Sitting of 29 January 1992

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER (GIROBANK) BILL
BRITISH RAILWAYS (NO. 4) BILL
EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time tomorrow.
GREATER NOTTINGHAM LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT BILL
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LEEDS SUPERTRAM BILL
Read a Second time, and committed.
LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.)
(No. 2) BILL
LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL
LONDON UNDERGROUND (JUBILEE) BILL
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time tomorrow.
MIDLAND METRO (No. 3) BILL
Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Ravenscraig
    Dr. Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further action he intends to take in connection with the announced closure of Ravenscraig.
    Mr. Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will itemise the assistance offered to north Lanarkshire since June 1991.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): We have already taken action to strengthen and diversify the Lanarkshire economy. I have announced very substantial additional resources, through Scottish Enterprise, for the Lanarkshire development agency. Those resources are being deployed on a wide range of infrastructure projects, major environmental works and training and business development schemes, following the recommendations of the Lanarkshire working group. I have also announced that, subject to the agreement of the European Commission, the Government intend to set up an enterprise zone in north Lanarkshire.
    Dr. Reid: It was obvious from that answer that the Secretary of State has nothing whatsoever to say about steel. Is he aware that next week my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) will visit the United States to look at the latest technological developments in steel production—thin slab casting? Is the Secretary of State aware that we welcome the fact—however small the step may be—that, with the approval of the Scottish Office, representatives of Scottish Enterprise will accompany my hon. Friend? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we need much more than that? We need a public commitment today from the Government that they will be prepared to give technical and financial assistance to any buyer that wished to develop thin slab technology at Ravenscraig. The Labour party has already given that pledge on behalf of a future Labour Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman publicly give that pledge?
    Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Scottish Enterprise has already investigated thin slab casting in the United States of America. It would be naive of any Opposition Member to think that British Steel had not carefully considered the possibilities of that type of development, which requires a plentiful scrap supply and low energy costs. I am quite sure that British Steel will have considered that and will weigh it up as well as any other possible developments. British Steel must decide whether it is a sensible project on which to embark.
    Mr. Robertson: I warn the Secretary of State for Scotland that, when it comes to the urgent task of providing resources for the regeneration of the Lanarkshire economy, he will not be able to hide behind the arrogant and imperious people who run British Steel. During the last couple of months that he holds that office, he will be judged harshly on what he does.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman stop juggling and manipulating figures and pretending that large-scale

    931
    assistance has already been given to Lanarkshire? Will he exclude hospitals and existing road-building programmes from the calculations? Will he turn his mind to the serious short-term problems: first, the problem that will be caused for the existing development project by the delayed decision on an enterprise zone and, secondly, the problem that the Lanarkshire development agency and Scottish Enterprise will have because of the Government's obsession with annuality in the money that they give. If the right hon. Gentleman turned his mind to those problems, that would be a constructive contribution.
    Mr. Lang: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman does not think that there is a vast amount of economic development going on in Lanarkshire as a result of Government initiatives. It is time that he visited his constituency and had a look around. No fewer than 13 of the 16 sites identified by the Lanarkshire working group for development as locations for new industrial activity are already being developed as a result of the extra resources and the extra commitment of the Government. We are determined to help Lanarkshire to diversify to attract new jobs all the time.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that general anger was expressed in the House last week at British Steel's decision to close Ravenscraig? I welcome the many offers of support and the money available to various agencies in Scotland, as well as the fact that it is hoped to establish an enterprise zone in Lanarkshire. Will my right hon. Friend consider appointing a supremo to co-ordinate all those opportunities, to bring new jobs as quickly as possible to Scotland later this year?
    Mr. Lang: As my hon. Friend knows, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for industry—my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)—has co-ordinated the work of the Lanarkshire working group, which has brought together many local authorities, public bodies and private sector bodies. They produced an extremely effective report, which identified a large number of projects which could usefully be established to help Lanarkshire. Some 60 of those projects have now been implemented. Lanarkshire development agency now fulfils the co-ordinating role to which my hon. Friend referred. Of course, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is keeping in close contact with the agency, as is Scottish Enterprise.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: What action has the Secretary of State taken to find a buyer for Ravenscraig? What assurances can be given about the future of Hunterston? Its existing responsibilities are somewhat in doubt, but it should be remembered that it will be a crucial strategic site for the steel industry of the next century. What action has been taken to ensure its survival?
    Mr. Lang: As for the possible sale of Ravenscraig, the chairman of British Steel has confirmed that the provision contained in the prospectus with regard to disposal has been triggered. I have commissioned a report on the long-term implications of the economic potential of the Hunterston site. It is an important one which we would not want to see wasted.
    Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware that concern has been expressed throughout the country about the closure of Ravenscraig. Is he also aware that the
    932
    regional development aid available to Lanarkshire and the rest of Scotland is equivalent to £28.40 per head compared with £5.55 per head in England? That demonstrates the Government's commitment to redevelop and improve Scottish industry and commerce.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government do identify need and direct resources towards it. Those needs in Scotland have been clearly identified and are fully met from the United Kingdom Exchequer. It may be that because of the Government's sustained commitment unemployment fell in the past four years by almost 9,000 in the Lanarkshire travel-to-work area.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Secretary of State aware that his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr.Reid) shows that he does not understand the proposal for the new technology at Ravenscraig? It is not a proposal for an electric arc furnace, which would lead to scrap and high energy costs, but a proposal to put the new technology on at the end of the BOS—basic oxygen steel—route. Is the right hon Gentleman further aware that practical questions about the continued use of the plant, reclamation and redevelopment must be settled by September? In particular, is the right hon, Gentleman clear that a new operator would have to be indemnified well before September against reclamation costs, which fall to be settled between the Government and British Steel?
    Mr. Lang: On the question of possible contamination at the British Steel site, I have already asked Sir Robert Scholey to contribute in terms of resources and making the site available for visits so that the extent of contamination can he properly examined. The legislative position is much the same as it has been in past decades. No local authority planning requirements were imposed at the time of the planning consent. We wish to ensure that the site is restored to such a level, as has happened at all other British Steel sites, that it can be used for further industry.

    Ferranti Dalkeith
    Mr. Eadie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what notification he received about the contraction of the work force in Ferranti Dalkeith; and what was his response.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): My right hon. Friend received no notification of the recent job losses in Ferranti Dalkeith.
    Mr. Eadie: I am sure that the Minister agrees that the proposal to shed to two thirds of the work force in Ferranti Dalkeith is a severe blow to the 146 employees involved. It is all the more deplorable when one considers that it is high-tech industry with a very skilled work force whom we should wish to retain in the economy. Midlothian has lost far too many jobs through closures and contractions. I understand —the Minister may correct me if I am wrong—that an arrangement has been made for him to meet the firm next Monday. If that is true. I welcome the initiative What hope will the Minister give to the work force in Dalkeith and Midlothian as a result of that initiative?
    Mr. Stewart: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the difficulties that the firm faces. It has attributed its problems to the International Signal and Control fraud

    933
    case and world trading conditions. On Monday I shall not meet the company but I shall meet representatives of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to join the meeting, he will be welcome. It will take place in Alhambra house, Glasgow, on Monday at 8.30 am.

    Ravenscraig
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received the permission of the European Commission to establish an enterprise zone in the Ravenscraig area of Lanarkshire; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: The Government gave formal notification, on 23 January, to the European Commission of our intention to create an enterprise zone for north Lanarkshire. We have stressed the importance of that proposal and must now await the Commission's agreement, which I hope will be forthcoming.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Government reacted swiftly and precisely to the tragedy of Ravenscraig and, as they want to proceed right away with their plans, which might involve 17,000 extra jobs and £50 million expenditure, is not it an insult to Scotland that Commissioner Millan, who knows all the facts, has not been prepared to give his approval and appears likely to wait for several months before doing so? As that is the same Commissioner who is damaging districts throughout Britain by withholding hundreds of millions of pounds of necessary aid for which our taxpayers have paid at least twice, will my right hon. Friend urge Commissioner Millan to cut the red tape and for once do something to help Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety about the apparent reluctance of Commissioner Millan to release to the United Kingdom funds that should come to us to help areas of particular deprivation where we have indentified need. As for Lanarkshire and the problems of the steel industry, only three wards in Motherwell would be eligible for RECHAR resources. Nevertheless, that would be useful. I am sure that Commissioner Brittan will consider the issue of the enterprise zone application promptly and, I hope, in a fair-minded and effective way.
    Mr. McMaster: Is not the Secretary of State ashamed of the fact that the Conservatives have committed industrial genocide against Scotland since they have been in office? The closures affect not only Ravenscraig and Lanarkshire but have a domino effect in constituencies such as mine where, on the admission of the Minister with responsibility for Scottish industry—the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)—76 per cent. of manufacturing jobs disappeared between 1979 and 1989 and a further 3,600 have been lost since. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that urgent action is needed, not only to save jobs but to create them, or does he agree with the Prime Minister who, in a pathetic and complacent reply to me recently, said that he did not believe that economic initiatives were necessary?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is giving a selective exposition of the facts. For example, he seems to be overlooking the fact that unemployment fell in Lanarkshire during the four years to November 1991 by almost 9,000. Unemployment has fallen throughout
    934
    Scotland in four of the past five years. Employment has risen by substantial amounts and company registrations have increased dramatically. The Scottish economy is stronger and broader based than it has been for some time.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the option of an enterprise zone would not be available to an independent Scotland if Spain vetoed Scotland's part in Europe?
    Mr. Lang: I have not speculated on such extreme developments because I do not think that anyone in the United Kingdom, least of all in Scotland, could contemplate such dire consequences for Scotland.

    Scottish Steel Industry
    Mr. Sillars: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the future of the Dalzell plant and other Scottish steel plants.
    Mr. Lang: I met the chairman of British Steel on 6 January to discuss matters connected with the Scottish steel plants. Since then, I have written to him on a number of detailed points. I would expect to meet the chairman of British Steel again whenever appropriate.
    Mr. Sillars: Will the Secretary of State take today's opinion poll to show to Bob Scholey and explain to him that when that is translated into a vote for independence, as it will be at the coming general election, we shall no longer have to write to him, bend the knee or go cap in hand asking for things for Scotland? Instead, all the power that we require will be in our hands and, as an independent country, we shall be able to build on the Dalzell option, save the Scottish steel industry and then expand it.
    Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that his plans for saving the Scottish steel industry are the sort that, when translated into economic policy for an independent Scotland, will benefit that country, he must be living on the moon. His proposals are totally unrealistic. He is living in a fantasy world and it is time that he came to terms with reality.
    Mr. Hood: It would be helpful if the Secretary of State met the Scottish National party shop stewards at Dalzell and explained to them that the lies being told by the SNP leadership will not help to save jobs but will threaten jobs. When the Secretary of State meets the shop stewards, will he also remind them that the fantasy figure of the I million tonne production which is supposed to come from the new scheme will not be taken up by the markets? Only 71,000 tonnes of slate steel produced was used in the North sea last year, so there is no market for the scheme. Perhaps the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) has negotiated a 1 million tonne export contract with the Chinese in Hong Kong—that is the sort of fantasy that the SNP is talking about.
    Mr. Lang: I shall refrain from intervening in the internecine strife between the trade unions at Ravenscraig and those at Dalzell, as I regard that subject as the province of the Labour party. In terms of economic development, my responsibility is to look to the future and to help Lanarkshire develop new employment in industries

    935
    to create new prosperity for that region and Scotland. It is to that end that all our plans are directed, and they are beginning to yield results.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Secretary of State still believe, as the Labour party does, that there is a strong case for investing in Dalzell and challenging the single plate mill strategy of British Steel. If so, what steps is he taking? Does he realise that Scotland cannot afford a Government who are determined to do nothing or a nationalist party that offers false hope to the steel industry on the basis of what one independent commentator in the Glasgow Herald today described as
    "a meaningless, misleading bunch of wrongly used statistics"?
    Mr. Lang: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was well aware that we have consistently supported the case for the Dalzell plate mill. We submitted a closely argued paper to British Rail a considerable time ago and I raised the matter with Robert Scholey when I last met him. I hope that the mill will survive for a long time. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and I have had a number of meetings with trade union leaders during the past year or two and my hon. Friend remains willing to meet them again at their request.

