and of the vital role teachers play in that.
I assure my noble friend Lord Elton that I shall continue to give thought to the point that he has raised. But, in the meantime, I believe that that is such a statement of the obvious that it would be impossible for the chief inspector or the inspectorate to carry out their duties without being concerned not only about
112
the efficiency and effectiveness of teachers but about how they are managed within the schools. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I take the point that the Minister has made, but the fact remains that the amendment is an attempt to emphasise the need to look at staff other than teaching staff and, as the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, said, to consider staff management and the organisation of staff.
I do not think that many people would disagree that in the past many, many schools have been rendered much less efficient than they need be because of the inadequacy of their administrative arrangements, administrative back-up and all the other things that are associated with the efficient running of an organisation. We all know that teachers can be expensive filing clerks and that they have totally inadequate support for the kind of work that goes on in any large organisation. We desire people employed in all grades and dealing with all aspects of school work to work together to make the school efficient as a whole. We do not seek to concentrate solely on the academic side. That is the point behind the amendment. From what the Minister said, I think that she is probably in agreement with that, but in the past this has often not been the case, despite the inspections. Emphasis has been placed only on the academic side, not on all the support services or administrative and managerial arrangements that make for an efficient school.
Baroness Blatch: Although I appreciate the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, does she not agree that the system that we are putting in place goes about as far down the road as we possibly can towards having whole-school inspections that incorporate all the aspects of school life to which she referred? If we started to single out one aspect of that requirement for the inspection, we would end up with a detailed, prescriptive provision on the face of the Bill to cover all aspects of an inspection. The points that the noble Baroness has made are not lost. They are provided for in the Bill. The difference between us is whether to single out one aspect of school management on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Seear: This is not an amendment that I wish vigorously to pursue, but this is an opportunity to refer to the overall administration and management of schools, which have often been seriously defective.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Both the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the difficulty of making these provisions explicit on the face of the Bill. I realise that that argument is used frequently by the Government, and I perfectly understand it. However, those of us who support the amendment are saying that these days management is sufficiently important to be on the face of the Bill. That is the point that we are trying to make.
I draw a strong distinction between professionalism in teaching and professionalism in what we now choose to call "management". Those of us who know

113
something about schools know of teachers who are simply brilliant in the classroom but who are perhaps not quite so brilliant outside it, with a certain lack of organisational ability. That is something that we should consider. I do not have the slightest doubt that management is one of a range of factors that has to be taken into consideration—I am pleased to see the Minister agreeing with that. That is especially the case nowadays when we have schools that some people may consider to be too large. I am thinking of comprehensive schools that have perhaps 1,000 or 2,000 pupils. Management is an essential ingredient if such institutions are to achieve their maximum educational effect.
On a number of occasions in wide-ranging debates when I have asked the Government to provide additional resources, arguing that this is the only way to improve whatever the issue was, I have been reminded from that Front Bench, "This is not the only ingredient. The other thing is good management". That is one of the reasons why I am enthusiastic about this amendment. We ought to be considering it in that light. I hope that I have at least sown a seed—the noble Baroness has nodded several times —so that something might come out of it at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 2, line 3, after ("efficiently") insert ("and effectively").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 25 I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 28, 54 and 56. Definitions of economy, efficiency and effectiveness are given in the statutory code of audit practice for local authorities which is prepared by the Audit Commission in accordance with Section 14 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. At the risk of being a bit didactic, perhaps I may say what they are.
"Economy" may be defined as the terms under which the authority acquires human and material resources and for economical operation acquires those resources in the appropriate quality and quantity at the lowest costs. "Efficiency" may be defined as the relationship between goods or services produced and resources used to produce them. An efficient operation produces the maximum output for any given set of resource inputs or it has minimum inputs for any given quantity and quality of service provided. "Effectiveness" may be defined as how well a programme or activity is achieving its established goals or other intended effects.
It is a matter of particular concern that the Bill makes no reference to effectiveness and only to efficiency. Amendments Nos. 25 and 54 are designed specifically to rectify this. While it is important to use financial resources efficiently—and we on this side of the Committee endorse such a goal—it is even more important that they should be used effectively. So, for example, if quite inappropriate methods are being used to teach children of a particular age group—methods which are either suitable for a much younger age group or perhaps for a much older age group—
114
pupils will not learn effectively. It should surely be a general duty of the chief inspectors to look at effectiveness as well as efficiency.
Amendments Nos. 28 and 56 relate to the specific duties of the chief inspectors. A central part of their responsibilities ought to be to promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness in schools. The schools should be both helped and advised to secure value for money and to be efficient in matters such as the use of equipment and of accommodation and in the deployment of staff. But again it is also important that they operate effectively in all these respects.
I hope that in reply the Minister will not say that these amendments are not necessary. They are necessary. Without them too much of Her Majesty's Inspectorate's work will be taken up with keeping registers of inspectors, monitoring privatised inspection systems, reviewing them, making sure the inspections lead to adequate reports and, worst of all, encouraging competition, and not nearly enough time will be spent by the chief inspectors and their staffs monitoring standards in the schools themselves. I beg to move.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I find this amendment a little puzzling. It is certainly refreshing to find someone emphasising the importance of effectiveness as well as efficiency, but I cannot imagine how the chief inspector and Her Majesty's inspectors could report on the educational standards that are achieved and the quality of educational provision without indicating how effectively the resources are being used. It would be strange if an HMI report were to emerge which said that the financial resources were managed efficiently, the educational standards achieved were high, the quality of education provided was excellent, but we were unable to draw the conclusion from that that effective use was being made of the resources.
If the Bill were to require the HMCI to speak about efficiency only, of course the amendment would be necessary. If the Bill were merely requiring HMCI to report on educational standards and outcomes, the amendment would be necessary; but as all three elements are in place, I am puzzled to know why there is a need for an additional definition of "effectiveness". Surely "effectiveness" is covered by the first two requirements.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Perry for speaking from her tremendous experience of these matters and for replying succinctly to the amendment. As my noble friend pointed out, it would hardly be possible to report on educational quality and standards without also illustrating the effectiveness with which resources are used in the general sense of showing what effect they are having on the educational progress of the pupils within the school. I must therefore resist the amendment as it makes no useful addition to the Bill's general wording.
Amendments Nos. 28 and 56 reflect the aim of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, to promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness in schools. The amendments apply only to England. I am sure that

115
was an oversight on her part. The noble Baroness shakes her head, and I have to assume from that that she did not intend the amendment to apply to Wales.
Baroness Blackstone: I moved Amendment No. 25 and spoke to Amendments Nos. 28, 54 and 56. I believe that the Minister will find that Amendment No. 56 applies to Wales.
Baroness Blatch: I am referring to Amendments Nos. 28 and 56. The Government have of course been in the forefront of the drive towards greater economy—I understand from an aside that there is a misprint in the Marshalled List—efficiency and effectiveness in all sectors. The amendments are inappropriate. They would give the chief inspector a duty to promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the education provided by schools—in effect, a policy-making role. Such a role should be for my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State, not for the chief inspectors.
The distinction is an important one. The chief inspectors are there to observe what the system is doing, on the basis of much more detailed evidence than has been available before; to draw conclusions as to how schools are performing; the reasons for that performance; and to report to government. Of course in reporting to my right honourable friends, the chief inspectors would look to see how the schools met the objectives of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. They will be free to suggest to my right honourable friends how greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness could be achieved, and to offer those views to a wider public. Deciding on the policies needed to promote those matters is properly the province of the Secretary of State. Again, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. It is a little odd to pick out the need for efficiency but not effectiveness. That is why we felt that there was a need for amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, seemed to be saying that we do not need Clause 2(1) (c) because the matter is all wrapped up in Clause 2(1) (b) in relation to the educational standards achieved in schools. I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I should like to think about it, and perhaps come back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 2, line 3, at end insert:
("(d) the overall level of funding of the maintained system of education, the morale of teachers and the effects of the introduction of new legislation;").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 27 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 55A. I move Amendment No. 27 because the functions, as identified for HMCI, are too narrow and are in part designed to serve the political interests of the Government. Clause 2 gives the general duties of HMCI. Collectively, they reduce the remit of HMCI to that of a body that could only report on what goes
116
on in schools and how schools individually conduct themselves, but not on the overall health of the maintained system of education. It is essential surely that HMCI has an overall brief. This amendment seeks to give HMCI that remit.
Three areas are defined in this amendment: the funding of the education system; the morale of teachers and the effects of new legislation. Those three areas have been subject to major public and professional concern during recent years. If HMCI is to be able to obtain a balanced view of the whole education system, those areas must be included in a chief inspector's remit.
Ministers may argue that Clause 2(1) (a) and Clause 2(2) cover the three specific areas in the amendment. However, comparison of the chief inspector's 1991 report entitled Standards in Education 1989–90 with his successor's 1992 report entitled Education in England 1990–91 shows that the present discursive approach restricts the scope for year-on-year comparison.
The 1991 report, for example, said much more about morale whereas the 1992 report said more about the effects of legislation. That position is simply inadequate and should be corrected. The three matters referred to in the amendment are fundamentally important, having regard to the form and structure of education in this country. They have all given rise to widespread debate and, in the opinion of some people, to considerable dissatisfaction.
I find the Government's repeated assertion that teachers' morale is high to be so far removed from reality that I wonder who they talk to. The amendment refers to new legislation. The biggest single concern among teachers—I believe this is also the biggest concern among many parents —is the number of directives and policies which shower down on schools. However, the Government seem blissfully unaware of that. Even the most dedicated teachers do not seem to know the direction in which they have to go. I suggest to the Committee that this matter is the biggest single cause of teacher resignation at the present time. There is a great need for an extension of the remit and this amendment seeks to achieve that. I beg to move.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I wish to associate Members on these Benches with the proposed amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, has covered everything that I wish to say. The amendment refers to the funding of the maintained system of education; to the morale of teachers and to the effects of new legislation. Those three areas sum up the malaise of our education service over the past few years.
At one time teachers were subjected to sustained attack. I know that they themselves did not behave well in certain pockets of unfortunate areas. Nevertheless the great majority of teachers have worked conscientiously for the benefit of their pupils and they have been crushed by the bad opinion of the public. That bad opinion has largely been caused by the press and, to some degree in the early stages, by the Government. Those attacks are still continuing. Not long ago an article in a Sunday newspaper attacked