    NHS Expenditure
    Sir Hector Monro: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the proposed expenditure on the national health service for 1992–93; and what was the level of expenditure in 1978–79.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Next year we will spend £3,725 million on the national health service in Scotland. That compares with £893 million in the last year of the Labour Government. That represents an increase of four times in cash terms and one and a half times above inflation.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does not that massive increase in expenditure, accompanied by the great improvement in health care nail Opposition outbursts about cuts in the national health service? How much would it cost to give free eye and dental treatment in Scotland, as promised by the Labour party?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the huge increase in resources. The increased expenditure on the national health service in Scotland amounts to more than the entire receipts that the Government obtain from North sea oil in any one year and represents a huge increase in resources. It is true that the cost of eye tests and dental check-ups, the abolition of competitive tendering and the introduction of a minimum wage would add £125 million to the cost of the national health service in Scotland. The Labour party, which makes those proposals has not promised one single extra cent for the national health service to compensate for the cost of those policies.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister will recall that when Scottish questions were last before the House I asked the last question on health matters and referred to the accident and emergency service at Ninewells hospital. We were slightly overtaken by subsequent events—I refer to the heat that was generated while we were waiting for an announcement. The Minister gave what I thought was a reasonable reply, but perhaps he was influenced by the
    936
    pressure that was on him. Has he had time to consider the request for funds to relocate the accident and emergency unit at the Dundee royal infirmary site to the Ninewells site? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has received a request from Tayside health board about the relocation, and does he propose to accede to the request?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman felt that he did not receive an entirely satisfactory answer because I was under pressure. I am never under pressure when it comes to the health service in Scotland because it is delivering a splendid result for the people of Scotland. The pattern of provision of service in a health board is a matter for that board. I am sure that the chairman of Tayside health board will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the proposals.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: Will the Minister use some of the additional money about which he talked to expand the audiology service in Scotland? In a written answer last year, he told me that figures were not held centrally on waiting lists for hearing assessments and hearing aids for children and adults, including pensioners. Accordingly, the Minister will not be aware that in some parts of Scotland, especially in my constituency, it is difficult to have hearing aids serviced and batteries supplied. Will the Minister give an undertaking that the audiology service in Scotland will be examined at Scottish Office level?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am happy to give the hon. Lady that undertaking. As part of the patients charter proposals, I have been examining several services, including the supply of wheelchairs, that have involved real difficulties in some parts of Scotland. I shall be happy to examine the services that are provided for those who suffer from deafness to one degree or another. The hon. Lady will be aware of the introduction and expansion of cochlea implants in Scotland as a result of work that was undertaken in Ayrshire. That is a step forward. The hon. Lady is getting a brand new hospital in her constituency, which is a considerable expansion of service.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend tell the House how expenditure per capita on the health service in Scotland compares with that expenditure in England and Wales?
    Mr. Forsyth: Expenditure on the health service in Scotland per capita is 23 per cent. more than in England—£730 per person in Scotland and £595 per person in England. It is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us the reason."] Opposition Members ask me why that is so. They should tell us how a Scottish Parliament would find the money to pay those bills.
    Mr. Galbraith: The Minister gives us a false picture of what is happening in the health service. Did not waiting lists in Scotland increase by 4 per cent. last year? Is it not also the case that last year the number of nurses in Scotland was reduced by 500? Does the Minister accept that under the last Labour Government expenditure rose each year by more than 4 per cent. while under this Government it has fallen by 0.1 per cent? That is the reality. There have been cuts, cuts and more cuts, for which the Government will pay dearly at the next general election.
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the 150,000 people who work in the health service, who

    937
    this year treated 1 million more patients than were being treated when the Labour Government left office. Record numbers of patients are being treated, there is a record number of staff in the health service and there is record investment in the health service. It does the health service no good when the hon. Gentleman makes cheap party points at its expense.
    As I said, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) has a new hospital in her constituency. There are new hospitals throughout Scotland. When we had a Labour Government, the health service building programme was cut for the first time in its history. That was the Labour Government's record. That happened because of the way in which they ran the economy, and not because they did not want to help the health service. If the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) had his way with a Scottish Parliament, cuts would return to the health service and people employed in it would lose their jobs.

    Eastfield Rail Depot
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet representatives of ScotRail to discuss the planned closure of Eastfield railway depot.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The decision to close the Eastfield depot is an operational matter for British Rail. My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet ScotRail to discuss this.
    Mr. Martin: The Minister will know that the Government, at Prime Minister level, gave a commitment that rail safety in this country would be improved, yet this closure decision will lead to 70 skilled railway maintenance workers being put on the dole. The Minister will also know that that means that heavy frieght repairs will have to go south of the border. May I ask the Minister to use his good offices to try to get Scot Rail to change its mind and to save this important depot? I hope that at a later stage the Minister will also be able to provide a commitment as to what British Rail intends to do with that land.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman at this stage what will happen to the land. It is too early to say. The closure will lead to the loss of 120 jobs, but the hope is that there will be no compulsory redundancies and that many of the employees will be relocated at, for example, the depots at Motherwell, Ayr, Grangemouth and Inverness. The hon. Gentleman may be correct when he says that a proportion of the work for the heavier locomotives may go south of the border, but I hope that the bulk of it will stay in Scotland. The matter must be put into perspective. The decision to site a rail freight terminal at Mossend over the next 10 to 15 years is expected to lead to the creation of 8,000 jobs.
    I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that safety must be given the highest priority. The high levels of investment in British Rail would not be possible without Government support through the obligation grant, which is about £600 million for the current year.

    Labour Statistics
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest official count of (a) unemployed persons and (b) notified vacancies.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: The number of unemployed people, seasonally adjusted, in Scotland in December 1991 was 227,300 and the number of notified vacancies at Scottish jobcentres was 21,200. Vacancies at jobcentres are thought, however, to represent only about one third of total vacancies in the economy at any one time.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister not realise that an unlucky 13 people are chasing every job notified? Does he not realise that in my Maryhill constituency alone, unemployment has risen during the last year by 450 to a total of more than 5,500, leading to an unemployment figure of 18 per cent? The last time I raised the issue at Scottish Question Time, the Secretary of State for Scotland replied that he did not believe that anything should be done, that the recession would finally work its way out and that market forces would provide the answer. If the Government believe in market forces, they will realise that their sell-by date is past. It is high time they realised that the dust is gathering on the wrappers and packed it up.
    Mr. Stewart: Perhaps I may point out to the hon. Lady that unemployment is down 14 per cent. over the last three years and that long-term unemployment is down by 1,000 over the last three years in her Maryhill constituency. [Interruption.] The Opposition do not like hearing about unemployment coming down. As for turnover in the labour market, 378,400 people left the unemployment count in 1991 and 211,000 people got jobs through jobcentres in 1991. Those are the facts, even if Opposition Members do not like them.
    Dr. Godman: Within the figures that the Minister has just related to the House are those concerning Greenock and Port Glasgow. I think that he will agree with me that the unemployment rate in my constituency is dismally and scandalously high. Were the west of Scotland headquarters of the Land Registry to be located at Cartsburn
    or the Gourock ropeworks in Port Glasgow, that would help, if only marginally, to reduce the disgracefully high unemployment figures in Greenock and Port Glasgow. When is this outfit going to play the game by my constituents?
    Mr. Stewart: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, which was, of course, made by a delegation led by him from Inverclyde district council; my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) will have heard what he said. Generally, I accept that there is a serious problem in Inverclyde. We are working on improving access to some of the enterprise zone sites there. That is one of the priorities for the area.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: If and when Scotland leaves the Union, that will cause further unnecessary unemployment. Will my hon. Friend confirm that Westminster-based jobs carried out in Scotland, such as jobs in the Inland Revenue at East Kilbride and Cumbernauld, will have to be repatriated to English constituencies?
    Mr. Stewart rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I intend to answer. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that if Scotland were to leave the Union there would be substantial economic dislocation. I am sure that my hon. Friend and fellow clansman is also right to emphasise the real benefits for Scotland in remaining a full part of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Worthington: In the past, on unemployment questions, the Minister has justified the level of unemployment by saying that the Government have created more jobs than ever before. The Secretary of State has used the expression "historically high". Despite the fact that he counts part-time jobs as full-time jobs and puts employment training places in the jobs column, will the Minister admit that by his own Department's figures there are now fewer jobs in Scotland than there were when the Government came to power in 1979? Let us not have the Government misleading the House. According to the Government's figures, there are now fewer jobs in Scotlnd than in 1979. Is that not correct—yes or no?
    Mr. Stewart: That is a fairly typical contribution from the English academic who condescends to represent the working class of Clydebank. The hon. Gentleman has opposed every positive training measure put forward by the Government, and every Labour Government ended up with higher unemployment when they left office than when they took office.

    Industrial Policy
    Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet representatives of the Scottish CBI to discuss industrial policy and investment in west central Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: My colleagues and I have continuing contacts with the Scottish CBI on matters affecting the economy, including that of west central Scotland. We hope to arrange a further meeting shortly.
    Mr. Hogg: Has the Secretary of State seen the Scottish chambers business survey for the last quarter of 1991, which concluded that confidence had fallen back in all principal sectors, that demand remained stagnant and was contracting in all major sectors, that manufacturers' stocks were running out, that investment was contracting, and that the worst hit areas were central Scotland and Edinburgh? How does the Secretary of State intend to talk that up into a success story?
    Mr. Lang: By selecting parts of the survey to suit his case, the hon. Gentleman seeks to talk down the economy of Scotland. Perhaps he should also consider what the CBI wants for the economy: it wants lower taxes which would encourage investment, but under Labour it would get not lower but higher taxes throughout the United Kingdom and there would be special higher taxes in Scotland under a Scottish assembly which would impose 3p on income tax.
    Mr. Favell: Has my right hon. Friend discussed with the Scottish CBI all the talk about an independent Scotland? I am appalled that Opposition Members should contemplate it after all that the United Kingdom has gone through in the past 300 years. We founded the British Commonwealth together. This nation is one of the most admired in the world. Opposition Members say that they
    940
    cannot make their voices heard here. What chance then would they have among the Italians, the Germans and the French? United we stand, divided we fall—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask questions of the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend was absolutely right to identify the dangers to the Scottish economy either from separation or from the Labour party's policy to set up tax-raising assemblies. The outgoing president of Glasgow chamber of commerce said earlier this week:
    "The concern of our members is that devolution would be bad for Scottish industry."
    In the CBI's most recent survey on the matter, more than 90 per cent. identified the same danger to the Scottish economy.