117
poor achievements in the three R's at the primary stage of education. Those poor achievements were attributed to the teachers. A research project recently carried out by the National Foundation for Educational Research has disproved that theory. It attributes the slight decline in the three R's at a certain age—I believe that it has been noticed since 1987—to the effects of children being raised in one-parent families and to the effects of unemployment. It does not mention teaching methods, good or bad.
The amendment sums up the three elements in our education service with which we should be most concerned. It would be no bad thing if the new inspectorate were empowered to discuss such matters and was not confined in its remit.
Baroness Blatch: I am surprised by the interpretation of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, of the NFER report as indicating that the decline in reading standards since 1987 was due to one-parent families and unemployment. That certainly was not my reading of the NFER report. The report said that there was no one single reason and there were many contributory factors. It was quite wrong for the noble Lord to say that. It would be an insult to young children to say that because they come from one-parent families therefore their chance of achieving a good reading standard is somehow diminished. The competence of teachers, the way children are taught in school, the whole ethos of a school and the atmosphere as regards learning which is created in a school must be constituent elements affecting the ability of young people to learn, whatever their background. We must get away from the tendency to slot young people into compartments and blame all ills and lack of learning on their background.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: Perhaps I may correct the noble Baroness. I said that the report did not blame any particular method of teaching. There may be many other reasons for the decline but it was not the result of any new methods of teaching reading.
Baroness Blatch: I commented on what I heard the noble Lord say. He said that the NFER report was of the view that the reasons for poor reading standards were one-parent families and unemployment. I read the report and I read it very differently.
I should like to put on record the fact that from this Dispatch Box I have never joined in the attack on teachers. I can claim to be guilty of having joined in the attack on what I believe was poor leadership of teachers which prevailed for a long time. Teachers were ill-served by that leadership. I agree with the noble Lord that the majority of teachers are very hard-working and highly professional and we should be proud of the work they do in our schools.
The noble Lords wish the chief inspectors to report on schools' level of funding, teacher morale and the effects of new legislation. Those are important matters. They do, indeed, affect the quality, standards and efficiency of our education service. It will be essential that the Secretary of State is kept informed
118
about them, but they are not the only matters of such importance and it would be inappropriate to add them to the Bill in this way.
We have not added to the Bill the competence of teachers and other staff because, as I argued in relation to Amendment No. 24, once we single out any one factor which is to be inspected by the inspectorate then we exclude others. It seems to me that we either go down the road of very detailed prescription or we leave it to the professionalism of the inspectorate to inspect a whole school and to take all those aspects into account.
As we have made clear in earlier debates, Clause 2 offers a general statement about HMCI's national duties. While I can appreciate that noble Lords wish to add to the general duties their own particular interests and concerns, they must recognise that the Bill cannot and should not attempt to determine a detailed job description or action plan. That would not be the right way to preserve HMI's independence and to recognise HMI's professionalism. The chief inspector will he free to look at and to report on any factors affecting quality, standards and efficiency, including those mentioned in the amendments. That is as it should be. I must resist the amendment accordingly.
Lord Dormand of Easington: From the first part of the Minister's speech I thought that she supported the amendment. Indeed, she did; it was only in the latter part of her speech that we heard the Government's apparently final view on the matter. The noble Baroness said that we could discuss individual aspects of the education structure. Perhaps I may remind her that only a short while ago we had a long debate on the spiritual, moral and cultural values of schools. That is an important aspect; I would not disagree with her. The amendment proposes that the three matters mentioned are of great importance. Without them we are talking about a two-legged stool.
I do not see how HMIs and the Secretary of State can produce the high standard or what most would consider the necessary standard of education without these matters being reported upon. It is an extremely disappointing reply. Had it not been for the late hour, the amendment might have been pressed to a Division. But in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 28 to 31 not moved.]
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert ("appointing the inspector from the register who will inspect any individual school").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak briefly to this amendment. The disquiet felt by the education world, much of the public and many parents about the proposed plan by the Government can be summed up briefly. But first let me say that this amendment might be acceptable to the Government because it retains the idea of private inspectorates with a commercial basis, which is the main thrust of the Bill.
The fears and anxieties about the scheme are, first, the threat of amateurishness and the consequent lack of authority on the part of the inspector teams. Secondly, there is the inappropriateness of having a

119
commercial basis for school inspections. There is the fear that schools will choose the cheap option and teams will tailor their reports to suit the schools, so getting the business another day. Educationists are also concerned about the lack of nationwide consistency that existed under HMI. Indeed, its inspections have been far less frequent than one could have wished, but it produced annual surveys—which have recently been published, thanks to the work of the present Government—giving a nationwide view of the state of education. I do not see how that will happen so effectively with the new scheme.
There is likely to be a lack of continuity. As I understand the matter, the governing body of a school may choose a different inspector team every time the school is inspected, in which case there will be a new set of inspectors arriving every time. They will not be able to pick up the earlier threads but will have an entirely new approach and will say different things. It seems to me that a school will find that most confusing.
There may be a lack of continuing support, advice and development. For instance, in my county of East Sussex schools are very dependent on continuing contact with the local authority, which has paid repeated visits and given advice and continuing support. I do not see how that can take place under the new scheme.
There is also the danger of educational bias. One inspector team may be more interested in one aspect of education—shall we say, the arts—and another team may be more interested in another aspect, perhaps the sciences. There may even be racial or political bias of one kind or another, which could be very dangerous in inner city areas, for example. I do not know how the inspector teams will look into particular aspects of school work as HMI has done over the years. For example, it made a survey of teaching mathematics to primary school children. How will such things be achieved?
It seems to me that all those aspects of school inspection are covered or are on the way to being covered by the present system. As I have said several times this evening, all that needs to be done is to build on the present system rather than destroying it and setting up an entirely new scheme which will take at least five years to begin to become effective.
Control by HMCI as suggested in this amendment would at least help to reduce the risk of damage by removing the direct link between schools and inspector teams. We fear most the cosiness and collusion that may build up. The suggested scheme whereby schools are inspected via the authority of HMCI removes the inspector teams to arm's length from the schools. I believe that that is most important. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: The amendment is the first of a series of amendments that address the problem which many on all sides of the Chamber have recognised. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, used the term "cosiness". There is a widely felt anxiety that if
120
the governors of a school are simply free to appoint their own registered inspector from the list of registered inspectors, sometimes a cosiness will develop and the breath of fresh air which the system is intended to offer in producing an unbiased report on the school may not develop. Many of us agree with the point at which the noble Lord begins.
I draw attention to this circumstance. There is a series of amendments which address the same issue. Amendment No. 32 solves the problem by providing that the chief inspector simply appoints the registered inspector who will then conduct the inspection in the school. Amendment No. 38 adopts broadly a similar response. No doubt later we shall discuss my amendment, Amendment No. 40, and those grouped with it. It adopts a different approach. It allows the governors to get on with the appointment but provides a monitoring role for the chief inspector who can send in an assessor and, where necessary, veto the matter. Amendment No. 116—it will be moved on another day by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington—produces a different scheme in which the chief inspector would nominate the short list and leave the school governors to choose whichever they consider appropriate from the short list.
No doubt we shall have a long discussion about the amendments in sequence since they are not grouped together. I hope that it is not inappropriate for me to point out now that, although we speak to the amendments separately and no doubt will vote on them separately, one precludes the other. If we adopted Amendment No. 32 it might not be appropriate to adopt Amendments Nos. 38, 40 or 116. It is perhaps relevant to mention that.
Amendment No. 32 has a technical defect. It leaves Schedule 2 floating. It amends the Bill in one place but leaves the provisions for tendering and so on unmodified in Schedule 2. In order to work, Amendment No. 32 would need to be followed by appropriate amendments to Schedule 2 which have not been laid down. It is a technical point which no doubt can be remedied.
The more general consideration is the best way to proceed. If one goes to the trouble of providing a system of registered inspectors with the hope that there will be some independent insights into the school inspection process so that one has a range of variety, there is the serious risk that, if the chief inspector first registers the registered inspectors (he has his hand on the matter there) and proceeds to appoint the registered inspector who shall inspect the school, the matter is so much under the control of the chief inspector that the elements of variety and fresh insights which the system might have the capacity to offer will be denied. In a more general sense that is why the amendment may not provide the ideal solution, although many of us agree that the noble Lord has put his finger on a central problem.
Lord Peston: My name appears on this and at least one other subsequent amendment referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. I agree that there are several ways of trying to solve a problem which we believe gives rise to a fatal flaw in the Bill. The fatal flaw is that the schools should be able to choose their

121
inspectors. That proposal is ridiculous and it has appeared to us to be ridiculous from the first time that we saw it in the Bill. It remains ridiculous.
Perhaps I may take as an example—not one which I wish to go into in detail—the opted-out school in East London and the troubles that it is currently having. The suggestion that that school should choose its own inspectors seems to be so far-fetched as clearly to indicate why the Bill is fatally flawed. This Bill will enable that school to appoint its own inspectors and that is exactly what it does not need.
Having said that the Bill is flawed, our problem is how to get into it to improve it. I believe that the amendment represents at least one way. I do not wish to press it at this time, nor shall I press Amendment No. 38, because I wish to hear the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, in respect of his amendment. There will be other days on which we can consider these matters, depending on what we hear from the noble Lord and from the Government.
The amendment appears to me to provide a way worth considering. After all, inspectors do inspect at present and therefore it is not entirely out of the question that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector can select inspectors and say, "These are the ones who will do the inspections". It is not an impossible state of affairs, although I understand the criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. The reason for tabling the amendment at this stage is that I should like to hear the Government's argument about why they do not believe that it is the right way into the Bill. In other words, I am trying to persuade the Government to put forward an argument as to why schools should choose their own inspectors.
That is the provision that I do not understand and have not understood it from the beginning. It makes no sense and it is completely incompatible with the notion of independent inspection. "Independent inspection" means that someone else inspects a school. I was enormously impressed by the noble Baroness's winding-up speech on Second Reading, in which she endeavoured to justify choosing one's own inspectors. However, the argument simply does not wash. If I want to know whether a school has been properly inspected I want someone else to choose the inspectors. The one body which I do not wish to choose them is the school. That is the most obvious and logical point and with that I support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend Lord Renfrew has spotted the fact that on its own the amendment is wholly defective and will require a number of consequential amendments to make sense of what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, wishes to achieve. It is a variant on those which we shall be discussing later. To some extent we are speaking in a vacuum because we do not have before us for consideration the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Renfrew.
The noble Lords, Lord Ritchie and Lord Peston, are pressing what I believe are in effect wrecking amendments. They are seeking to substitute a centralised regime for that which we are establishing under the Bill. They would require HMCI to appoint a registered inspector for every individual inspection
122
—more than 6,000 every year. It would appear that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, would prefer an Audit Commission system with contracts placed centrally. However, the Audit Commission does not deal with anything like 6,000 contracts a year—a few hundred are dealt with at the most. If school inspection on the scale now planned were to be managed centrally we should be setting up an enormous bureaucracy. It would be an office filled not by HMIs but by administrators.
Of course we could have a random allocation of inspectors to schools in order to save money but that would be wasteful. Why go to such lengths to set up a negotiated but centralised system with registered inspectors acting in effect as HMIs' agents when the same results can be had from the model set out in our Bill? The answer is as we heard on Second Reading; it hinges on the need to avoid collusion and soft reporting. I agree with all that has been said about that and I identify with the anxieties expressed. However, I believe that there are more constructive ways of addressing that particular point.
On Second Reading we heard a rather more positive suggestion for dealing with that anxiety from my noble friend Lord Renfrew, who has now tabled amendments which will allow a chief inspector to guide and monitor the process by which governors choose inspectors. That may require more inspectors. We would much rather have that than an army of bureaucrats. That would offer professional help to governors as well as keeping an eye on how they use their discretion. It keeps governors at the centre of the process. I hope that Members of the Committee will support my noble friend's amendment in due course.
The issues which divide us on these amendments are fundamental. They relate to the new role of governors and our confidence on this side of the Committee that the right place for key decisions to be taken is in the individual schools. Members of the Committee opposite pay lip service to that proposition. They want the LEA (or if not the LEA, the HMI) to make decisions about inspections. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said about one school governing body which is having difficulties at present. That difficulty must be addressed, but it is no reason for saying that we cannot trust governing bodies to be involved centrally in the process of determining who shall inspect their schools as long as the chief inspector properly determines a registration system, qualifications for registration and, indeed, a register and puts into the public domain criteria by which schools are inspected.
There is no doubt in my mind that the right people to commission an inspection report on a school or, for example, to commission a management consultant's report on a business, are those responsible for acting on the report. I entirely accept that the public nature of the inspection process adds a tension which requires additional safeguards. A number are already built into the Bill: HMI's registration and monitoring, governor accountability and greater openness. When we consider the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Renfrew, we may add further safeguards to allow the chief inspector to oversee the selection of