    Defence Spending
    Mr. Douglas: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress being made by Scottish Enterprise in relation to its examination of the impact on the Scottish economy of the decline in defence spending.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Within the defence industries initiative, Scottish Enterprise has received a draft impact assessment from its consultants. Information from that study will be used to take forward work already in hand with local enterprise companies and defence companies to identify practical steps to help companies and communities to adapt to the changing demand for defence-related goods and services.
    Mr. Douglas: Notwithstanding that interesting reply and the orders that were given to Yarrow's last week for type 23 frigates, will the Minister concede that there is a serious problem in terms of the diminution of defence orders? That is especially aggravated in areas such as Fife and the west of Scotland. What funding will the Minister provide to ensure that the high technology skills embraced by companies such as Ferranti are not lost to Scotland? We need not a paper exercise, but actual funding to ensure that we keep those skills. The Government have that responsibility.
    Mr. Stewart: I do not want to criticise the hon. Gentleman personally—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It is, after all, a rather splendid day for anti-devolutionists. He puts forward a perfectly valid point of which Scottish Enterprise is fully aware. However, an independent Scotland would not get frigate orders for Yarrow's. Moreover, there would be no Rosyth dockyard and no Rosyth naval base.
    Mr. Strang: Will the Minister accept that the defence industries initiative, which his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced last October, is utterly inadequate? It provides not a penny of new money towards research and development, investment or retraining. It is clear that the only way to make real progress is to elect a Labour Government and set up a defence diversification agency which will really tackle the problem and help our companies to expand into civil products.
    Mr. Stewart: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will check with his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for

    941
    Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) to see whether there is any official Labour commitment for that amount of extra public expenditure, as I have never heard of one. I do not take the view that the problems of diversification from defence-related companies will be solved through state intervention. The initiative is right to assist the defence sector companies and subcontractors in commercial adjustments to new markets, to provide support—with other agencies and local authorities—to communities that may be heavily affected, and to support reskilling and retraining needs. That is a sensible and constructive approach. If the Labour party is making any massive public expenditure commitments for a different one, let us hear them.

    Industrial Policy
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on industrial policy for Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: The central aim of the Government's industrial policy, in Scotland as in the rest of the United Kingdom is to create the conditions for sustainable growth in the economy.
    I have today written to my hon. Friend elaborating on how my Department promotes that central aim. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library of the House and published in the Official Report.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend remind Opposition Members that under the old hands-on, interventionist industrial policy that the Labour party is supposed to support, British Steel lost £15 billion and our steel trade was in massive deficit, whereas now British Steel is the most efficient in Europe and we run a healthy surplus on our steel trade? Does he agree that there is something spurious and deceitful about a party that criticises the Government's hands-off policy on steel and calls for a return to interventionism, but does not have the guts to commit itself to keep Ravenscraig open if Labour came to power?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to identify the double thinking of the Labour party. It is significant that last Thursday a motion was tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition calling on the Government to use every possible means to intervene in the Scottish steel industry, while at the same time the Leader of the Opposition was quoted in The Financial Times as saying that
    "it isn't intervention that the steel industry needs".
    I do not think that the Labour party has any idea what any of its policies add up to.
    Mr. McAllion: Does the Secretary of State accept that the success or lack of success of his industrial policy will determine the level of mass unemployment in Scotland? Does he also accept that the only circumstances in which unemployment will be a "price worth paying" in Scotland is when it is paid in full by the Scottish Office Front Bench? Why do the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends not do Scotland a favour, pack their collective bags and go now?
    Mr. Lang: The Conservative party needs no lessons from the Labour party about employment and unemployment. Every Labour Government increased unemployment. In four of the past five years unemployment has fallen, and it will fall further when the economy is moving, when investment is rising and when there is increased prosperity. All those things will be achieved by the Government's policies—they would never be achieved by the high taxation policies of the Labour party.
    Following is the information
    The central aim of the Government's Industrial policy is to create the conditions for sustainable growth in the economy.
    The Government believes that since it is the private sector which creates wealth, the Government must seek to create the environment in which companies are encouraged to establish, develop and expand, in order to create both wealth and employment. Good public services and living standards can be provided and maintained only in tandem with entreproneurial activity.
    Central to the creation of such an environment is the rigorous control of inflation. The Government's policies have resulted in the United Kingdom having inflation below that of the European Community average. Independent forecasters expect falls in the underlying rate of inflation in the months to come.
    The success of these policies, and of the work of my Department, can be shown through the progress Scotland has seen over the past 10 years.
    During the 1980s Scottish manufacturing productivity by an average 5.2 per cent. per annum, contrasting with a mere 2.0 per cent. in the 1970s and 4.1 per cent. in the 1900s. In this respect, Scotland's performance in the 1980s was stronger than any of the leading 7 OECD economies.
    Since 1981, Locate in Scotland has recorded planned inward investment by companies totalling £4.2 billion, associated with the intended creation or safeguarding of some 80,000 jobs. Even after appropriate discounting of total company forecasts of prospective employment, to around two-thirds of the initially planned figures, this is a record to proud of. It shows that inward investing companies see our economy as providing an environment in which they can operate successfully. Exports of manufactured goods from Scotland have also been buoyant, with an increase of 26 per cent. in real terms since 1979.
    Company and VAT registrations and the numbers of self-employed in Scotland have all increased substantially since 1979. The number of companies registered in Scotland rose by almost 70 per cent. from 1980 to 1991, while the number of VAT registered companies rose by 23 per cent. despite the significant real terms in the registration threshold.
    Self-employment in Scotland stands at a historically high level, having increased by almost 50 per cent. between 1979 and 1990 compared with no growth over the previous 3 decades.
    The privatisation of the two electricity companies in Scotland and of the Scottish Bus Group has led to greatly increased opportunities for employee-share ownership, and in the case of the electricity companies, to more individual shareholders in Scotland. Around half a million Scots applied for shares in the electricity companies and some 400,000 continue to hold their shares.
    There have also been a number of encouraging trends in the more recent period, particularly in the Scottish

    943
    labour market. The Scottish civilian workforce in employment, for example, has seen a growth of 137,000 or 6.5 per cent. over the period June 1987 to June 1991.
    In terms of unemployment, the seasonally adjusted total has fallen by over 98,000 in the 4½ year period to December 1991, a fall of some 30 per cent. This has resulted in the differential between Scottish and United Kingdom unemployment rates falling from 3.1 percentage points to just 0.2 percentage points over the same period, the lowest such differential since the war.
    Despite these major economic advances, Scotland has been affected by recessionary trends in the United Kingdom as a whole and in the rest of the world during 1990 and 1991. My aim is to minimise these effects, and those of necessary structural changes, and to make the Scottish economy more resilient to future economic downturns using the policy instruments outlined earlier. There are already clear indications from forecasters and official statistics that Scotland has outperformed the United Kingdom economy in each of the years since 1988.
    The Government are committed to removing the excess rates burden on Scottish business as quickly as possible. Good progress has been made; non-domestic rates were reduced by £80 million in 1990–91 and a further £100 million in the current year. They will be further reduced by £60 million in 1992–93. These large reductions have encouraged investment and employment, particularly in the service sector which does not benefit from derating.
    Another keynote of the Government's industrial policy has been the freeing of previously state-owned assets, allowing the more effective use of these resources under private sector management. This policy, which is increasingly being seen in countries throughout the world as essential to economic efficiency, has promoted efficiency and increased incentives as well as widening share ownership among the general public.
    My Department works within Scotland to promote these aims and to foster the development of an environment in which business can flourish. It aims to enhance the role of private enterprise in the economy; to maximise the value added by industry and commerce in Scotland through the modernisation and expansion of competitive industrial and commercial activity; and to encourage a broad and diverse economic base. It promotes the vital links that exist between business and education allowing each to understand better the needs of the other. Through its administration of regional support measures it assists the establishment of viable economic activity in less advantaged parts of Scotland. It promotes the progressive development of the roads and transport infrastructure and the maintenance and improvement of transport services; and it fosters general environmental and economic improvements, essentially through the recently established Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise and their associated networks of business-led local enterprise companies.
    In promoting enterprise in Scotland my Department, either directly or through publicly funded bodies:—
    —gives financial and advisory support for competitive
    firms, entrepreneurial activity, inward investment, the science and technology base, exporting and training;
    —encourages deregulation where the burdens imposed on business outweigh the potential advantage to the public interest;
    —seeks to identify gaps which the market is not able to address and seeks ways of filling those gaps;
    944
    —seeks to ensure that the markets in land and capital are meeting the needs of new or expanding enterprises;
    —supports urban regeneration, development in remote areas and tourism;
    —secures the building and maintenance of the trunk road network and allocates resources for local authority road and transport systems; and
    —secures assistance to appropriate areas from European funds.
    I will oversee continued development of the business environment in Scotland to ensure that the many major advances made in the 1980s and early 90s are continued in the future. In particular I will look to: the networks of local enterprise companies, together with Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, to capitalise further on the integration of economic development and training which they uniquely enjoy; the promotion of Scotland's links with the rest of Europe; the development of Scottish Trade International to further boost export performance; and the further development of the economic climate which will best allow firms to develop, expand and meet the challenges set by the completion of the Single European Market.

    School Boards
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of Scottish schools currently have school boards; what has been the total cost of school boards to date; and if he will make a statement about the future of school boards.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Around 75 per cent. of schools in Scotland have school boards.
    The revenue support grant settlement for 1989–90 took into account the additional costs—estimated at £10 million per year—to be incurred by education authorities in introducing school boards. Education authorities budgeted to spend just over £6 million on school boards in 1991–92.
    Mr. Bruce: Does the Minister now acknowledge that the school boards legislation that he imposed on Scotland against the clearly expressed views of the majority of parents has not been quite the success that he claimed? His figures today indicate that a quarter of schools in Scotland cannot even muster a school board, and the number is growing as parents become increasingly frustrated at the Government's failure to provide the resources needed in education. Does the Minister agree that the £10 million allocated to school boards would have been much better invested in books and teaching materials?
    Mr. Forsyth: I published a survey of school boards today which shows that they have been remarkably successful—[Horn. MEMBERS: "It would."]—an independent survey which shows that school boards have been remarkably successful. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has a cheek coming here and criticising me because a quarter of the schools have no school board. That is a matter for the schools themselves. Many of them are small. It was as a result of pressure from the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that I accepted an amendment to the School Boards (Scotland) Bill 1987, changing our original proposal that schools with fewer than 100 pupils would not be eligible to have boards and enabling them to do so. The hon. Member for Gordon was among those who

    945
    lobbied that small schools should have the opportunity and that it was a matter for them if they did not want a board. Yet now he comes to the House and criticises the Government for the consequences of his own policy.
    Mr. Bill Walker: In the rural areas, where people care very much about the education of their children and where the school boards are functioning extremely well, proposals have been put to me which suggest—this does not contradict what my hon. Friend said in his answer just now—that small country schools, particularly primary feeders, might be better looked after if they were part of the school board system of the secondary school into which they feed, so that the school board would supervise both the secondary school and the primary schools feeding into it. Might that not help the situation in the rural areas, and will my hon. Friend consider the idea?
    Mr. Forsyth: There are many small schools where school boards run very effectively and there are others where people have chosen not to have school boards. The point is clear. The Government have given parents a choice and a voice in education. I hope that the whole of Scotland will recognise that Labour Members have opposed us every inch of the way while we have sought to enfranchise parents and to give them more say in the education of their children. I do not believe that the proposal put by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is the way forward. The way forward is to give school boards a greater role in education in Scotland.