123
inspectors. However, the need for safeguards does not detract from the central argument that if inspection is to be a positive force and is to feed into the cycle of planning for progress, it is best arranged at school level. Only in that way shall we gain the maximum benefit from the greatly increased inspection activity which we propose to secure the highest standards which we all agree are so necessary.
As regards the point which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, made about the LEAs and what will be their future role the local education authorities will retain £65 million—about half of their current spending—to spend on inspectors and advisers who will offer their schools advice. They also employ an additional 3,000 advisory teachers. All those aspects can continue under the Bill. Indeed, published inspection reports will give schools a greater incentive to seek and follow good advice and will enable local authorities to properly target their efforts on the basis of the information obtained from the inspection reports. They will be able to make much more effective use of their local advisory service. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I have taken on board what the Minister said. I moved this amendment because I thought it was interesting and might be one way of solving the problem with which we are all faced. As I say, I have taken on board the Minister's objections to the amendment. I shall read what she said and think about it.
I believe that something on these lines must be the answer to the problem which is worrying us all. We are all waiting to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, says in moving his amendments. In the circumstances, I shall not press the amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 2, line 14, at beginning insert ("establishing the standard criteria for judging work in the school and").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 relate to different questions in England, and Amendments Nos. 59 and 61 relate to similar issues in Wales. I shall speak to them together.
The first amendment of each pair is brought forward by the desire to have an explanation from the Government as to how the inspectorate will carry out its overall function relating to the whole country. Hitherto we have had a slightly larger inspectorate dealing with England and Wales. This amendment provides for slightly smaller inspectorates dealing separately with the Kingdom and the Principality. They are nonetheless large areas in which there may be large variations of quality and even objectives of education.
We have now agreed that it is the function of the inspectorate to inform the Secretary of State what education may be like in each area—what its objectives and qualities are—and even to offer him advice thereon. But at the moment it is not clear to me how Her Majesty's Chief Inspector through his inspectorate will ensure that registered inspectors,
124
who may well be peculiar to the West Country, the North East or Dyfed, accept certain basic norms everywhere. If we do not ensure that, there will be unacceptable variations. Variations upwards are acceptable but variations downwards are not. Therefore, the first amendment—which is a probing amendment—is to insert a provision on page 2 at line 14 so that the Chief Inspector for England shall in addition have the specific duty of
"establishing the standard criteria for judging work in the school".
I believe that wording has its origin with the National Association of Head Teachers.
I do not press the amendment but I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to tell me, first, how the criteria are to be established countrywide. Secondly, if that answer is not particularly convincing or satisfactory I would ask the Government to consider whether in subsection (3) (b) the inspector should be empowered to give directions rather than guidance so that at least he has the power to establish uniformity of standards throughout the multiple-registered inspectorates up and down the country.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I speak to Amendments Nos. 35 and 61 in this group. There seem to be two important issues here. First, inspectors should know in writing what is expected of them when a school is inspected. Secondly, schools should also know what to expect. The Bill places a duty on Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors to give guidance to registered inspectors. As that guidance is likely to be crucial to the effect that an inspector has on a school, and also the basis on which inspectors are removed from the registers, there should be formal consultation on the advice.
It is unfortunate that Her Majesty's inspectors have not published their inspection procedures for HMI reports. This could lead to suspicions that some Inspections—and I can give the example of Culloden school in Tower Hamlets earlier this year—have been done for partisan political reasons and not in accordance with established criteria. Another example is that HMI frequently reports statistical information in its reports which is not gained from the schools themselves but from data previously reported to the Department of Education and Science. It is sometimes rather difficult to follow precisely how the inspectorate obtained the data.
These amendments would require a code of practice to be published by Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors after public consultation. The code of practice can then be seen as a protection to inspectors against political interference either from chief inspectors or from anyone else, and also as a protection to schools from perhaps over-zealous inspectors.
In Committee in another place the Minister of State argued against a statutory code so as to give maximum flexibility to Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors. Yet he acknowledged that there should be a "national system with national standards". It is rather surprising that something central to the whole business of inspection and of standards expected of registered inspectors—

125
the code—should be left for the chief inspectors to devise and perhaps amend at will, apparently in the interests of flexibility.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I appreciate the thinking behind my noble friend's amendments, and his concern that HMCI should have sufficient power to ensure that registered inspectors meet the necessary high standards of inspection and reporting, and use common criteria in assessing schools. Indeed our reforms would be worthless without such an assurance—we might as well stick with LEAs establishing their own criteria and reporting (or not) as they see fit.
I do not think my noble friend need be concerned that the Bill as drafted is deficient in that respect. It is true that subsection (3) (b) of Clause 2 refers to the giving of guidance to registered inspectors and others. But the provisions which give teeth to this guidance are to be found in Clauses 10 and 11—the power to set conditions of registration and to remove any inspector who breaches them.
I imagine that HMCI will want to set quite detailed criteria for the inspection process. Indeed, if the mass of evidence to be collected centrally is to be of value, common forms as well as standards of reporting will be essential. For the first time such criteria will be publicly known. It is not only LEAs who have failed to make their criteria as explicit as they should be, as the noble Baroness pointed out HMI still has some way to go in telling schools about the standards against which they are to be judged and the way in which that will be done. The Bill will require a new openness; that is its major strength.
I imagine that complying with the guidance and criteria will be one of the standard conditions of registration, so that HMCI will have the degree of control he or she needs to remove an inspector who fails to meet the necessary standards.
I appreciate that my reassurances in this respect must sound tentative because, in the absence of a chief inspector, we cannot say with certainty how he or she will choose to operate. But I hope that I have said enough to reassure my noble friend that criteria can be established and effectively imposed on registered inspectors through the Bill as drafted.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that inspectors and schools should know the standards. However, she suggested a rather burdensome procedure which is not only interested in ensuring that the HMCIs have the power they need; but also tries to tell them how to do their job. I am sure that we all want HMCI's guidance, which may take a variety of forms, to be widely promulgated and open to informed discussion. I am sure that the chief inspector will want that also. Indeed it is difficult to see how the chief inspector could operate otherwise.
Where I must differ from the noble Baroness is in her desire to set the guidance out in a single "code" which is to be presented to Parliament. That is a cumbersome procedure. It implies that whenever the chief inspector wishes to amend in any detail the guidance offered, the "code" has to be rewritten and represented to Parliament. And, under the amendment, any such change would trigger the need to consult on the new document.
126
Parliament should have no role in approving the code—that would be quite inappropriate. And we do not accept the implication that the code is a proper matter for Parliament to comment on in any detail. I hope that my noble friend does not press the amendment.
Lord Elton: Either I have misunderstood my noble friend's reply or she has misunderstood my amendment. My anxiety was not about every inspector being of equal quality with every other inspector, which is what her reply was addressed to, as I understand it. My anxiety was addressed to the question of the same standards of excellence as regards mathematics, geography, hockey or whatever. The same yardsticks or comparators should be used around the country. That has nothing to do with the fitness of inspectors at all.
Perhaps I may elaborate that by drawing the attention of my noble friend to Clause 10, which is concerned with the kind of person who is registered, whether he is a fit and proper person, whether he will be capable of conducting inspections as required and, if conditions are imposed on him, whether he will be capable of conducting inspections subject to those conditions. As I read the Bill, the conditions relate to the capacity, characteristics and qualifications of the inspector. They are not conditions placed on how he will inspect or what standards he will use when he gets into a school. I am concerned that these doubtless equally excellent people inspecting in Yorkshire and Cornwall shall have the same view of what is a satisfactory standard of behaviour, level of learning and management in each of the schools they visit.
If one has a different registered inspector, or group of inspectors, competing within the North-East from those competing in the South-West—which is more than probable —I do not see any means of imposing some national standard of acceptability other than the following: either criteria should be published by the chief inspector, as suggested in the first of each of my pairs of amendments, or the chief inspector should have the power to direct, as suggested in the second of each of my pairs of amendments. Therefore, my noble friend has not satisfied me at all because she has not answered my anxieties.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I am sorry that I have been unable to satisfy my noble friend with my initial reply. I said that an inspector will be registered as a result of complying with the guidance and criteria which the HMCI will set up. The control is in that stage.
Lord Elton: Will my noble friend forgive me? Where in the Bill are the guidance and criteria to which she is referring? If she is referring to Clause 11, then I do not believe those provisions do what she suggests they do. If they are somewhere else I have not noticed them and I apologise.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: The guidance is in Clause 2(3) (b). It is the registration of inspectors to meet that guidance which will provide the control of standards.
Lord Elton: I am sure that someone else will have something to say. The long pause is even longer than that of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, when looking for her first pair of amendments, which set a precedent earlier on. I am deeply grateful to her for that relief which she has given me. It is guidance, but it has nothing to do with Clause 10. I believe my noble friend to be saying—I shall be much more persuaded by it—that if an inspector either scandalously or frequently ignores guidance under Clause 2(3) (b), then when he comes to re-registration under Clause 10, his chances of being re-registered are minimal. He will remember that when he is considering ignoring the
128
guidance that he has been given. If those are the teeth, they are somewhat soft, but at least they are teeth. I shall think very carefully about what my noble friend has said. I do not find it enormously compelling but it may be sufficient to persuade me at a later stage.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I hope that my noble friend will see in due course that the teeth are quite solid.
Lord Elton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky Lord Skidelsky moved Amendment No. 35A:
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("on matters of good practice").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 61 A. There are two thoughts behind this amendment which apply to any form which Clause 2(3) (b) finally takes. The first thought is that the phrase,
"on matters of good practice",
is redundant. It is hardly necessary to enjoin the chief inspector to give good guidance or directions, whichever is preferred, pertaining to inspection. Provided the standards of inspection are clearly specified, that is all that is needed. "Good guidance" is a redundant phrase.
Secondly, I find the phrase "good practice" objectionable in itself. It is nearly always used in the sense of best practice. It easily degenerates into "best practice". In fact it was used by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, precisely in this sense. That suggests that there is a unique, privileged practice which is accessible to experts and no one else and which is based on scientific principles of one kind or another. I am afraid that as applied to education it is simply not true, though it is a common delusion that it is.
Those of us who took part in the great education debate will know only too well that much of what is called good practice is simply current educational fashion masquerading as scientific authority which is largely spurious. Indeed some of the so-called good practice of recent years has been directly responsible for the decline in reading standards in primary education, a fact which is now well documented.
The analogy which is often made between teachers and doctors is simply not right. Most of us would agree that there is good and bad practice in surgery, but we all know also that there are as many effective practices in teaching as there are teachers. I should be much happier if inspectors inspected inputs and outputs rather than being asked to pass judgments on the competence of teachers and the effectiveness of teaching methods. I know how easily that can become a dogma of good practice which becomes a strait-jacket and actually stops further development.
I am sure that the chief inspector will give excellent advice or indeed instruction on these matters, whichever he is called upon to do. But I urge the Minister not to give greater currency to a phrase which is philosophically suspect and has for many of us very unfortunate connotations. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I am attracted to the points that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and also by what he said in favour of his amendment. It would remove from the face of the Bill the specific suggestion that the chief inspectors must give guidance on matters of good practice in relation to the carrying out of school inspections and the writing of inspection reports. I take his point about subjective judgments of what is or what is not good practice. What we want are objective reports about what is going on in schools and some judgment about the quality of performance of what is going on in our schools.
130
I hope the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that I am persuaded that the amendments would benefit the Bill. They are in keeping with the independent role we are giving the chief inspector under the Bill. They give further emphasis to the fact that it will be entirely the chief inspector's responsibility to decide on the nature of the guidance he gives. I thank the noble Lord for his thoughtfulness and I hope that the Committee will join me in accepting the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 2, line 17, at end insert:
("(bb) providing the inspectors with a model specification for inspection which he shall prepare following consultation with persons representative of local education authorities").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 62A. A standard of inspections should be established for all inspections within the same area. It therefore makes sense—indeed it is appropriate —that Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors should prepare a model specification after consulting with local education authorities in different parts of the country. The noble Baroness said that she thought that my previous amendment was too cumbersome and that Parliament should not be involved in agreeing a code of practice. I hope she will agree that this amendment is rather simpler. It certainly does not involve Parliament.
The amendment tries to ensure that common standards of inspection can be arrived at across the country through Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors preparing a model specification for inspection. However, the chief inspectors will need to consult LEAs in order to ensure that the model specification reflects local needs. I know the Government cannot bear the thought that LEAs should ever be consulted on anything, but perhaps I can persuade the Minister that in this matter they have something to give in terms of their local knowledge and understanding.
The amendment would enable schools to be inspected to a common standard in a given area. The inspection could reflect the local education authority's curriculum priorities as set out in the statement that it must make under Section 17 of the Education (No.2) Act 1986 which provides that local education authorities must state a policy.
Without an amendment of this kind there will be no consistency of standards expected between schools. In those circumstances, how can parents or indeed teachers in any way assess the meaning of an inspection report? Indeed I would argue that they could be seriously misled by the outcome of different school inspections around the country because there was no consistency. They might even be misled within the same area. Even though the previous amendment, which dealt with similar matters, was not acceptable, I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this one. It seeks to ensure that we have consistency. I beg to move.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I should like to associate those on these Benches with the amendment. The

131
noble Baroness has said all that is to be said on the subject and so I shall save the Committee's time by saying no more.
Baroness Blatch: I am afraid that we have yet another attempt to tie down the chief inspector—on this occasion to preparing a model specification for inspection. He may well want to do so as part of the guidance which is to be given to registered inspectors. But do we really need primary legislation to tell him his job?
If the notion is to set up more than 100 standards reflecting different local education authority policies, we certainly cannot accept the sentiment, let alone the drafting. I find bizarre the notion that the HMCI should be required to consult LEA representatives—and no one else —before drawing up any model specification. HMI has been in the business of conducting inspections successfully for rather a long time now, unlike many authorities. I am quite happy for the chief inspector to decide how and when to consult on and publish his guidance. The Bill gives him the freedom and the flexibility he needs. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness Blackstone: I find that reply completely unacceptable. It is typical of this Government's utterly dismissive and unfair view of local education authorities that they do not consider that LEAs should be consulted on what kind of standards should be set for the schools for which they are responsible.
The Minister suggests that it is wrong to pick out local education authorities. I could not disagree with her more. Local education authorities have a responsibility for running schools. Indeed they ought also to be responsible for maintaining standards. They have a great deal of local knowledge and are therefore in a strong position to advise on what a model specification might look like. It is also utterly absurd to suggest that this will lead to 100 difference models. It will lead to a very small number of models—indeed perhaps one model—in which there may be a small number of variations. Those could be associated with particular needs in rural areas or areas in Wales where the Welsh language is spoken.
However, I have no intention of dividing the Committee at this time of night. I shall think again and return to the matter on Report. What worries me is that the Government do not seem to care a jot that parents will find it very difficult to interpret what an inspection report means because there will be no consistency of standards around the country. There is no intention here to tie down inspectors; it is a fundamental matter which ought to be on the statute books.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness concludes, I have two points to raise. First, she said that LEAs run schools. LEAs do not run schools. The days have gone when they ran them. Schools are now run by the heads and the staff and are overseen by the governors who have such responsibility. LEAs have a responsibility to see that there is effective education in
132
the areas for which they are responsible. Moreover, if they are worried, they have powers under the Bill to go into schools to fulfil that responsibility.
Secondly, I should point out to the noble Baroness that we are arguing for consistency. The chief inspector will set the criteria for the whole country. We are entirely happy that that information is in the public domain and is understood by schools so that they know the criteria by which they are being judged. The avenue down which the noble Baroness suggests we should travel would, I am afraid, give way to inconsistency and a variable across the country. We are trying to get away from that; we want a constant standard. We rely upon the professionalism of the chief inspector to set that standard and to pass on, through HMI, the guidance for inspecting schools to the registered inspectors.
Baroness Blackstone: If the Minister is so anxious about consistency, there is a very strong case for putting something on the face of the Bill to ensure that that will happen. It is possible that the amendment before the Committee may not be perfect and that it may not be the best amendment that one can find to ensure consistency. I am afraid that I remain utterly convinced that the proposals in the Bill for privatised firms of inspectors to carry out inspections all over the country, without any clear statutory requirement for Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors to set standards, will lead to inconsistency and to parents being misled. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 2, line 21, at end insert:
("(cc) monitoring, assessing and giving advice in connection with, the procedures followed by appropriate authorities in selecting registered inspectors to conduct inspections of schools in England under section 9;").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 65 and 118. Concern was expressed this evening and on Second Reading by Members on all sides of the Chamber about the status of registered inspectors, especially their mode of appointment. The amendments deal with what was identified by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, as the central flaw of the Bill; namely, that one can easily imagine a situation arising where the governors of a school choose to appoint a registered inspector to undertake the inspection whom they are confident will put forward a report that will give them satisfaction. It need not be a matter of collusion, certainly not one of corruption. We are not making such suggestions; indeed, there are provisions in Schedule 2 to overcome the risk of corruption.
But let us imagine a school which is very traditional in its teaching methods but which, in the views of many, could do with a breath of fresh air. However, the governors of such a school might be inclined to appoint a registered inspector who was a traditional person so that he would produce a report which would support them, when in fact what the school really needs is a shot in the arm and some advice that there

133
are other teaching methods which it could better apply. Various schemes have been put forward this evening for overcoming that difficulty. I hope that the Committee will find the scheme that I propose appropriate. My noble friend the Minister said on Second Reading that she thought that these proposals worked with the grain of the Bill, as I believe that they do.
Amendment No. 40 seeks to establish that the chief inspector shall have the role of "monitoring, assessing"—I should like to emphasise the word "assessing" and
"giving advice in connection with, the procedures followed by appropriate authorities in selecting registered inspectors".
That simply assigns a general responsibility to the chief inspector in that respect.
The nub of the group of amendments to which I am speaking comes in Amendment No. 118, which is an amendment to Schedule 2, in which the provisions for tendering are set out in more detail. In considering the amendment, it is perhaps appropriate to consider three eventualities. One is where the governors of the school, the "appropriate authority", are alert to their responsibilities and are looking to an inspection by a registered inspector who will bring something new to the school and publish an appropriate report on it. In such circumstances, there is probably very little difficulty and very little that needs to be done, but we cannot be confident that that will be the case. In such circumstances, however, the amendment simply provides for a watching brief for HMI. If all is going well, there will be no need for HMI intervention.
Secondly, however, there may be more difficult cases, where the chief inspector is not at all confident that the governors will choose a registered inspector who will bring the appropriate inspection to bear. They may well choose someone who is much too close to their own philosophy and personal experience. In such cases, the chief inspector can send in an assessor who will be a member of the inspectorate and who will be present during all the tendering, appointing and interviewing procedures, if such there be, when the registered inspector is appointed.
Thirdly, if the chief inspector or the assessor who will be present feels that an altogether unacceptable choice is being made, the amendment has teeth because the choice has to be approved in writing by the chief inspector and there is therefore a power of veto. Subsection (2) states precisely that: that the chief inspector would have a power of veto and that the registered inspector must be approved in writing by the chief inspector. Naturally, the chief inspector normally acts through a member of the inspectorate. There will be 6,000 such appointments per year and some inspectors will therefore spend much of their time acting as assessors. However, I am not suggesting that it will be necessary for an assessor to be present at every selection procedure, although that may well be the case at a good many.
Subsection (3) states:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations with a view to facilitating the discharge by the Chief Inspector of his functions".
That is deliberately vague so that we are not over-precise about the matter, but subsection (4)
134
states what those regulations may do. It is not some kind of Henry VIII clause - or I very much hope that it is not. It states:
"The regulations may, in particular—
(a) require appropriate authorities to give the Chief Inspector such information as may be prescribed".
We now come to the nub of it because under paragraph (b) the regulations give the chief inspector or any member of his staff—I have in mind the assessor—the right to attend any meeting of the authority at which tendering or the selection of a registered inspector is under discussion. That would make it difficult for the appropriate authority —the school governors—simply to go it alone and to flout the views of the chief inspector in the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, quite reasonably referred a moment ago to Stratford school. Under this head anyway, there would not be a problem with that or with any comparable institution. That is an important point.
There are the teeth there but one hopes that in general in most schools matters will he much more harmonious, and in such a case it means that the governors can look around seriously at inspectors, can interview registered inspectors if they wish and choose a registered inspector whom they feel will he appropriate. So that in favourable cases one does not have the monolithic orthodoxy that there might be if the inspectorate were always simply to send in the registered inspector whom they chose. That is where this amendment differs from the amendment we discussed earlier. I hope that it will recommend itself to noble Lords opposite and in particular to my noble friend the Minister. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Young: I put my name down to this amendment, and I hope that it is one that my noble friend the Minister will feel able to accept. Not for the first time my noble friend Lord Renfrew has been positive and helpful on an issue which has exercised noble Lords from all parts of the Committee. Looking again at what was said at Second Reading, there was no doubt that there was considerable concern about this aspect, quite specifically over the role of governors and whether they would be in a position to make a wise choice of inspectors. I did not share all the doubts and anxieties that were expressed on that occasion but I recognise the concerns. It seems to me that this is a positive way of meeting those concerns, helping the governors where there might be a difficulty and getting us over this difficult proposition that governors might be tempted to choose inspectors who would simply come up with the inspection that they wanted to hear. Included in this is finally a power of veto, so it has teeth.
At this time of night I do not want to take up more time of the Committee and repeat the arguments so well set out by my noble friend. I hope that it is an amendment that will commend itself to all parts of the Committee. Having listened to the discussions on preceding amendments that also addressed the same point, I hope that it will be regarded as a positive

135
contribution. It makes this a better Bill, and it will be of reassurance to a number of people who have had anxieties about this part of the Bill.
Lord Beloff: Everybody would like to be reassured, but in order to be reassured we have to understand what is being offered to us. I find it difficult to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has in mind. I did not understand the language he was using when he said "inspector". He said that the chief inspector can be represented at a meeting of the governors by an inspector or, it says in the amendment, by "any member of his staff". "Inspector" is used in two senses. There will be the surviving HMIs and there will be these registered inspectors. If it is the former, we were told earlier that there will not be a great many of them and they will have many and responsible duties. You cannot say to them "You have to go off to a meeting of governors at Cockermouth" or somewhere else they may find difficult. If it is to be a registered inspector, the new class, then they will be competitors.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: Perhaps I may clarify that point. There is no intention that the inspector who would attend the meeting on behalf of the chief inspector when the tenders were considered would be a registered inspector. I did not say that, nor did I intend it. There is a complication when we use the word "inspector" sometimes as a registered inspector and sometimes as an HMI; but the answer is that it would be an HMI.
The noble Lord has put his finger on a point to which I should have referred. There is no doubt that there is an implication in my amendment that there would be a need that Her Majesty's Inspectorate should have within its number a greater number of HMIs than would otherwise be the case. I am not sure whether it is 30, 50 or 60. I shall be interested to know whether my noble friend the Minister can offer an observation there. My noble friend Lord Beloff is correct. There will be a commitment by HMI with regard to this function which would mean that there would need to be more inspectors than would otherwise be the case. That is correct.
Lord Peston: We agree upon what the problem is. I should like to believe that the amendments solve it. We should examine them to see whether they do. Amendment No. 40 and the Welsh counterpart, Amendment No. 65, are about principles: what the chief inspector shall have among his or her duties. The amendments provide an additional duty relating to the procedures in connection with the conduct of inspections. That will be at the general level.
Amendments Nos. 40 and 65 are sensible amendments, whatever else we may say. Whether or not they solve the problem we have in mind, they make a valuable contribution in terms of what the chief inspector's duties should include.
We then come to Amendment No. 118. I believe it does the job intended. I have to ask one or two questions relating to what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said and what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said in reply. In Amendment No. 32 I was essentially
136
suggesting that the chief inspector would choose from the list of possible inspectors who would do the inspection. The Minister said that that would be too bureaucratic and involve too much. Why is not this amendment equally bureaucratic? Why does it not involve the same amount of surveillance of what goes on? My amendment said that the inspector would be chosen by the chief inspector or his staff. Amendment No. 118 provides that an inspector will not be chosen unless the chief inspector agrees to the choice. I do not see much difference in the degree of bureaucracy. The chief inspector will have to do much the same work. I do not say that against the amendment. I am happy for the Government to accept an amendment from their own side rather than from my side. Amour proper is important to people. It does not bother me. I merely want to know what there was about my argument that does not apply in this case. That is one of my questions.
My second question relates to a point which always bothers me in this place because I can never remember what the words mean. Why does the amendment provide that the Secretary of State "may" make regulations" instead of "shall"? Why does the amendment not say, "the regulations shall, in particular"? Why is it "may"? I seem to remember asking this question in relation to another matter a year or two ago, but I cannot remember the answer. All my instincts tell me that the word should be "shall". I cannot see the point of using "may". Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, will tell us why the word "may" is used and not "shall".
To summarise, I hope that Amendments Nos. 40 and 65 will be acceptable in their own right. The crux of the matter is Amendment No. 118. I want to be told why Amendment No. 118 is less bureaucratic than Amendment No. 32. How many people would be involved? That is the point about which the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, was asked. In the two important phrases "The Secretary of State may" and "The regulations may" I should prefer the word "shall" to be used. It was once explained to me that in this place "may" means "shall", but I cannot believe that the English language changes just within these four walls. But that is by the way. The amendment would be a great deal better with the word "shall".
Lord Skidelsky: I wish to make some constructive comments upon the amendment. It is a genuine attempt to meet the worries about the tendering process as now outlined in the Bill. However, I fear that the noble Lord's attempt does not go far enough in ensuring objectivity in tendering which is the key to ensuring the integrity of the inspections themselves. It is the danger of collusion which has most worried the Committee. To avoid that danger we need to secure two things.
First, we need to ensure that the specifications used by governing bodies in inviting tenders conform to a standard code of practice laid down by the chief inspector. We need this to ensure comparability of inspection reports and to prevent governing bodies from varying the criteria to be used by inspection teams. This requirement needs to be clearly understood in advance before we need to call in the