    Germany
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his visit to Germany.
    Mr. Lang: I had a successful visit to Bavaria in September last year when I led a trade mission organised by Scottish Financial Enterprise. The mission has assisted in establishing stronger financial and commercial links between Scotland and that part of Germany.
    Mr. Darling: Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the reasons for Germany's outstanding economic success is its decentralised form of government? Does he not also accept that Scotland would gain by having its own Parliament with control over key decisions while at the same time using the clout of United Kingdom partnership in a Europe dominated by large countries? The Secretary of State's policy of doing nothing and of stagnation, and the nationalist policy of taking Scotland into Europe's second division, would both be disastrous for the people of Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: The thing that struck me most on constitutional matters during my visit to Bavaria was the complete incomprehension of my Bavarian hosts that anyone should take the view taken by Opposition parties in this country that constitutional mechanisms can be the key to economic success. In Germany, the Länder compete with one another to keep taxation down. Labour is seeking to raise taxes exclusively in Scotland, which would be more damaging for Scotland's economic future than almost any other proposal.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Bavarians would be just as baffled by his own view that the constitutional mechanism would lead to economic ruin? I am sure that he did not explain that to the Bavarians. When the Secretary of State went to Germany, did he find any part of Germany which had suffered as a result of the devolved system of government? The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), was present at a press conference about recent inward investment in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram). Did the Under-Secretary feel uncomfortable when the owner of the company bringing the investment to East Kilbride said that he would still have made that investment against the background of a Scottish Parliament?
    Mr. Lang: I could quote many business men who have said the direct opposite. If the hon. Gentleman cared to read the Scotland on Sunday business view survey of 200 company directors last december, he would see that 86 per cent. said that a Scottish assembly would not help the Scottish economy, 78 per cent. said that it would deter inward investment, and 64 per cent. said that they would rethink investment strategy and levels of employment. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand the damage that a tax-raising assembly would do to Scotland's economy, and what the raising of a tax border across the frontier between Carlisle and Berwick would do to the people of Scotland, he had better have another look at his plans.
    Mr. Marlow rose—
    Hon. Members: Speak for England!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is about Germany.
    Mr. Marlow: As my right hon. Friend knows, there is a devolved system of government in the Federal Republic of Germany. If there were a devolved system of government in the United Kingdom, and if Scotland had its own Parliament, would it not be democratically improper and immoral for the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to harbour ambitions to govern England? Is not devolution a fraud?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend identifies a very important issue which the Labour party has completely failed to address. Labour has failed to recognise that if there is a measure of devolution of the kind that Labour identifies, it is not just some bolt-on extra but brings costs and a down side as well as the benefits that Labour perceives. That is the kind of issue that would have to be addressed. I can see the strength of my hon. Friend's view that it would be very difficult to sustain morally the position that the Labour party advocates.
    Mr. Dewar: Reverting to the Secretary of State's foreign travels, does he accept that, by continuing to pretend that there can be no change, that the German option, the Spanish option and the Italian option can never be the British option or the Scottish option, he is in danger of destroying the Union to which he pays lip service?
    Mr. Lang: The German option, the Spanish option and the other option that the hon. Gentleman identifies are not

    947
    the option that his party is offering the people of Scotland. If he does not understand that, he really should go back to the drawing board.

    Electoral Registration
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will increase expenditure on advertising aimed to encourage electoral registration in Scotland.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am satisfied that the current level of expenditure on advertising for electoral registration in Scotland represents good value for money and is highly effective.
    Mr. Barnes: The new electoral registers for Scotland show a fall of 85,000 since 1987. That includes a fall of 16,000 among 18-year-olds. The position relating to the number of 18-year-olds and older is far worse, in that there is a shortfall of 140,000 on the electoral register, which averages 2,000 per constituency. In those circumstances, emergency action should be taken. Is the only way that the Tories can win seats in Scotland by fiddling the franchises?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are spending considerable sums on advertising—£47,000 next year and £46,000 this year. We strongly encourage everybody who is entitled to register to do so and to use their democratic right to vote. There are many reasons why the numbers have been decreasing. There have been changes in registration practices, there have been changes in legitimate dual registration—for example, in the case of students—and there have been people moving from house to house and not registering. There is a greater inclination to register near an election. There are also demographic changes. It is virtually impossible to state a single cause without an enormous amount of research, which we believe would not involve value for money.
    Mr. Dunn: Does my hon. Friend agree that even a substantial increase in the number of those registered to vote in Scotland would do nothing to alter the tremendous imbalance in this House between representatives from Scotland and those from England?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend touches on a very sensitive point. The one part of Britain which was devolved was Northern Ireland, with Stormont. Of course, the number of hon. Members per capita was very much lower in relation to that part of Britain than it is today. It is well worth the House bearing that in mind.
    In answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), the number of young people registered in 1991 is substantially up on the 1979 figure. It was 62.1 per cent. in 1979, and it is now 69.3 per cent. We want the figure to be greatly increased; that is why we are advertising.
    Mr. Doran: May I make a special plea to the Minister for the case of offshore workers? There are 35,000 offshore workers. So far as I am aware, there is no special advertising targeted at them. That is a serious point because they make a major contribution to the economy. From my contacts with them, I know that there is great uncertainty about their right to a postal vote. Given that
    948
    they travel to Aberdeen from all parts of the country, it is a central Government issue. Will the Minister take that on board?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will look into that point and write to the hon. Gentleman because it is extremely important that all of them should have the opportunity to exercise their rights.
    Mr. Wilson: The Minister may be complacent about the electoral registration figures, but we know that many of his ministerial colleagues are very cynical about this, and see it a last benefit to be obtained from the poll tax in its dying days. Whatever other factors there may be, the Minister knows that tens of thousands of youngsters have been frightened off the electoral register, however misguidedly, by the belief that it would help them to avoid the poll tax.
    In the dying days of the poll tax, having had to surrender on every other front, will the Government at least have the decency to go to those young people, to advertise and to use some resources to try to get them back on to the electoral register? The Government have taken everything else off those people. They have taken jobs and decent training off them. Will they at least leave them the right to vote, so that they can exercise their democratic right to change the Government of this country?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The fundamental principle is that where electors are entitled to register they should do so, but the hon. Gentleman should examine his own record. He supported the Stop It campaign and discouraged people from paying, and there were payment delays. Indeed, a number of Opposition Members delayed their payments, and at least one has not paid.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many young people under 24 years of age are unemployed in Scotland; how many of them are long-term unemployed; what plans he has to reduce these figures; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: The information requested is available for the 16 to 24 age group only. In October 1991 there were 68,674 unemployed 16 to 24-year-olds in Scotland, of whom 13,589 had been unemployed for more than a year.
    The Government have introduced the most comprehensive range of measures ever in this country to help unemployed people back to work. The measures include a wide range of assistance from the employment service, youth training, employment training and employment action. However, in the final analysis it is a productive economy which provides new jobs, and we are vigorously removing barriers to economic growth.
    Mr. Marshall: The Minister must be thoroughly ashamed of those figures. They are not numbers in a balance sheet; they represent real people trapped in the misery and poverty of unemployment. Many of those people are denied benefits by the Government. Has the Minister not even begun to realise the frustrations of young people in Scotland who see their future and their hopes being destroyed by his party? When will he realise

    949
    that the only unemployment that we in Scotland want to see is that of Tory MPs after the next election, when a Labour Government will be elected?
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Obviously the hon. Gentleman has not read the most recent opinion polls. He represents a party which, when in government, has always increased unemployment. On the question of youth unemployment, the present Government have given school leavers a guarantee of youth training—a guarantee that was never given by the last Labour Government and is unique in Europe. The present Government have brought in employment action as an extra weapon in the battle against unemployment. If the hon. Gentleman really cared
    950
    about unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds he would dissociate himself from his party's policy of a national minimum wage. [Interruption.] Hon. Members laugh. Did not they see the report in the Sunday newspapers that Coats Viyella, a major employer in my constituency, is expressing concern about the effects of a national minimum wage?
    Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This behaviour is very unseemly. I hope that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is not rising because he was not called. I think that I shall call a lady Member first.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the Secretary of State for Education and Science given you notice that he will this afternoon make an urgent statement about the state of our schools? In a school in my constituency, a three-storey wall has collapsed into a classroom. Because of the danger to the children, the school is now closed. An urgent statement about the state of our schools and about what the Government intend to do about it would be appropriate.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the Government Whip will have heard the hon. Lady's remarks, but she will have an opportunity tomorrow to put the matter to the Leader of the House at business questions.
Mr. Donald Dewar: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has just made a statement about Coats Viyella—a very well known public company—in relation to the Labour party's policy on a minimum wage. I understand that the press report has been commented on by Coats Viyella itself. The company has made it very clear that it wishes to be dissociated from the misreporting and the travesty of its views. I fear that this Minister of the Crown must have been aware of that fact as he continued to spread the inaccuracy. Does not he owe us an apology?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot be held responsible for what is said.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of Scottish questions. With respect, every time that you, Mr. Speaker, call an English Tory when a large number of Scottish Labour Members of Parliament stand in their places to be called during Scottish questions, it fuels my suspicion that you, Mr. Speaker, and some of your English Tory friends are in a—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that at once.
Mr. Foulkes: Some of your English Tory friends—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know that I have no friends.
Mr. Foulkes: I suspect that some English Tory Members—whether or not you, Mr. Speaker, are friendly with them—are in an unholy alliance with the Scottish National party, to help the break-up of the United Kingdom. That suspicion is growing very strongly.
Mr. Speaker: I have heard many extraordinary allegations in this Chamber, but never anything quite as wild as that.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. English Members of this United Kingdom Parliament do not complain when Scots come over the border and sit in English seats. Nor do we complain when Scottish Members join in English questions. They should exhibit a little reciprocity.
Mr. Speaker: I think that all Scottish right hon. and hon. Members understand this—we seem to have this at
952
every Scottish Office Question Time. English Members of Parliament are called during questions on subjects that concern the United Kingdom. If the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) will read Hansard tomorrow, he will find that there were questions today about Germany, electoral registration, and so on. I do not propose to allow a debate on how I decide which right hon. or hon. Member to call.
Mr. Roy Beggs: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the nature of the exchanges during Scottish questions this afternoon—when the allegation was made by some that lies were told, and others were called traitors—will you, Mr. Speaker, recommend to the Secretary of State for Scotland that he arrange talks between Conservative Members, Scottish Labour Members, and Scottish National party Members before we next have Scottish questions, so that it may be more seemly?
Mr. Speaker: If Scottish questions were more like Ulster questions, it would probably be a happier occasion.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say on behalf of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House that we assume that you, are a friend to all Back Benchers; we acknowledge that. As a Welsh-born Scottish Member of Parliament who looks after the interests of an English constituency, I acknowledge that you do your best—even though you did not call me during Scottish questions today.
In response to an earlier point of order, you said, Mr. Speaker, that you try to ensure that questions are relevant to the United Kingdom when you call English Members. Every question on the Order Paper for Scottish Question Time is relevant to the whole United Kingdom and the love that every United Kingdom Member of Parliament has for our cousins in Scotland.
Mr. Speaker: I think that I will let this blow out.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) raised his point of order, you, were smiling.
Mr. Speaker: I try to smile.
Mr. Foulkes: Smirking, in fact—as usual.
Mr. Home Robertson: You felt, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. Friend was making an outrageous point. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the conduct that we see from many English Members during Scottish Office Question Time is helping to bring not only the Government but the House into contempt in Scotland. That matter is of great concern to those of us who want to represent responsibly all the people in Scotland. There is a constitutional crisis, which it is up to hon. Members in all parts of the House to address seriously.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one at a time. I say to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) that I do not smirk. What I was trying to say—I hope that the whole House accepts this—was that I have no special friends. I think that that was what the hon. Gentleman was alleging.
Mr. Tony Favell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have already spoken about the allegations made by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). As an English Member of Parliament, I take great exception to the suggestion that English Members seek to undermine the Union—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is what the hon. Member was trying to say in Question time. But he said it then, and it is not a point of order for me now.
Mr. Favell: The point of order is this, Mr. Speaker. English Members have just the same interest in preserving the union between England and Scotland as Scottish Members. Whenever the matter is raised, English Members should have the opportunity to put that point, as should Scottish Members who believe in the Act of Union between our two great countries which has existed for 300 years.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for Scotland is on record in Scotland as saying that, after the election, everyone who votes Labour will be counted as a Tory voter. May I have your assurance that you still make a distinction between the unionist Labour party and the unionist Tory party in the House?
Mr. Speaker: I shall not be here after the election, so it will not arise.
Mr. John McFall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is because of the narrow, intolerant attitude espoused by the Scottish National party that we find ourselves in this position. We have important business to deal with in the House. I rose on four or five questions but was not called. I accept that; but I take exception to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) ranting and raving but saying nothing about Scottish issues. When people in Scotland see such episodes, they feel that their considerations are not taken care of in Westminster. If one session of Scottish Questions is not enough, I ask you to think again and do something so that the views of Scottish Members of Parliament can be taken into consideration.
Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to have a debate on how I call hon. Members at Question Time, because it might be painful in subsequent Question Times. May I
954
repeat that Scottish questions—[Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members who were called during the previous Scottish questions on 12 December—as the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) was—did not stand quite such a good chance of being called today. I try to call all hon. Members from Scotland fairly.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not have a debate about devolution now.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many of us in the House do not mind the disproportionate amount of time given to Scots, Welsh and Irish questions, but hon. Members from Scotland, Wales and Ireland should recognise that many of us come from areas of Britain such as the west midlands which would welcome even once a year a west midlands question time. We are the ones who provide the fuel that they consume. We are tired of the Scots being so sensitive about this being their Parliament. It is our Parliament too, and if we are to have question times for minority groups, why not the west midlands, too?
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not unsatisfactory that, in Scottish Question Time, we no longer have the 10 minutes that were given to the Lord Advocate? In those circumstances, have you had a request from the Minister to answer Question 38, which could explain why the views of the Scottish police, and, I believe, the Lord Advocate, about Lockerbie are materially different from the stated public view of the Foreign Secretary?
Mr. Speaker: I have not received such a request, but no doubt the hon. Member will receive an answer to his question in the normal way.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: With friendly respect, may I remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the gentle reprimands that you have issued to Members on both Front Benches during Scottish Question Time about what I can only describe as verbose answers—I think that you described them as "lengthy"? If you were to check tomorrow on the number of column inches in Hansard devoted to answers given by Scottish Office Ministers, you would realise that a number of Scottish Members were prevented from being called today.
Mr. Speaker: I might.

Pre-wired Plugs
3.44 pm
Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Plugs and Sockets Etc. (Safety) Regulations 1987 to require pre-wired plugs to be fitted to all domestic appliances by the manufacturer.
On Friday, the House gave a Second Reading to a Bill which will save lives on the roads. Today, I beg leave to introduce a Bill which will save lives in the home and at work, a Bill which will make it necessary for a plug to be attached to an electrical appliance before it is sold to the general public.
I am grateful to the Consumers Association, the National Association of Women's Clubs and other organisations and to the many people who have written to me in support of the Bill. I am especially grateful to LBC Radio, to my hon. Friends the Members for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg), for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) and for York (Mr. Gregory) and to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) for their help. Above all, I am grateful to the BBC's "Watchdog" programme, to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and to The Mail on Sunday for campaigning over a long period to ensure that this necessary safety measure is introduced.
The campaign has been necessary for two reasons. First, every year there are approximately 2,000 non-fatal accidents involving plugs which necessitate medical treatment. Sadly, there are also fatal accidents. Earlier this year, Mrs. Julie O'Toole, a 26-year-old mother from Walsall, was electrocuted when a wire came loose in a plug, making her washing machine live. That is just one of the tragedies which might have been avoided if the Bill had been law. Last year, 28 people lost their lives in similar accidents. That is a sad and horrific waste of life, which could so easily be avoided by adopting these proposals.
Research by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents shows that every household has at least one potentially lethal plug. A survey of 20,000 homes discovered wrong fuses fitted, live and neutral wires reversed, earth conductors unconnected, terminal screws loose and damaged insulation. A survey of 1,000 homes by the BBC's "Watchdog" programme revealed that as many as seven plugs in each house may be faulty, often because people do not know how to fit them. The Consumers Association's home inspection survey found that one in 23 plugs are dangerous, one in nine had to be replaced because of a fault, and one in four were inadequately wired internally.
When those findings are weighed against the minor cost of pre-fitted plugs—the consumer would have to buy a plug in any case—and consideration is given to the savings in time and frustration to the elderly, the infirm, the poorly sighted and the plain clumsy, like me, who find wiring plugs a difficult exercise, the case for the Bill is overwhelming.
The Government sought to improve safety by introducing the Plugs and Sockets Etc. (Safety) Regulations in 1987, which required all 13 amp plugs supplied in Britain to be approved by an authorised body. That was a major advance. Despite those regulations, a survey by the Consumers Association some time after their introduction showed that 65 of 153 plugs bought were non-approved and should not have been on sale.
956
The regulations do nothing to cover the problem of faulty wiring of a plug by the customer. The Government have sought to ensure that all plugs sold are safe, but that is no help if a plug is wired incorrectly. We need safe wiring of plugs as well as safe plugs. That can be achieved by compelling manufacturers to fit moulded-on plugs to all domestic electrical appliances. That simple method would make it certain that plugs were fitted correctly and safely and were equipped with the correct fuse.
I said earlier that The Mail on Sunday campaign was necessary for two reasons: first, because of safety, and, secondly, because the Government were not minded to
improve the Plugs and Sockets Etc. (Safety) Regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South raised this important subject in an Adjournment debate in 1989 to voice his concern about it. He was told by the then Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs:
"Any proposal of the sort he has made would result in the introduction of new legislative burdens on industry and would fly in the face of one of the Government's prime vehicles for the creation of wealth…deregulation."—[Official Report, 23 February 1989; Vol. 147, c. 1273.]
The Minister went on to list the improvements that had already been made and he said that any further legislation would therefore be unnecessary. He reaffirmed that the Government's objective was to stimulate enterprise through individual initiatives to meet the demands of the market by removing unnecessary controls on the trading
environment. He conceded that, in exceptional circumstances, one could depart from that stance, for example, because of safety considerations.
Since that Adjournment debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South and many others have sought to convince the Government that safety is paramount. There have been many discussions and meetings with those concerned in the past two years. The Bill is designed to bring this country into line with all the other countries in the western world.
From those discussions it has become clear that the current Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), is sympathetic to the need to introduce changes to make electrical appliances safer. He has accepted the arguments put forward, and I welcome that and thank him for the work that he has done. The Minister could short-circuit the system if he sought to introduce proposals to amend the present plugs and sockets regulations. I would encourage him to do so because even if leave is given to introduce the Bill it could fall if an early general election were called.
I was encouraged when I read the latest edition of The Mail on Sunday—I do not believe everything that I read in that newspaper, apart from the opinion polls—which said that the Minister might even implement changes to the regulations this week. It reported that the change would mean that, in future, all electrical goods sold in Britain would have to have pre-fitted plugs. I would welcome such a change.
The thought that my Bill may have influenced the Minister is a satisfying one. It might even tempt me to introduce another ten-minute Bill, perhaps to reduce the pension age for men from 65 to 60 in the hope that that met with similar success. However, the measures referred to by The Mail on Sunday have not been revealed by the Minister, so I have decided to introduce my Bill.

957
My hon. Friend the Minister may move to higher office between now and the timing of any announcement. He may well be replaced by a Minister who is less sympathetic to my proposals. Therefore, the House should have the opportunity to enact this important legislation that would save lives and reduce injuries. Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Mr. David Alton, Mr. David Amess, Mr. John Bowis, Mr. Alistair Burt, Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe, Sir Patrick Duffy, Mr. David Evennett, Mr. Conal Gregory, Mr. David Sumberg and Mr. Andrew Welsh.

PRE-WIRED PLUGS
Mr. Ken Hargreaves accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Plugs and Sockets Etc. (Safety) Regulations 1987 to require pre-wired plugs to be fitted to all domestic appliances by the manufacturer: And the same was read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 February and to be printed. [Bill 61.]

Local Authority Finance
3.53 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have just been to the Board to collect an answer to a written question to the Department of the Environment. The answer affects tomorrow's debate on the rate support grant.
The question required a simple, but lengthy, calculation exercise relating to figures put before the House on 26 November in relation to the standard spending assessment report. I wanted to know what percentage of the poll tax comes from the business rate and what percentage comes from other avenues. The House should have such information and I should not have been told that the question would be answered shortly. We must have the answer immediately; that information should be before us. The only reason that the Department of the Environment can have for not answering the question is to deprive the House of that information.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman must take it up with the Department concerned.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: It was not really a point of order.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) has just been to the Table Office and, at the end of the day, it is up to you, Mr. Speaker, to adjudicate in arguments between the Table Office and an hon. Member. My hon. Friend is drawing attention to the laggardly way in which the Government are operating. Only the other day, the Prime Minister was rabbiting on about a citizens charter and answering letters on it, but the Government cannot even give my hon. Friend an answer to his question.
Mr. Speaker: Yes; but the hon. Gentleman was complaining about the content of an answer.