137
assessor procedure, suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, in doubtful cases. I agree with the comment that that adds a layer of bureaucracy to the whole procedure and I think much of that could be avoided by clarity in the specification tenders themselves.
As the Bill now stands, it seems to me there is a problem of consistency between specifications issued by schools for tender and specifications to inspectors issued by the chief inspector. After all, who employs the inspection teams? The governing body invites tenders on the basis of specifications. Unless those specifications are consistent with specifications issued to inspectors by the chief inspector, there will be a conflict. I do not think the Bill, as it now stands, completely avoids that possibility. I do not think that the noble Lord's amendment avoids that possibility either.
Secondly, the standardised criteria for inspection should be completely transparent. By that I mean that they should relate to objective inputs and outputs. I refer the Committee to the paper written by John Burchall which forms the basis of the present inspection proposals. I think that the Government essentially adopted the scheme from that paper. Burchall wrote that inspection should be based on objective information,
"relating the ability and attainment of pupils on entry to their achievements as measured by assessment and examination".
The idea is that the criteria for inspection should be as objective as possible and should use as much objective information as possible. In supporting the two requirements that I have just described, I do not mean that there should be no room for more subjective judgments of school effectiveness based on less tangible factors; I mean that the objective non-discretionary elements in any report should be clearly separable from the subjective elements. That is secured by means of transparent criteria.
The amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, does not in my view really secure the two requirements of standardised and objective criteria for tendering. I ask the noble Lord and the Minister to consider a more robust form of words, perhaps using "shall" rather than "may", that meets those two requirements.
11 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, will be able to help me when he speaks further about this amendment. I want to be able to support it because it does seem to me that it tries to meet a concern that has been expressed on all sides of the Committee. But the more I look at the amendment, the more difficulty I have in envisaging how it will work in practice. The first part of it indicates that the governors of a school cannot engage finally with the inspectors without the permission of the chief inspector. They will, presumably, have been through the process of tendering.
At the end of that process the inspector may be put in a position of saying, "Though you have obtained tenders from at least two, perhaps more inspectorate teams, and although those are all headed by inspectors whom I have registered, I shall not let you go to the
138
one you have chosen". That seems to place the chief inspector in an almost impossible position, having to deny the appropriateness of the people he has authorised. It is that process which leaves me in some difficulty.
The other aspect of the issue is that the more I consider the idea that the chief inspector may have to authorise every such inspection the more it appears that he may have to send one of his inspectors to any school which considers tendering. The bureaucratic load which worried us in relation to the earlier amendment seems to have become greater. It is almost unmanageable. I am beginning to wonder whether we cannot deal with the matter the other way round and think again about the possibility not of the chief inspector allocating one inspector to every school but of his offering a number of teams of inspectors from whom the school can choose one. That is not what is set out in the amendment but we are all struggling to find a way of adapting what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has helpfully put forward and I still find it difficult to support his amendment as it stands.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: Would it be helpful if I attempted to answer the right reverend Prelate now, or should I wait until my noble friend the Minister has made her observations? Which would my noble friend prefer?
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps my noble friend will accept my response to the amendment because he will then be able to pick up my points and others which have been raised in the course of the debate. I may also comment on one or two matters which have been raised during the course of the debate.
I shall take the right reverend Prelate's point first. He said that a school governing body might go through all the processes and, having secured the services of a qualified registered inspectorate of a minimum of two inspectors, someone might then criticise that process. We have said from the start that the Bill allows for that to happen. It allows local governing bodies to select from at least two qualified registered inspectors. It was because anxiety was expressed from all sides of the Chamber about that process, not excepting that they would necessarily be qualified registered inspectors—because they have to be qualified registered inspectors for this work—and because of the suspicion that something might go wrong with the process or that a particular inspectorate might be favoured for the wrong reasons, that my noble friend Lord Renfrew has worked industriously with my noble friend Lady Young to include a mechanism not only to allow schools to choose inspectors but also to witness that the process was followed properly and that the choice was made objectively.
My noble friends Lord Renfrew and Lady Young are to be congratulated on having put forward the amendments. They tackle the causes of the unease which some noble Lords felt about the very considerable burdens we were placing on school governors. Comments to that effect were made at Second Reading.

139
The amendments build helpfully on the Bill's provisions. I do not accept the view that they in any way cast doubt on the wisdom of the governor-centred approach we have adopted or the quality of the inspectors whom the chief inspector will register. We have always said that the chief inspector will need to monitor the system. However carefully he forms his initial judgment about inspectors he will need to see that his view is borne out in practice.
The role for the chief inspector which my noble friends envisage will in effect bring his monitoring to bear at an earlier stage of the inspection process. That partly answers the right reverend Prelate's comments about HMI coming in at the end of the process. He will, of course, play a part in the process much earlier when tenders are being requested and considered, rather than as inspections are being carried out. That will be a time when governors may be in need of help and guidance as much as outside scrutiny. The amendments proposed seem to allow for that in empowering the chief inspector to offer advice on the way arrangements are to be made. They will also allow the chief inspector to see all the papers connected with the tendering process, as well as send his representative to meetings if that seems desirable. So he will be able to make sure that a fair and open choice is made, as well as a wise one.
I am glad that the route of regulations has been suggested, as I am sure that we must leave a good deal of flexibility in this process for the chief inspector. In the early stages he may well want to have his inspectors sitting in on most relevant governors' meetings. I expect that many governors would want that. As the system beds down that may be less essential and paper scutiny might suffice in more cases.
But whatever method is used, the chief inspector will have real power to back up his monitoring. He must approve every arrangement made. If he is not satisfied with the process followed or the choice made, he will be able to veto an appointment and the governors will have to start again. We believe that that will be very rare in any case. Nevertheless, it is a safeguard in the system in response to concerns of noble Lords.
I believe that this power effectively sweeps up the power which my noble friend Lord Beloff would have added to Schedule 2 to the Bill by Amendment No. 133, which will be moved at a later stage. The chief inspector will have the papers giving details of the inspection team, and may meet the team when it talks about its tender to governing bodies. He will certainly withhold his approval if he is not satisfied of its competence.
I recognise that the amendments of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness are not without a cost. Perhaps I may address that point now. If the chief inspector has these new duties, he will need the staff to discharge them, and I imagine that most of them will be Her Majesty's inspectors. So we are talking about the addition of maybe a further 40 inspectors—a doubling of the "monitoring" figure that we have been using for planning purposes. I have to say that our willingness to contemplate such an addition gives the
140
lie to those who have always maintained that the real purpose of these reforms was to cut HMI numbers. We have always said that HMI must have the numbers needed to do the job required under the new arrangements. If the Committee agree to this addition to HMI's role, we shall ensure that the necessary staff are available.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, raised an important point and one to which I certainly would want to give more thought. I shall leave my noble friend to respond. Commenting on the point that he made, the duty on the appropriate authority would be to arrange an inspection which met the terms of the Bill. The registered inspector must carry that out as required by the chief inspector's guidelines - or guidance, which is stronger. That would mean that each specification drawn up by the governors must have a common core, but it need not be exactly the same in every particular.
Under Amendment No. 40 the HMI would have a duty to give advice in connection with the procedures to be followed by appropriate authorities in selecting inspectors. That could well cover advice on a model core specification, coupled with the chief inspector's powers of veto under Amendment No. 118. We can be fairly sure that all specifications meet the necessary standard. That is my initial comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Skildelsky, said. No doubt my noble friend will also give his response.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to the bureaucracy and also asked what was the difference between central control, central selection and what we have in the Bill. I believe that my noble friend has found an ingenious way of retaining local choice. In other words, for each school inspectorate the process of choice must be gone through by each school. It will be a choice but it will be overseen, simply as a safeguard, by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector. So the choice and placing of the contract will remain with the governors. The amendment allows Her Majesty's Inspectorate to oversee that process, not to take it over.
My noble friend Lord Beloff was concerned about whether these people were registered inspectors or HMI, but the only staff that a chief inspector will have will be Her Majesty's inspectors. So the additional staff involved will be directly answerable and accountable to Her Majesty's Inspectorate. They will in fact be HMI staff.
The system that will be put in place will be for each registered inspectorate to meet the qualifications. They will have to conform to the criteria determined by the chief inspector. They will have to be subjected to the possibility of deregistration if they do not conform, if they do not come up to the standards that will be set out by the chief inspector. I believe that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, provide the safeguards against possible collusion or improper selection of registered inspectors.
I had to speak strongly against an earlier attempt to change the Bill to give the chief inspector total control over the choice of inspectors. On the other hand, Amendments Nos. 40, 65 and 118 give the chief inspector rather stronger powers at an earlier stage of