WAYS AND MEANS

  EDUCATION (SCHOOLS) BILL
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education (Schools) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums received by the Chief Inspector of Schools in England or the Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales under the Act.—[Mr. Kenneth Clark.]

Orders of the Day
  Education (Schools) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause 1

  PROVISION OF INFORMATION ABOUT COMPLAINTS PROCEDURES
  —(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring the appropriate authority for every school in England and Wales to which section 9 applies to make available either generally or to prescribed persons, in such form and manner and at such times as may be prescribed, such information about arrangements for the consideration and disposal of any complaint which is to the effect that a report of an inspection under section 9(1) or (2) is seriously misleading.
  (2) In this section "appropriate authority" has the meaning given by section 9.'.—[Ms. Armstrong.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.57 pm
  Ms Hilary Armstrong: I beg to move, That the new clause be read a Second time.
  The new clause seeks to make the Bill slightly more tolerable. We opposed the measure throughout the Committee stage because it will seriously damage standards in schools and the quality of information available to parents, local communities and members of staff. The progress that each school makes is to be monitored through inspections. The new clause relates particularly to the inspection part of the Bill.
  We are still confused and uncertain about why the Government suggest that form of inspection for schools. They make no such suggestion for other parts of the public services and certainly not for the private sector. The House has roundly rejected the suggestion that those parts of both the private and the public sector responsible for services used by the public should be responsible for their own inspections, yet that is what we are considering today for schools.
  There is a consensus that we need, above all, to tackle the quality of education available to all children, not just a few. That consensus should have led to improving the current inspection arrangements rather than dismantling them and bringing in private inspectors chosen by individual schools. That has been calculated to ensure that there is no national monitoring of standards in schools. No one is confident that that form of inspection will work.
  I confess that I have not had much time to read today's newspapers, but they contained a letter from more than 20 organisations, including all the parent organisations concerned with education, expressing their very deep concern about the inspection arrangement outlined in the Bill. Because those involved in those organisations, who give hours of their time voluntarily, want the highest standards available and the most impartial but expert inspections to ensure that those standards are maintained, they are outraged by the Government's proposals.
  New clause 1 is a modest proposal—some of the more exciting plans are put forward in later new clauses. The new clause largely arises from the experiences of those of us who have been involved in public sector organisations when trying to elicit information and ensure that the
  960
  people on the receiving end have the opportunity to find out when the information does not stand up. The clause deals specifically with the manner in which complaints can be made, and the fact that there must be clarity on complaints procedures.
  I know that many parents find it difficult to complain about what is happening in a school, even when they know the procedure for doing so, as they are anxious that they may affect—
  Mr. George Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know has much more information to give the House. My two youngest children go to Prescot primary school in my constituency.
  Mr. Jack Straw: It was named after our hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), was it not?
  Mr. Howarth: Actually, Prescot is spelt with one "t", which is crossed—I do not know what happened to the "i".
  The excellent headmistress of that school, Nora Giubertoni, has found that the other so-called reforms for which she as headmistress is responsible, are difficult to manage. Although the school is still excellent, she spends much time messing about with budgets and tasks that she never envisaged having to undertake when she entered the teaching profession. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) give me an idea of the impact that the extra work will have on Mrs. Giubertoni and the governors who are already hard pressed?
  Ms. Armstrong: My hon. Friend has made an important point. There are various sick jokes circulating the teaching profession about the amount of "overload", "innovation fatigue" and other such phrases. The Government have seriously mismanaged change in education, and my hon. Friend has shown yet another example of that.
  People are not saying that they are resistant to change, but they want to be part of it, consulted about it and taken along with it. Most of all, teachers want to be able to do the job for which they were trained and for which I had always understood they were paid—teaching children well.
  The Government have some ideological problem—to put it politely—with other organisations, particularly what they call the educational establishment. That establishment is a difficult one to name, and sometimes the people involved in it are called "wise men", which somewhat disturbs me, given that most of those involved in primary teaching are women. The educational establishment has been trying to get the Government to think about change in a different way.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) is absolutely right: many teachers feel that the additional jobs that they have to do detract from the quality of teaching that the school is able to provide. I have talked to many governors who are concerned about that. They want to be involved in and consulted about inspection, but they do not feel that it is their role to choose their own inspectors.
  Mr. Derek Enright: My hon. Friend will not yet be aware that a report has been made by Her Majesty's inspectorate on Ackworth middle school in my constituency. The report was critical in some respects of what was happening but it was found by teachers,

  961
  governors and, above all, by parents to be extremely helpful in setting guidelines for the future of the school. I always found during my extensive teaching experience in secondary schools that the inspectorate was sensible, wise, forward looking and, above all, seeking to raise the standards of each and every pupil in the school that it was inspecting. I took that view even when I disagreed with it. Would it not be a disaster if the Bill in its entirety were to be enacted?
  Ms. Armstrong: My hon. Friend is right. If the Bill is enacted, it will damage standards within schools. More particularly, it will destroy the credibility of inspection. Indeed, it has already done so. I know that the Secretary of State and the rest of us will be cautious when it comes to dealing with vested interests, but organisations representing parents and others that represent governors have expressed serious concern about the basic premise of the Bill, which is that governors should have overall control in determining who will undertake the inspection of a school.
  Governors do not want that responsibility. They want the credibility of independent inspection and not because they want to shirk responsibility. They want everyone to know that they are not partisan over inspections. We know that rumours spread quickly within communities, and more quickly in some than in others. That being so, governing bodies feel that it is irresponsible to expect them to select inspectors.
  Complaint procedures will overload governing bodies if the terms of the new clause are not included in the Bill, and the new clause is designed to ensure that the procedures are determined by the Secretary of State rather than by governors or complainants. We want to ensure that arrangements for the consideration and disposal of a complaint are clearly set down, understood and available. We had a useful debate in Committee on the importance of establishing a complaints procedure.
  Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend has not dealt at this stage with the role of head teachers. The governing body of Prescot county primary school will find itself in difficulties. The chairman of the governing body, Councillor Harold Campbell, who is the mayor-elect of Knowsley, will be considerably overburdened on account of his mayoral responsibilities next year and may therefore find that the additional work of chairing the governing body will cause him considerable problems. Can my hon. Friend say how much additional work Mrs. Giubertoni, the headmistress, will have to do? She, too, will be greatly concerned.
  Ms. Armstrong: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me about head teachers. We discussed this issue in Standing Committee when we considered the Bill and returned to it again and again. It will lead to additional work, which may detract from the teaching and overall management of the curriculum, for which the head teacher is responsible.
  In addition, the relationship between the head teacher and the governing body is very important. They must work well together. We take no pleasure in the enormous problems that are caused when a head teacher and the chair of the govening body hold completely different views about the direction that the school should take. That has led to tragic effects in Stratford school, which is having a detrimental effect on the children.
  Mr. Howarth: As far as I know, there are no differences of opinion between Councillor Campbell and Mrs. Giubertoni. They are united in their joint objective: that the excellent education provided by the school should continue. What I am concerned about is the role of the head teacher.
  Ms. Armstrong: I hope that my hon. Friend will live with me for a while on this. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The professional relationship—I always deal with professional relationships, although some of those who sit on the Treasury Bench seem to have some difficulty with that, but never mind—between the chair of the governors and the head teachers has to be a strong working relationship. They must be able to trust each other in performing their different roles. Both those roles are critical—
  Mr. Howarth: And complementary.
  Ms. Armstrong: Yes, and complementary.
  The governors will have to rely heavily on the advice of the head teacher in many primary schools as to who should be chosen to form the inspection team. They will rely on the head teacher for advice about the qualities to be looked for and the role that the inspection team is to fulfil. If the governors receive a good report which makes them say to themselves, "Is this a bit of a whitewash? Are we getting to the heart of how to improve and develop education in this school?", they may begin to wonder whether the head teacher is trying to make things easy for himself or herself. If, however, they receive a highly critical report, they may say to themselves, "How on earth are we to attract pupils to this school after such a critical report? Why did the head teacher not advise us to choose a team who might be a little critical but not too critical?"
  There would then be great problems for the head teacher and the governors of the school. It would be very difficult for the head teacher and the governors to work out just what they wanted for the school. That is where the complaints procedures on which we are seeking information from the Government will come into play. How are people to complain if they feel that the report has not been prepared in a proper professional manner, or that it is misleading in any aspect?
  In Committee, we talked particularly about the fact that some subjects or some of the more general work such as pastoral care or out-of-school activities might not have been properly addressed. People might find the report or parts of it misleading. What are the procedures for complaining? People must have confidence that if they do a certain thing, they will be pressing the right button to get action.
  It is ironical that this week we have had the relaunch of the citizens charter, part of which is supposed to be about how people who feel that they have not got their entitlement from any public service may complain, and what the redress is. Yet in the Bill that is still unclear. We managed to make a little progress in Committee, but there is still a long way to go.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Enright: My hon. Friend has not yet mentioned one sector of education. In my constituency, there are not 1 million preparatory schools, but where I taught originally in Surrey there were many preparatory schools and independent secondary schools with truly appalling standards. Some of those schools were conning parents in

  963
  every way. They were cheating them and giving poor education. I want to know whether parents of children at such schools will be protected by the inspectorate. From my reading of the Bill it seems that that will not happen. Therefore, the measure is a partial Bill. The Government are defending their money-grubbing friends who are making great profits out of exploiting poor pupils.
  Ms. Armstrong: My hon. Friend makes the telling point that the Government do not give the same consideration to the rights and opportunities of children in the independent sector as to those of children in the maintained sector. He was not a Member when we had the debates on the national curriculum in the Education Reform Act 1988. My right hon. and hon. Friends contended that, if the curriculum was national, it should apply to the independent sector. The reality is that the Bill will not deal with the independent sector. When my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has the opportunity to move another new clause later, he will deal with how we intend to ensure that inspection and the national curriculum should apply to all children, however their parents choose to have them educated. Children have an entitlement to quality.
  Mr. George Howarth: Prescott—[HON. MEMBERS: "Make a speech."] May I say to Conservative Members who are urging me to make a speech that I may do so later. On the last occasion that we had a similar debate, I managed to take up two hours of parliamentary time. If hon. Members would like me to speak, I am sure that I could find time to do so.
  Prescot county primary school is a matter of great interest to me and to many of my constituents—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) is talking.
  Mr. Howarth: If there were prizes in the Chamber for talking during the speeches of other hon. Members, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) would be unable to carry them home because she would be entitled to so many.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Lady cannot intervene because I am already intervening.
  What concerns me is the excellent nursery unit within the school, which is run by Mrs. Parker and Mrs. Jones, and which is attended by my younger son Jack. My daughter Sian attended the unit until last July. Will Mrs. Parker and Mrs. Jones be involved in the process of selecting inspectors? They already find it difficult to keep up with all the young children in the nursery unit and with the demands put on them.
  Ms. Armstrong: The answer depends on the status of the nursery unit. If it is part of the school, the responsibility will lie with the governing body of the whole school. It may be a separate unit. In Committee, we managed to get the Government to recognise that children in nursery schools have the right to proper, quality education and that such schools should be inspected. The
  964
  Government have tabled amendments—and I look forward to Minister moving those amendments—which will deal specifically with that issue.
  We are anxious to ensure that there is proper information is available about complaints procedures. I thought that such an issue was at the heart of the citizens charter. We cannot understand why complaints procedures have not been dealt with adequately in the Bill. It is a bit much for us to be expected to do the Government's business for them. I am sure that the Government do not want the Bill to complete its passage in the House before they have dealt with the issues with which the citizens charter also deals.
  New clause 1 gives the Government the opportunity to ensure that proper information is available about the procedures for complaints, whether about misleading reports or about an inspection that is seen to be inadequate because it has not taken account of all the relevant areas. I commend new clause 1 to the House.
  Mr. George Walden: I have a complaint to register about the record of the inspectorate, and I will give one concrete example. A few weeks ago, the inspectorate visited a few primary schools in France and made the most extraordinary discovery: that primary schools in France produced better results than ours do. That has been the case for a considerable time, to my personal knowledge, because my children went to primary school in France. It has been the case for at least 10 years, and may have been the case for a couple of decades.
  Most primary schools in France—I have visited schools in France other than the one that my children attended—are engaged in doing two things: they allow children's personalities to evolve, which none of us opposes; and they teach the children, which happens all too rarely in this country. By "teach the children", I mean, to give an example, that they were being taught grammar and also poetry by writers such as Victor Hugo and Stephane Mallarmê, while equivalent children in this country were reading, at most, sub-Enid Blyton stuff, specially written down for the children to keep them perpetually childlike.
  I am astonished that our inspectorate, which once fathered Matthew Arnold, should have failed for 10 or 20 years to notice that, a few miles away on the other side of the channel, they were doing these things rather better. How is it that our inspectorate for all those years failed to notice that there was something deeply wrong in the entire philosophy governing our primary schools? I see an hon. Member on the Opposition Benches nodding—I will not mention which one.
  There has been a problem, and it has affected most deeply people at the bottom of society, who cannot escape into private education. So the people who have suffered all these years tend to be those at the lower end, especially those in inner cities.
  It is very worrying that the inspectorate should simply catch up with a mood which has developed in society and which has been, rightly, reflected by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, a mood of concern about our primary schools. Reform should have been initiated by the inspectorate, operating against a background not of concerns, modish or otherwise, but of absolute standards, and standards that are internationally measurable. How are the French or German children doing in maths at seven years old? What sort of thing does the average French child learn at seven years old about its

  965
  own culture and history? What has been going on in our own schools during that time that we have only now registered? So there is a fundamental problem about the role of the inspectorate during this whole period which convinces me that the Government are right to undertake their radical reform.
  Mr. Straw: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's argument with great care. He will know, because he is fair-minded, that the Labour party concluded that the inspectorate, at national and local level, needed reform a lot sooner than the Government, who wrote these proposals on the back of an envelope some time in the summer.
  Since he is waxing eloquent about the French example, can the hon. Gentleman say whether the French have ever considered not strengthening their inspectorate but dismembering it and allowing individual schools to pick and choose their own inspectors, with the consequence, as Ministers have admitted in Committee, that schools will be able to pick inspectors according to their own dogma? Their dogma will not then be brought under public scrutiny but will be confirmed by the inspectors who will share it. How will that raise standards?
  Mr. Walden: The hon. Member has raised a valid point but has touched on only half of it. I would not support the Bill if there were no central control over standards in the inspectorate. If any Tom, Dick or Harry could pose as an inspector and thereby ingratiate himself financially with a school, that would be absurd. I would not support it, partly because I have sneaking centralist tendencies in education which I think are needed to balance the decentralisation that the Government have quite rightly gone in for. Grant-maintained schools and all the rest of it are part of that.
  What I see in the Bill is a coherent philosophy following that of grant-maintained schools, where there is decentralisation and a less corporate-minded inspectorate. But one cannot let these people run loose, for the very reason that the hon. Member for Blackburn has given. There should be central control, and that exists in the Bill.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Straw: I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman for not following our proceedings in Standing Committee. If hon. Members are not members of a Standing Committee, they do not spend their time reading Standing Committee Hansards.
  The hon. Gentleman said that he supports the Bill because there will be sufficient control over local inspectors to ensure that high standards of inspection are maintained when schools are inspected. I want to draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention an exchange that took place in Standing Committee between the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), and me. I asked the junior Minister:
  "What about a primary school which thinks its strength is in mixed-ability non-didactic group-work teaching? Will the governing body of that primary school be allowed to choose an inspection team that has a similar approach?"
  The Minister replied:
  "Of course the school will be free to choose a team registered with HMCI which concentrates on that approach, but the governing body will ask itself whether it is wise to do so if it is offered one particularly ideological method of teaching. That governing body would be at even greater pains
  966
  to assure parents and the wider community that that method was delivering the results for which it had argued."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 10 December 1991; c. 255.]
  The crucial point about the junior Minister's admission is that, whether or not it was wise to do so, the school governing body would be free, in the Minister's words, to choose inspectors which shared the school's approach for mixed ability, non-didactic group-work teaching. That is an approach which the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) would condemn and want to see rooted out from schools. However, as a result of the Secretary of State's scheme, schools can be inspected by inspectors who share such an approach. I do not understand how that can lead to a consistent standard of inspection.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind hon. Members that we are not in Committee. Interventions must be brief.
  Mr. Walden: The hon. Gentleman has raised a reasonable point, and I will give him a reasonable answer. Let us imagine that the philosophy on reading methods espoused by the spouse of the Leader of the Opposition was in force. Mrs. Kinnock is known to be in favour of what I consider to be the voodoo technique of leaving a book in a room in the hope that a child will—[Interruption.] This is a central point. The wife of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) is a primary school teacher. If a school which espoused that method of teaching was to invite an inspector known to favour that method, that would be worrying. I would also find it worrying if there was an artificially rigid school, like a Japanese or cramming school, with a Gradgrind kind of inspector.
  The point of the Bill is that there should be a safeguard against that kind of thing. If a school is inspected by this or that type of inspector and receives full marks for its work but does not merit those marks, that will become clear over time and as a result of trial and error. We must consider the Bill in the context of the general thrust of Government policy, which is to allow information about school results to be known. Those results would reflect the inadequacies. If those inadequacies were endorsed by an inspector, the central inspectorate would rumble him.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The governors would be free to choose such an inspectorate. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) and I would disapprove if they did that. However, under the proposals, they would be able to select such an inspectorate only if that inspectorate reached the national standards imposed by HMI. Under the alternative proposition which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) says he came up with some time ago, if the local education authority sought to impose on the school an inspectorate with such ideological views—there are plenty of Labour local authorities which, on recent form, would indeed try to impose on the school an inspectorate with ideological views of which we disapproved—it would have no alternative. Labour proposals say that a local authority will impose its inspectorate and that only the local authority's inspectorate will be able to carry out an inspection.
  Mr. Walden: My right hon. and learned Friend casts the argument even wider. In my humble view, there is a fundamental problem with LEAs' representatives.

  967
  Humberside runs its schools on the basis of 13 per cent. Of the electorate. Whatever one may say about the Tory party, it is not yet down to 13 per cent. I listen with a sceptical ear to anyone prating about local democracy when the figures are of that order. I am sorry to say that there are Tory authorities which are in a similar position.
  The idea that people operating on such a slender, scarcely existent democratic basis should have total control over education in their schools and the inspection of that education leaves me dead cold. The record of education, particularly in primary schools, shows how easy it is for alarmingly low standards to go undetected, although the schools have been theoretically inspected for many years.
  I do not want to hog too much of the debate, but I should like to leave my right hon. and learned Friend with one little message from a primary school in my constituency. My right hon. and learned Friend has not inspected that school, but I feel bound to pass on, in all neutrality, the message from the newspaper "Meadow Express", which is admirably produced by the Bourton school in Buckingham. It states:
  "Kenneth Clark"—
  without an "e"—
  "said to two people to go and report on what Primary Schools are like. He thinks that the Primary Schools should be strict. You should sit in rows and let the teachers have all the fun and we just watch. This is called the three Rs. They stand for reading, writing and 'rithmetic.
  They want us to go back to the old fashioned ways because he thinks we are not learning enogh"—
  minus the "u".
  "The men who did this report said on the news last night that they had no time to see the schools so how do they know we're not learning? We know we are."
  I thought that I should pass that on as a piece of—
  Mr. George Howarth: Another cheap shot.
  Mr. Walden: It is not a cheap shot; it is a piece of grass-roots democracy.
  The new inspectorate system—the new information system—will work only if there is considerable rigour at the centre. We must get away from the ambiguous position of the inspectorate in London, whereby it has twin loyalties. One loyalty is to the education establishment and the other is to the Government. The result is that the inspectorate tends to oscillate in the prevailing wind. That has led to the abject failure of the inspectorate over the years to point to the fundamental difficulties in primary education that my right hon. and learned Friend is rightly highlighting.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I rarely speak on education matters, but the House will be aware that I have fairly wide-ranging interests. I was an experienced and highly qualified schoolmaster for quite a long time. I was also an examiner, I was involved in a local education committee, I took a fairly active part in my professional association, and I occasionally wrote articles about education. Although I do not often speak in education debates, I take a marked interest in the subject. During recesses, I visit schools in rotation in my constituency. The comments of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) about the standard of British primary education do not tally with my experience as a schoolmaster or my experience of visiting primary schools in my constituency.
  968
  Indeed, not long ago, after a visit to the Wickersley and Northfield lane infant and junior schools, I tabled an early-day motion. I am not usually surprised by what I see in schools, but I was surprised at the very high standards attained by the children in those schools, despite the fact that, although the education authority is a good one, the infants school was able to obtain only £400-worth of books last year, while the cost of providing the papers that the teachers are supposed to read for the purpose of assessment and the national curriculum amounted to well over £800.
  I observed the children reading, and discovered that the vast majority of those leaving the infants school were free readers and that the vast majority of those leaving the junior school had achieved reading ages that 20 or 30 years ago were considered to be generally unattainable. I came to the conclusion—I believe that my early-day motion made the point—that it might well be that those children could read better than some of the Ministers who have graced the Department of Education and Science, not excluding, of course, the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  My real reason for speaking on the new clause is that, in the current developments in education, we are seeing history repeating itself. That being so, I want to tell again a story which is entirely relevant and deals with this very serious matter. It is a comment on what is happening historically in education. It is about an inspection of a school in my constituency in the 1860s. I shall not detain the House too long, but the story is entirely relevant. I draw the attention of the Secretary of State's predecessor to it as, the day after I told it previously, his predecessor visited Wentworth Woodhouse to address the north of England education conference. The school that the story is about is the village school at Wentworth, which still exists.
  In those days, as a result of the abrasive approach of the Government of that day, there was introduced a scheme of payment by results. Her Majesty's inspectors toured schools to see that the children were learning the three Rs properly. One inspector—not Matthew Arnold, but an acquaintance of his who was also a reverend gentleman—arrived at Wentworth village school, which was not big. He looked at the work and gave the teacher a bad report. Wentworth is the estate village of the former earldom of Fitzwilliam. The earl, who "owned" about 30 parliamentary constituencies, was a Whig, and his eldest son, Lord Milton, was usually in the House of Commons. The earl was deeply distressed that the functionary of the Board of Education should have had the audacity to visit his village school and to question and criticise the schoolmistress. There were stories about the relationship between the schoolmistress and the earl, but I shall not go into that.
  The earl took exception to the inspector's very bad report, and in the House of Lords one day he told the President of the Board of Education that he was not happy about it. Shortly afterwards, the reverend inspector was sent to Wentworth school to carry out a further inspection. When he arrived, the earl, the countess, Lord Milton and various friends and relatives from the British aristocracy were sitting at the back of the room. Presumably they were in the area for the shooting season. The purpose of the inspector's second visit was to check the accuracy of his first report. On the second visit, he found that the village schoolmistress had improved dramatically and that the school was now very good indeed. Shortly afterwards that inspector received his reward. As I have indicated, it was