141
the inspection process, while leaving the general scheme of the Bill entirely as we intended it. The amendments do not take from the governors; they help and support them. They are clearly designed to build most helpfully on to our proposals and I shall be happy to accept them in that spirit.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I am grateful to the Minister for receiving the proposed amendments so constructively and in particular for outlining the cost which would accompany the proposals. It is a significant cost—the equivalent of some 40 HMIs who would be required to make the system work. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Young who supported me in the proposed amendment.
I shall seek to answer the questions raised. The Minister has dealt with many of them. First, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I am not sure that it is bureaucracy or cost which militates against the proposal that the chief inspector would himself directly appoint the registered inspector. That was the form of the original amendment. The Minister has addressed directly the point that there is indeed a cost to the amendment that I propose. It is not bureaucracy in the sense of administration. One must consider the intention of the Bill and how it should work. If one has all the registered inspectors appointed by the chief inspector, one has a centralised administration which does not allow any variety of use. It begins to bring about that orthodoxy in educational doctrine which the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, criticised when referring to the terminology of good practice.
If the chief inspector appoints all the registered inspectors from his own list he will impose a particular philosophy willy-nilly on all schools without the opportunity of variety and without any ranges of views which is one of the merits of opening out the system. That is the intention of the Bill.
I do not have as much experience of the Chamber as the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I am not sure that I can make any firm ruling on the matter. However, it seems to me clear that the chief inspector will make regulations because quite clearly there are matters to be regulated. I do not doubt that, although I do not believe that I am the person to offer definitive rulings on the distinction between "may" and "shall" as a matter of parliamentary drafting.
I believe that I have answered the question of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff.
Lord Peston: I had hoped that the Minister would deal with that point. "May" implies "may not". It is up to the Minister. If he chooses "may not" he makes all the amendments a nullity. I was hoping that the Minister would say that "may" must mean "shall", otherwise I cannot see the point of the amendment. It has to mean "shall".
Baroness Blatch: It may be helpful if I intervene at this stage. I am sorry if I missed that point. I shall do doughty fighting with my colleagues in the back room because the noble Lord is right. If the regulations will
142
be made I have no objection to the word "shall", but I am bound to take advice on it and shall do so before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: That is most helpful. I hope that the amendment may go forward as worded, and that there will be opportunity at Report stage for an amendment proposing "for 'may' read 'shall"' to which I should have no objection. I make that perfectly clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, made some interesting observations. There are problems of standardisation in tendering. Indeed, I had some sympathy with some of the points in relation to standardisation which the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, made earlier. As the Minister said, the problem is to avoid being over-prescriptive. The points that the noble Lord made would be worth exploring further. I hope that the appropriate procedure might be to accept the amendment today. Then, perhaps, I may discuss the issue with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. More relevantly he can discuss the matter with the Minister, who is clearly sympathetic to the point being made, to see whether some further phrase can be added—or whatever necessary modification—to bring in the notion of some degree of standardisation. I agree that it is the intention of the Bill that the report made about one school should be comparable in a useful way with the report made about another school. There is a notion of publishing data which will compare one school with another. Therefore, there is a clear need that reports should be comparable.
The right reverend Prelate asked how the system works. I hope that my noble friend Lady Blatch made that clear in her observations. As I see it, the notion of the assessor is the key concept. The assessor will be a member of the inspectorate but there need not be an assessor in every case. Perhaps we may start with the notion that there may be an assessor where that seems desirable to the chief inspector. If after the initial discussion—that is, the telephoning, the correspondence and questions of who will tender—the chief inspector is entirely satisfied that the matter is going well he may not need to send in an assessor. However, no doubt there will be a nominated member of the inspectorate to oversee this particular appointing procedure. In many cases, as my noble friend said, the governing body may well desire that there should be an assessor who will offer observations and in a constructive way help to make the appointing procedure successful. That is where the proposal has merit; it provides the opportunity of assisting the governors in their enterprise. In addition there is a power of veto. I hope that answers the point which the right reverend Prelate was making.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
11.15 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe): If Amendment No. 42 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 43 because of pre-emption.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 2, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Lord said: I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, would move his amendment first. My only reason for not wishing to speak first is that I believe I have had more than my fair share of the Committee's time. Since the argument can be put just as well by the noble Lord as by me, I was hoping that he would do so.
As regards this area, not others, some of us are puzzled about the point of encouraging competition. I believe that in most areas of economic activity competition is the way to achieve the desired ends and that monopoly is the way not to achieve them. My understanding of economics is that there are certain areas, usually those to do with quality and where quality itself is problematic, in which competition is precisely the way to achieve the worst outcome and not the best.
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, earlier objected to the suggestion that there was an ideological basis for some aspects of the Bill—at least he was claiming that was not true of himself. I had taken it for granted that subsection (3) (e) of the clause was included in the Bill merely for ideological purposes; that this Government could not put forward a Bill if it did not contain ideological gobbledegook, and this is it. I cannot see remotely how the encouraging of competition can in this case be compatible with the provision of quality. Indeed, I believe that almost the whole economic analysis of this matter will guarantee that competition will achieve the lowest rather than the highest standard. That is my objection to it.
My solution to the problem is to leave out paragraph (e), but in a way I defer to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I am quite happy with the concept of promoting efficiency in the conduct and reporting of inspections. But that is not achieved by encouraging competition; the reverse is the case. I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, says.
Lord Beloff: Perhaps a proposal to delete competition comes more appropriately from a member of a party which in general favours competition. However, there are limits to that. On reflection, it seems to me that competition is very like nudity. In certain circumstances nudity is desirable and perhaps even essential. In other circumstances it is inappropriate and sometimes offensive.
This use of competition falls into the latter category because it suggests the application of something which our debates have already revealed is inappropriate for what we are doing. My noble friends Lord Renfrew and Lady Young come to the rescue of the Government, as they so often do, like the United States cavalry in an old Western. They do so because the Government need rescuing. Why do they need rescuing? They need rescuing because, as I said on Second Reading and I repeat now, at the heart of the Bill is a totally inappropriate use of competition.
I regret that the Minister has still not explained the purpose or the rationale behind this provision. The Government insist that at some point there must be competition between at least two teams of registered
144
inspectors. My noble friend Lord Renfrew has tried—I do not object to his amendment because it is a gallant attempt —to rescue the Government. But why that method was chosen still remains a mystery. However, the Committee should be aware that there is a very widespread opinion across the Committee that it is an inappropriate matter to have at the centre of the Bill and that all the objectives of the Bill, which we share—namely, the raising of standards in part through the machinery of inspection—could have been achieved without that element. Since my amendment is pre-empted, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
Baroness Seear: I support the amendment. I do not understand who is competing for what and why. Is there to be competition to carry out the best possible inspection and, if so, how do we know? I should like to ask who is competing for what and why.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry that Members of the Committee are so strongly opposed to the notion of competition. It is worth reminding ourselves that this Bill will replace a system of LEA monopoly that has resulted in the present haphazard system of school inspection, in great variations in standards and practice and in a system which those on both sides of this Committee agree is in urgent need of improvement and reform. We have chosen to replace that system with one under which professional competence and standards are centrally assured but governors rather than LEAs can choose inspectors.
I believe that choice as a principle has served us well in many areas and that with the checks and balances secured under the Bill and provided by my noble friends Lord Renfrew and Lady Young will serve us equally as well in this respect. It is fundamental to the Bill that governors have a choice among inspectors—that they are not simply required to contract with those hired by their LEA or by anyone else or simply imposed from above. The chief inspector in overseeing the new system will want to make sure that choice and competition are a reality, and it is in Clause 2 that we have given him the statutory underpinning for any actions he needs to take in that respect.
I have been asked how I see the inspectorate acting to encourage competition and whether that will be an important part of their role. We are confident that a thriving open market will develop but the chief inspector will have a duty to watch over that market and make sure that governors have a real choice. That may entail encouraging new teams to start up in areas that are not well served or acting to thwart those who would seek to operate a cartel. In either case we do not expect that the duty will be much needed but it has to be there.
I do not share the view of my noble friend that it is a silly idea to use market principles in the inspection of schools. What we had before was in effect a monopoly for LEAs that led to inadequate systems, or even none at all, in too many authorities. Of course there is room for differences between registered inspectors. But I make it quite plain that we would not expect there to be wide divergencies between tenders. All inspectors will have to follow chief inspectors'

145
guidelines to ensure consistency of standards, but there will be scope for different registered inspectors and their teams to respond in different ways to the priorities established for the school by the governing body; for example, to offer particular expertise or detailed investigation in addition to that required by the chief inspector.
We have to recognise that there are differences between schools and it is only right for those differences to be reflected by governing bodies in their specifications. We would not expect cost to be an unduly significant factor in the decision of a governing body. Nonetheless, it may well be the case that, of two good tenders, one offered better value for money than the other because one registered inspector was more efficient than the other in his preparatory work and in the writing of his report. The chief inspector's guidelines would ensure that corners were not cut in the inspection itself.
To sum up, we do not share the noble Lord's rejection of the idea of an element of competition in the inspection of schools, nor do we share the devotion of noble Lords opposite to the monopoly previously exercised by LEAs to the detriment of many of our schools. We believe we have provided for the inclusion of sensible notions of market forces while recognising that consistency of standards has to be achieved.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked who was tendering for this business. The answer is that a raft of qualified inspectors will have applied to the HMI and fulfilled all the appropriate qualifications for being registered as inspectors. They will be available to respond to the specifications determined by the governing body of each school. It is very important to keep at least some downward pressure on cost. There would be no limit on costs if inspectorates were just there for LEAs to use. Costs would have to be controlled centrally or by the chief inspector, the local education authority or perhaps somebody else. We believe this keeps a healthy downward pressure on inspectorates, all of whom would be qualified, but there would be some preferences declared by governing bodies. We believe that that choice is a healthy one.
Baroness Seear: In that case, is the noble Baroness telling us that it is a question of who among those who are qualified can put out the cheapest tender? One gets the tender down to the cheapest possible price so one can get the job.
Baroness Blatch: That was not what I said. I said there would be people out there with standard qualifications to inspect schools. Nobody who is not competent to do the job can be hired by a school. I have been a governor myself. I would expect governing bodies to make a number of judgments about which registered inspectors to employ. I would want to know how they would set about the inspection, which skills they would bring to bear and whether they could provide an inspection that was consistent with the specification for my school. One of the considerations in addition to all of those would be cost. If there were comparable people out there and one inspector could do it at a lesser cost than another,
146
that would be a consideration. I would not be bound by the lowest tender but it would be important that a choice was made from at least two qualified registered inspectors. I do not believe that that is an unhealthy thing to ask. It would act as some control on keeping some measure of pressure on the costs.
Lord Peston: Members of the Committee will not be surprised to know that I find the answer of the noble Baroness completely unconvincing. It indicates that the Department of Education and Science does not understand the economics of competition at all. Competition works in two ways. First, it works in meeting the demands of the demander—in this case the governors who want a good report—and, secondly, by cutting price. Essentially, that is what competition is about—"Do I get the product I want? Do I get it as cheaply as I want?"
I can say to the noble Baroness that I was working in the area of competition before she could even spell the word "economics". Therefore if there is one subject about which I know, it is competition, and I advocated competition in many areas long before this Government ever thought of it.
This is one area where competition is precisely the wrong method to be used. It is an ideological method. There is no rational argument for it either, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear argues. One is simply trying to save money. I do not blame the governors for trying to save money. They are short of money and there are other things on which they can spend it apart from inspections. That is perfectly clear, and exactly what we fear.
Further, the governors are not looking for adverse critical inspections which tell them what they are doing wrong. They want cheap inspections which tell them that what they are doing is right. It is all very well for the Government to go in for this competition model; it does not apply in the area of schools. There is no way that I shall convince the Government of that; they simply do not understand the subject or, rather, they are so ideologically committed that they do not want to understand the subject.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I want to refute most strongly what the noble Lord said. It will not be possible for a school to buy the kind of report that it wants. It will certainly not be possible to buy a subjective report because there would then be grounds for assuming that the HMI has not done its job properly in making sure that the correct selection was made by a school. Equally, it would certainly entail a breach of the standards laid down by the chief inspector. We have at least some confidence in the chief inspector and the HMI to keep professional standards high.
Lord Peston: We must not prolong this debate, but if that were the case then we may as well go along with the system as run by the chief inspectors. We do not need the competitive model if they are going to ensure that standards are met. That is precisely our point. One can obtain the desired result from the chief

147
inspectors monitoring a system corresponding to and built on the existing system. The Government are simply introducing this for ideological reasons.
The noble Baroness argued earlier, and I accept it, that at this stage we should not be going through Second Reading arguments on this matter. I simply wish to demonstrate the Government's mistake. It is my view that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is better than my own. I shall therefore seek to withdraw my amendment with a view to hearing what he intends to do with his. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 2, line 28, leave out from ("England") to end of line 29.
The noble Lord said: We have not discussed or voted on competition. It is late. I hate being up at this hour of night listening to a nightmare of a Bill. Nevertheless, I wish to seek the opinion of the House.
11.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 43) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 11; Not-Contents, 24.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Beloff, L.

Lichfield, Bp.

Blackstone, B.

Peston, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Ritchie of Dundee, L. [Teller.]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Russell, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Astor, V.

Long, V.

Balfour, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Marlesford, L.

Borthwick, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Rennell, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Skidelsky of Tilton, L.

Elton, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.[Teller.]

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

Howe, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington moved Amendment No. 43A:
Page 2, line 29 at end insert:
("( ) In exercising his functions in connection with the system of inspecting schools under section 9 (so far as it relates to Wales, the Chief Inspector for England shall, in particular, have regard to the desirability of an equal standard being achieved in performing such inspections and in reporting such inspections so as to facilitate fair comparisons—

(a) between different schools providing education for pupils of similar ages in each locality; and

(b) between different local education authorities (as regards the schools maintained by them).").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 68A. But I have to point out an error in Amendment No. 68A in that it should relate to Wales and not England, as stated in the text. The amendment states principles that should govern the HMCI's activities in supervising a competitive system of school inspections by registered inspectors. Clause 2(3) (b) requires the HMCI to give guidance to registered inspectors,
"and such other persons as he considers appropriate".
That category may include the governing bodies selecting registered inspectors. The amendment would influence the content of that guidance to governors and would emphasise that each governing body's right to choose its registered inspector should take place within arrangements to ensure that inspection reports for neighbouring schools were of equal standard. That is the nub of the amendment. This could then most easily be achieved by HMCI providing a shortlist of nominated inspectors for each locality. Indeed, there would be considerable advantages if inspection contracts were to be agreed covering groups of schools or even whole local education authorities.
It seems to me that the desirability of achieving an equal standard in inspection is self-evident. Apart from anything else, differing standards could give rise to considerable anxiety among teachers and parents and call into question the whole integrity of inspections. The amendment has considerable flexibility. It does not state that this should be done. It states only that the chief inspector,
"shall … have regard to the desirability".
I find it difficult to believe that anyone could be opposed to that objective, however it is achieved. I hope the Minister will accept that the amendment has been tabled as a constructive suggestion and trust that the Government will find it acceptable. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord is particularly anxious to ensure that inspectors take into account the different circumstances of schools and LEAs in terms of the socio-economic background of their pupils and their levels of attainment on entry so that comparisons between schools and local education authorities can have regard to those factors. I can assure the Committee that HMI has always taken those factors into account in compiling its inspection reports and that the chief inspector's guidance on the conduct of inspections will ensure that registered inspectors do likewise. The frequently repeated conclusion reached in both individual school reports and the senior chief inspector's annual reports that some schools are failing to ensure that their pupils develop their full potential is based on what HMI has observed in the best schools catering for similar intakes. That is one important piece of evidence that schools can and should do better.
As and when an acceptable methodology is developed for calculating the value added by schools in terms of the progress made by pupils in their level of attainment between entering the school and leaving it, we can be sure that HMI will take account of it in its guidance. In the meantime, inspectors will continue to use such imperfect measures as are available in order to judge how well schools are serving pupils'

149
needs. But as my honourable friends the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education made clear during discussion of the Bill in another place, it will take time before data on value added become available.
The first cohort of seven year-olds assessed under the national curriculum arrangements last summer will not be assessed as 11 year-olds until 1995. That year will also be the first year in which we shall be able to calculate value added between the ages of 14 and 16. We have to wait until 1997 for the first cohort of pupils assessed as 11 year-olds in 1994 to be assessed as 14 year-olds, and until 1999 before the same cohort reaches age 16. If we were to wait to publish reports on how schools were doing until comprehensive value added data were available, we should have to wait until most of today's school pupils had left. I hope that the Committee will not accept the amendment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: With regard to the first part of her remarks, I wish that I was as sanguine as the Minister. I shall look carefully at what she said. I doubt whether I shall be convinced, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 2, line 32, after ("schools") insert ("in schools, at teacher training colleges, colleges of further education and non-university colleges").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment and I shall speak to it only briefly. Your Lordships have been assured on two separate occasions—at Second Reading and during discussion of an earlier amendment—that the inspectors will have the power to inspect the training of teachers. However, nowhere in the Bill do I see where these powers are; what controls are to be exercised over them; how they are to be implemented or overseen; or what resources will be devoted to them. I am glad to have had the assurance that these crucially important processes will be overseen because, as I said earlier on, until we get the training of teachers right, we shall not get the schools right. While I subscribe to all that my noble friend has said from the Front Bench about the Government's regard for the profession, it must be a matter of concern that there is no apparent provision in the Bill for seeing to it that the supply of teachers for the future will at least be up to the standard of the supply of teachers at present. That is the purpose of the amendment. It asks the Government where these provisions are and what they are. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I have noted the concern which my noble friend Lord Elton has expressed in respect of the inspection of establishments which provide training for school teachers. He makes an important point. He raised the matter during Second Reading, and I sought to assure him then that under the new office of HMCI the inspection of all initial teacher training establishments would continue. The Secretary of State has a duty to approve courses of initial teacher training leading to qualified teacher status and relies on HMI's advice in doing so. HMI has therefore long been concerned with inspecting all establishments which provide such courses. This will continue to be
150
the case. The chief inspector will be able therefore to play a full part in giving advice to the Secretary of State as necessary based on a sound knowledge of the work of these establishments.
Clause 2(4) states:
"The Chief Inspector for England shall have such other functions in connection with schools in England, including functions with respect to the training of teachers for such schools, as may be assigned to him by the Secretary of State".
Given that all establishments which train teachers for teaching in schools come under the Secretary of State, my noble friend's concerns are met.
Lord Elton: There is a peculiar difficulty about this on which I do not want to spend much time this evening. The Long Title of the Bill states:
"An Act to make provision with respect to the inspection of schools and with respect to information about schools and their pupils".
It says nothing about institutions in which teachers are trained. This subsection deals with the training of teachers which I take it is not conducted in such schools and therefore would seem to be outwith the Long Title of the Bill. If I am wrong in that, I am right in thinking that the Bill could make provision for the inspection of the training of teachers not in schools; if I am wrong in that, it seems that this phrase ought not to be in the Bill as drafted.
Baroness Blatch: I think that the difference in understanding between us is that the power in the Bill—I understand that such power exists in the Bill—is for the inspection of,
"the training of teachers for such schools".
Indeed, some of those training establishments will, for example, be within universities so that the inspection will not be of the university as such; it will be on the quality of the training of teachers in those establishments for the purpose of teaching in schools.
Lord Elton: One of us has the other on a Morton's Fork, though I am not sure which one of us it is. Either it is possible to make legislation within the Bill to cover the standard of that training—which I would welcome; but it is not here and we are only told that provisions may be made for it—or it is not possible. In that case, we should not be told that provisions may be made for it because they cannot be made within the terms of the Long Title. I am sure that the Clerks at the Table would have spotted the difficulty before now. Indeed, if there is such a difficulty, it will be discovered before the next stage. Perhaps, therefore, I should rest content for the moment.
I am in some difficulty here because I believe that there ought to be substantial reinforcement of such inspection. I therefore give formal notice that, although I cannot say where it may strike in the Bill, I may be minded to table an amendment on Report when I have been advised as to where it applies.
Lord Peston: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, I must stress that I am a little puzzled. I assumed that the noble Baroness was about to say—indeed, I half thought that she said it—that what the noble Lord wishes to achieve by way of his amendment is what is meant by the phrase at line 32 of subsection (4) as regards the training of teachers for schools. I thought that that was what the Minister

151
said; in other words, I thought that she said that matters were okay in respect of the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and that therefore there was no problem.
However, the noble Lord has now raised the issue of the wording contained in the Long Title and that is a different matter. But, assuming that what is written down in the Bill is in English—which I take to be the case—I understood, if I dare say so, that the Minister's answer was correct. But I am now a little worried because I had assumed that the chief inspector could do exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, wishes. If I am led to believe that that is wrong, I shall, as I said, be a little worried.
Lord Elton: The difference between the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and myself—and it is an odd one—is the fact that I was rather anxious that the chief inspector should be told rather more about how this task should be done, while the noble Lord, who wants him to be told absolutely everything else in regard to the rest of the Bill, including how to tie his shoe laces, does not mind at all how he sets about his task in the training colleges and other departments of education. However, I do not think that we should delay the proceedings with the issue. We had better discover what, if any, procedural difficulty there is. I shall return to the matter at a later stage.
Baroness Blatch: I am slightly unnerved to find myself being supported by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. It is important to note that teacher training will be inspected and that there is no plan to change the number of inspectors engaged in that work. The Secretary of State has a duty to approve the courses of initial teacher training leading to qualified teacher status. His only way of doing that is to rely on HMI. The wording in Clause 2(4) states that the Chief Inspector of England,
"shall have such other functions in connection with schools".
It then continues to specify,
"the training of teachers for such schools".
There are two issues. First, can the chief inspector properly become involved in judging the quality of training for teachers? The answer is very definitely, yes. The second issue about institutions is not at all relevant.
Lord Elton: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 2, line 32, after ("schools") insert ("and the physical condition of school buildings").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 70. The Bill gives Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors the responsibility to keep the Secretary of State informed about the quality of education provided by schools, educational standards and the efficiency of financial management in those schools. Clause 2(4) indicates that the chief inspectors may have other functions, including those in respect of the training of teachers for schools about which we have just been speaking.
The Bill makes no mention of the need to monitor the physical conditions of school buildings. At present, HMI has a responsibility to consider the physical conditions of schools. The inspectors' annual report on the effects of local authorities' expenditure policies on educational provision in England currently includes quite a lot of comment on accommodation. The monitoring of educational standards and the quality of educational provision cannot be separated from monitoring the physical conditions in which pupils work.
The under-funding of the capital programme for school buildings is currently estimated to be around £4 billion. Regrettably, that means that a good deal of education takes place in schools that are physically unsatisfactory. It is essential that consideration of that part of education should be within the remit of the chief inspector. In Committee in another place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State claimed that the powers of Clause 2(2) enabled the Secretary of State to request reports on such matters as the state of buildings. The Minister of State suggested that it would be wrong to identify separately any particular aspect of schooling as all schools come within HMI's remit. With respect, however, I believe that that is contradicted by Clause 2(1)(c), which separately identifies financial resources for schools. I hope that Ministers will accept that monitoring the physical conditions of schools is a very important aspect of the work of HMI and should be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Midnight
Baroness Blatch: In her amendments, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, wishes to make it clear that the chief inspector may concern himself with the physical condition of school buildings. Let me assure the Committee that that is not in doubt. The chief inspector will be entirely free to report on all matters that affect educational standards and quality and, where the conditions of buildings are material evidence to that end, they will of course form a constituent part of the report.
More than that, the chief inspector is able and free to comment on school buildings even if they do not impact on the standard and quality of education. Where the state of school buildings has an effect on the quality and standard of education, the chief inspector will be under a duty to report that effect under Clause 2(1) (a) and (b). I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the Minister, and I am pleased to hear that it is the Government's intention that the chief inspector will be able to report on the physical condition of school buildings. That is very important. I should, however, have preferred to see that specified on the face of the Bill in order to ensure that it happens—and in the longer term. I have no intention of dividing the Committee on a matter of this kind at this time of night. Therefore I shall take away what the Minister has said and consider whether I wish to pursue it at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 46 to 49 not moved.]
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Functions of the Chief Inspector for Wales]:
[Amendments Nos. 50 to 61 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 61A:
Page 4, line 12, leave out ("on matters of good practice").
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, is not here but I said that I would accept the amendment, and so on his behalf I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 62 to 64 not moved.]
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 4, line 18, at end insert:
("(cc) monitoring, assessing and giving advice in connection with, the procedures followed by appropriate authorities in selecting registered inspectors to conduct inspections of schools in Wales under section 9;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 66 to 68A not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 69:
Page 4, line 29, after ("schools") insert ("in schools, at teacher training colleges, colleges of further education and non-university colleges").
The noble Lord said: This was my last amendment to Clause 6. It is worth putting on the record for the puzzled Welsh that the reason we are not discussing any of the amendments in their clause is that we have discussed identical issues in the English clause and have always addressed the Welsh issues at the same time. Having said that, I do not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 70 to 74 not moved.]
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Power of Chief Inspector for England to arrange for inspections]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 2, line 39, at end insert:
("( ) The Chief Inspector for England shall each year arrange for at least one inspection conducted by each registered inspector under section 9 to be monitored by one or more of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools in England.").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 82. The purpose of this amendment is to establish how it is intended that the inspectorate shall maintain a close overview of the quality of work of registered inspectors. We have already addressed the question of the uniformity of standards on a national scale in a number of contexts. This proposal, which I should be glad if the Minister would comment on, is that in order to ensure that there is a proper level of supervision each of the inspectors registered under Clause 9 should themselves be monitored by HMCI and his inspectors on a cycle. I suggest each year, but the noble Baroness might think each four years is more appropriate as she has thought it is for schools. But it seems to me that it might well be prudent that the Government should
154
get inside these inspections every now and again to make sure that they are being operated in the way in which the paperwork suggests. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I have again to repeat that some matters are best left to the discretion of HMCI. There is no need to spell out in detail on the face of the Bill how he or she will exercise the quality control function which it clearly establishes. We have said that—on the senior chief inspector's best estimate—the equivalent of some 40 HMIs will be needed to operate the registration system and monitor the work of registered inspectors—excluding the additional inspectors who will be needed to act as assessors under the amendments already agreed earlier this evening. If we assume some 600 registered inspectors—and there may not be that many—then each HMI would be overseeing 15 such inspectors, and would be well able, as the amendment suggests, to look in on one inspection each year.
But HMI will wish to have the flexibility to monitor the system sensibly. Some registered inspectors will he more experienced than others. HMI may receive complaints about some inspections, or be concerned itself about the reports it has seen on others. It will wish in a given year to plan its monitoring visits to take account of such factors, and not to be tied to a rigid programme. That does not mean that all registered inspectors will not be monitored on a regular basis, but the nature and frequency of that regular monitoring is properly for HMCI to decide.
I remind the Committee that we have, in adding the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Renfrew to the Bill, strengthened considerably the HMCI's monitoring role. We have given him the right to see tender papers and attend meetings at which tenders are discussed, so that HMI will see all the proposals put forward by all registered inspectors to all schools. It will therefore be keeping a very close eye on all stages of the inspection process. That initial involvement will be an important source of background information, and may well be used to plan the frequency and nature of further monitoring.
I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not press the amendment.
Lord Elton: That is a good enough answer for this time of night. I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 2, line 45, after ("to") insert ("all parts of").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is obvious: to obtain an assurance that the Bill, as drafted, is sufficient to enable inspectors to go into all parts of the school, including those parts of the rare school where the rare head teacher will not want them to penetrate because a class is not in a position to give the best impression of what is going on in the school generally. I hope that is clear enough to enable my noble friend to reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I understand my noble friend's concern to ensure that inspectors have access to all

155
parts of a school's premises, and cannot be barred from those parts which the governing body or teachers might not wish them to see, for whatever reason. The right of entry to school premises given to HMI under Clauses 3 and 7, and to registered inspectors and members of inspection teams under Schedule 2, covers all parts of a school's premises, including everything from classrooms to cupboards. I am assured that it even includes detached playing fields. I can give my noble friend the assurances he seeks, and I hope that he will not press the amendment.
Lord Elton: That being so, I should mention Amendments Nos. 78 and 80, which relate to HMI in England, Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 which relate to Wales, and Amendments Nos. 149 and 151 which relate to registered inspectors in both countries. In begging leave to withdraw the amendment, I announce that I shall not be moving those amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I call Amendment No. 79, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
Lord Peston: It is always paradoxical—
Lord Elton Lord Elton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 78:
Page 2, line 45, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: I made an error in what I said a moment ago. The noble Lord the Deputy Chairman picked it up more quickly than I spotted it. Amendment No. 78 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 80.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 78, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
Lord Elton: I repent of my intervention. It is much better that we do not deal with the amendment tonight. I shall not move it.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
12.15 a.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 3, line 4, at end insert ("provided that an Inspector shall not have the right t by virtue of this subsection to inspect nor take copies of the appraisal record of any teacher or any part of any document relating solely to an individual, unless authorised to do so by the Chief Education Officer or, in the case of a grant-maintained school, the chairman of the governing body.").
The noble Lord said: I was about to say that in many ways I intended to echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, but it is extremely important to discuss this amendment thoroughly. Amendment No. 79 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 85 and 155.
The problem as I see it is as follows. Obviously, if we are to have an inspection, inspectors must obtain all the relevant material; otherwise, they cannot do their jobs properly. However, some of that material may well be personal to the teachers concerned, particularly their appraisal records. This matter concerns the serious issue of civil liberties—especially if one favours appraisal, as I certainly do—as regard
156
saccess to such material by what are essentially commercial private enterprises. That is, after all, what the Government seek to introduce into the inspection process. On civil liberties grounds but also on grounds of teacher co-operation, I believe there must be some way of protecting those documents.
Further, if the inspecting team says the problem it is considering necessitates it seeing such material, there should be at least some requirement for authorisation. The amendments standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, suggest that either the chief education officer or a local authority or the chairman of a school governing body would have to give permission before such documents could be looked at.
A more extreme provision would require that those documents could never be looked at. I must admit that I have toyed with that idea. However, I am aware that that could make inspection and the ability to get at the real problem much more difficult. That is the problem that is before us. There is a need for the inspecting team to obtain information and a need to protect the rights of the individual. Amendments Nos. 79 and 85 go some way to dealing with that problem. I cannot see anything else in the Bill that does.
Amendment No. 155 relates to the logical consequence of this matter; that is, that the inspection reports will be published. Again we shall have to take into consideration whether any personal matters in connection with individual teachers—especially those contained in documents which teachers had thought could not be looked at—should be included in the publications. The inspection team would have to take into account the general laws regarding defamation, but apart from that one is concerned more generally that material that should be private could get into the published document. Amendment No. 155 endeavours to offer some protection in that regard.
I can appreciate that there is a problem as regards how one offers the protection I have referred to and yet allows access to relevant information. That is a classic problem in open government anyway. That is the problem as I see it. I want to establish what the Government have to offer by way of reassurance to the teachers involved in this matter, who quite rightly feel they might be exposed to public scrutiny, as it were, in a way that would not be acceptable on almost any grounds of protection of the individual. I apologise for putting such a serious matter before the Committee at a quarter past midnight, but we just happen to have reached it at this time of night. I beg to move.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I have added my name to this amendment as this is a serious matter. I remember having a conversation with a member of HMI not long ago. I asked him whether occasionally his reports contained confidential material. He replied that there was none. That was when Her Majesty's Inspectorate was inspecting schools. The situation will be different in the future and this matter deserves the attention of the Government. I should like to associate these Benches with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
Baroness Blatch: I agree that this is a sensitive and very important issue. I too am not apologetic that we are still here discussing it at this hour.
The noble Lord explained that he wishes to ensure that neither HMI nor registered inspectors have an automatic right of access to records of any kind held on individual members of staff or pupils and that registered inspectors need the permission of the appropriate authority to publish any part of such records in their reports. I shall not take up the Committee's time arguing on a technical point that the amendments would not in fact achieve what the noble Lords opposite want but I shall instead address the principle involved because I am sure that that is what they would wish.
The issue of inspectors' access to personal records was debated at length in another place, and my honourable friend the Minister of State gave an assurance that when the chief inspector was appointed the points raised would be drawn to his or her attention and the extreme sensitivity of the whole subject would be emphasised. I am happy to take this opportunity to repeat his assurance. We are very much aware of the concern and anxiety which teachers and others feel about the need to safeguard the confidentiality of personal records held in schools. But there is no intention under this Bill to open such records to wider scrutiny than that to which they have been subject up to now. I cannot envisage a situation in which any inspector would ever consider publishing material from personal records in an inspection report.
It is clear that HMI and registered inspectors need to have access to academic and personal records kept on pupils in order to assess the school's effectiveness in meeting its statutory duties and providing discipline and pastoral care. They may also have reason to look at teachers' personal records to establish their qualifications and length and type of experience in order to obtain an accurate picture in respect of the whole teaching staff of a school.
However, the position in respect of appraisal records is different, since the information recorded is a judgment about the teacher's capabilities. It is the inspector's job to make that judgment on the basis of observation, not of second-hand evidence; it would detract from the confidential nature of the appraisal process if inspectors were to have access to those papers. HMI has never looked at appraisal records, and we would expect HMCI's guidance to make those points. Therefore registered inspectors would not be able to claim that such records were ones they required for the purposes of their inspections. That should ensure confidentiality.
Given the position I have described and the assurance given by my honourable friend, which I have repeated, I hope that noble Lords will agree that it is unnecessary to impose further conditions on inspectors' right of access to a school's records.
My honourable friend the Minister of State's undertaking to draw our debates—now including this one—to the chief inspector's attention should suffice to ensure that HMI's own actions and its guidance to registered inspectors take full account of our policies
158
of confidentiality. If there were any evidence to the contrary those policies could be the subject of a direction under Clause 2 to make sure that they were given full consideration by the chief inspectors.
I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, which I find reassuring. Unfortunately, I am not one of those who needs to be reassured since I am not a teacher who would be affected. I was particularly reassured by her last remarks regarding directions. If the noble Baroness will bear with me I should like to read in Hansard what she said and what her honourable friend said, and hope that that will convince the teachers, who are the people concerned. But if they say that they would like something more specific on the face of the Bill I may have to return to the matter. However, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 3, line 4, at end insert:
("(3A) Any Inspector inspecting a school under this section may request the appropriate authority for that school to arrange a meeting in accordance with such provisions as may be prescribed, including provisions as to confidentiality, between himself or an additional inspector authorised by him for the purpose, and those parents of registered pupils at the school who wish to attend.").
The noble Lord said: I should like to have a brief word on this amendment from my noble friend. It simply seeks to attract to the chief inspector and his inspectors that assistance which registered inspectors are under the Bill already entitled to have with regard to meeting with parents. I have to say that I have included one little phrase which is not in the Bill already as it relates to registered inspectors. At a later stage I shall seek to import that phrase into that part of the Bill. The words:
"including provisions as to confidentiality"
are in fact an importation. Why is it that the chief inspector is not entitled to have this facility granted to him when a registered inspector is so entitled? I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Perhaps I may first say that I applaud my noble friend's intention in seeking to ensure the maximum possible parental involvement in the children's school and, in particular, to allow that when HMI conduct an inspection in school a meeting with parents may be arranged. When HMI conducts a full inspection in the same way as the registered inspectors would be doing—i.e., when they substitute in that stage —it has such powers. If it is just making an inspection of some particular point, that is not covered.
Lord Elton: Is my noble friend saying that that provision is in the Bill somewhere? If so, I shall search for it between now and Report stage. That is what I was seeking. Perhaps she will drop me a note to say where I shall find it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Power of Chief Inspector for Wales to arrange for inspections]:
[Amendments Nos. 82 to 86 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Price's Patent Candle Company Limited Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
River Humber (Upper Burcom Cooling Works) Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
River Humber (Upper Pyewipe Outfall) Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Ulster Bank Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past midnight.

  TREATY OF MAASTRICHT
  TREATY OF MAASTRICHT
  THE GULF WAR: IRAQI CASUALTIES
  THE GULF WAR: IRAQI CASUALTIES
  CLOSED SCHOOLS: APPLICATIONS FOR USE OF PROPERTY AND FUNDS
  CLOSED SCHOOLS: APPLICATIONS FOR USE OF PROPERTY AND FUNDS
  FOREIGN SHIP INSPECTIONS
  FOREIGN SHIP INSPECTIONS