  969
  the fashion in those days that school inspectors should be reverend gentleman. This reverend gentleman was raised to the Bench of Bishops.
  The purpose of that story is to show that, in the 1860s British education was going through a period of reaction which brought about the obscenity called payment by results. That system was shown to be unsuccessful and entirely contrary to British interests, and it was scrapped. I am glad that there has been a reference to past times in the form of a comment on the Gradgrind attitude. During that period, initiative in education was stifled, imagination was destroyed and a corrupt system developed.
  I was always regarded—I did not object to this view—as a rather old-fashioned schoolmaster, but I must say that I believe that we are going back headlong into a situation that is not in the interests of British education and, above all, is not in the interests of British children.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend is drawing an interesting parallel. I empathise with him, as the constituency that I represent contains the estates of the Earls of Derby. The less said about them the better. One of them was a Conservative Prime Minister. My hon. Friend predicted that his story would show how history repeats itself. I know that these days it is very unfashionable to quote Karl Marx, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend remembers Marx's words about history repeating itself—the first time as farce, the second time as tragedy.
  Mr. Hardy: That is the case. Unfortunately, what we see as a farce is a tragedy for British education and British children.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman's tales—of Robert Lowe, I imagine—from the 1860s. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that one moral is that the owner of the school should not have been allowed to influence things in that way? No doubt the owner thought that the criticism of the school reflected on Earl Fitzwilliam.
  The hon. Gentleman says that Wentworth school still exists. No doubt it is now owned by the borough council responsible for education in his constituency. The Labour party's position is that the borough council should have a monopoly in determining who inspects schools, that there should not be a choice, which might be influenced from outside, to allow an independent inspection by any other body.
  Mr. Hardy: I am delighted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned Rotherham borough council. He does not seem to hold it in very high regard. When he made a secret visit to Wentworth last summer he suggested that if there were any school building faults they were due entirely to the left-wing Labour council in Rotherham. Of course, Rotherham council does not deserve that reputation, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman completely ignored the fact that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), had a very pleasant visit. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying that when I walked into a school classroom that he was visiting I saw him on his knees. He may recall my suggesting that the position was entirely appropriate for people in his Department.
  970
  I am sure that the Minister accepts that the standard of education in Rotherham and the commitment of my local authority have been entirely civilised and certainly do not deserve the right hon. and learned Gentleman's criticism.
  Mr. Straw: To continue the analogy of the school that used to be owned by Earl Fitzwilliam, if the earl had had the right under public statute to choose and pay his own inspector, there would have been no conceivable possibility of the school's standards being raised. The inspector would have been in the pocket of the people who owned the school. That is precisely the scheme that the Secretary of State has advanced.
  Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend leads me to the point that I wish to make. Although the Secretary of State appreciates the past corruption, it is a great pity for Britain that he does not perceive the inherent corruption and the risk of danger in the system that he has devised. He may well have become excessively influenced by the publicity that he himself engendered. He did not seem to accept a point that I made during questions shortly before Christmas regarding the teaching of reading. I started teaching—
  Mr. Howarth: Was that in the days of Earl Fitzwilliam?
  Mr. Hardy: No, but it was in the days when there was a teacher shortage, and when some teachers were writing about sparing the rod and the difficulty of secondary modern education. I left the Royal Air Force on a Saturday and started teaching on the Monday. The first morning, I found myself facing 49 boys in a secondary modern school, 23 of whom were completely illiterate.
  Mr. Walden: Was that a primary school?
  Mr. Hardy: It was, in South Yorkshire—a long time ago. When I visit such a school in South Yorkshire today, I find that the average reading age is three years higher than it was then. There was a dramatic post-war improvement, and the success of British primary schools has been far greater than the Secretary of State may imagine. If he wants to examine weaknesses in British education, the primary sector is not that which should receive his attention.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: One of my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals is that we should get rid of the possibility of the Wentworth situation arising. At present, local education authorities—which Labour wants to remain as advisers—serve as advisers and inspectors. They inspect their own schools, so they are bound to give themselves a good report.
  Mr. Hardy: The hon. Lady does not seem to have any grasp of the character of British education as it is or will be. A good education authority takes care to appoint a chief education officer or director of education—[Interruption.] When the hon. Lady asks a serious question, she should at least have the courtesy to listen to the answer. I do not differentiate between Labour and Conservative education authorities in that respect. A good local authority will appoint a good chief education officer or director of education, recognising that the role of education within local government is unique and special, and acknowledging that it is dealing not with dustbins or bridges, but with children.

  971
  That chief officer will, in co-operation with the local authority, appoint suitable people to serve as inspectors and advisers. However, supplementing and underlying all that is, and must be, a substantial body of independent, experienced, and powerful inspectors employed by the Secretary of State—capable of making a proper assessment of the state of education in the schools that they visit.
  Mr. Walden: The hon. Gentleman touches on a fundamental argument, which I contest. He stressed the improvement that has been made since the last war.
  Mr. Hardy: I said that there have been dramatic improvements.
  Mr. Walden: Yes, dramatic improvements—and that worries me. It is fallacious to assume that, because things have improved over the past 20, 30 or 40 years, we should be satisfied. That is to undermine our whole education policy and to reinforce the great vice of the British education system—a contentment with low standards. Does the hon. Gentleman know that, after there was a revolution in China in 1949, hundreds of millions of Chinese children learned the language—which does not comprise just 26 letters of the alphabet?
  One cannot rest on one's laurels and say that, because there are no longer press gangs and slave trading, society has improved. We must keep up with the best of the bunch, and they are in Europe.
  Mr. Hardy: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman makes that observation, even if he misunderstood my point.
  Mr. Walden: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will develop it.
  Mr. Hardy: I will—the hon. Gentleman need have no worry about that. Primary education standards improved significantly in the post-war period.
  Mr. Walden: I should hope so.
  Mr. Hardy: If the hon. Gentleman hoped so, he would not slavishly support the Government in Lobby. My anxiety is that improvement will not be possible—and has already been put in peril—as a consequence of the destabilising effect of a Government Department that cannot understand that incessant change has eaten away teacher morale to an extent that causes me deep anxiety.
  I know dozens of teachers in South Yorkshire—and this is true throughout the country—who are anxious, concerned, unnerved, or furious about the assumption that they are not doing their job, that British education is failing, and that children are not achieving what they should. Those teachers are sick and tired of the destabilisation and distractions imposed by the Secretary of State. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not understand that the amount of teaching time lost and sacrificed in British schools in the past three or four years as a result of his initiatives has done more to damage and lower British education standards than anything else?
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman may find that amusing. I do not find it amusing that people who have given dedicated service to children, and parents who are deeply concerned about the quality of their children's
  972
  education, should find standards put at risk by a Secretary of State who does nothing but tinker, interfere, and seek to make changes that are very often not justified.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I do not find the hon. Gentleman's remarks at all amusing. I have the greatest respect for his views. He refers to an amendment which relates to an issue on which both sides propose change. When we debate other matters, I will describe the changes of the past four years—they include the national curriculum, and local management—which are now supported by teachers and even by the hon. Gentleman's own party.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about a good local education authority with an inspectorate. I agree that it is sometimes a good idea to raise the debate above the question of which party controls such an authority. I cite the example of Lancashire, which both sides agree ought to be addressed. It happens to be the county of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). It is generally agreed that Lancashire has no inspectorate worthy of the name, and never has had. We all agree that we want an independent inspectorate established which regularly reports back to parents.
  The debate makes clear the difference between the two sides. We say that a choice of inspectors approved by HMI ought to be available to the governors—and HMI is an institution that the hon. Gentleman holds in very high regard. The hon. Gentleman's own proposal is that only Lancashire county council should be allowed to undertake inspections—and that although it failed to do so in the past, it should be allowed to provide the sole inspectorate of its own schools. Given the hon. Gentleman's concern about primary education standards, he appears to be on the wrong side.
  Mr. Hardy: I do not know very much about the situation in Lancashire, but my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) suggests that the Secretary of State's interpretation is wrong. My own view is based on my considerable experience of the House, of British education before that, and regular, close, and careful observations of education in my own constituency during parliamentary recesses over a long period.
  I am deeply disturbed about the state of British education and the amount of time that teachers have to spend preparing for the national curriculum and assessing children rather than teaching them. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Buckingham has left the Chamber. I suggest that he, as a parent, ought to investigate the amount of time that is spent dealing with matters that I regard as relatively ancillary. The Secretary of State did not become involved in education until comparatively recently, and he overlooks the fact that it is easy to start a fashion.
  It is one of the great weaknesses of post-war education that, when someone offers an idea, it is seized upon before its validity or worth has been properly assessed. If that fashion starts with someone in a position of influence, unless there is a wise, experienced and balanced inspectorate, that novelty might take off, even though it is not potentially successful or worth while.
  With a commercial inspectorate—that is how we have to describe it—if the Under-Secretary of State responsible for schools or the Secretary of State holds forth about a particularly novelty, perhaps even misinterpreting a report from his own Department, which is not entirely unknown,

  973
  I guarantee that all the commercial inspectors in Britain will decide that they had better jump on that bandwagon. British education will be more likely to be placed in difficulty than before.
  5 pm
  The smaller HMI will be responsible for invigilating the quality of the commercial inspectorate, but when I consider the proposed size of Her Majesty's inspectorate I wonder how it will fulfil that function properly in such reasonable time as would allow even the commercial inspectorate to operate with any effect. It is an unlikely prospect that HMI will fulfil that function. I fear that wise, balanced and sensible inspection of schools will be placed at real risk and substantially delayed. The practical elements of the Bill seem to have escaped the attention of some people at the Department.
  Mr. George Howarth: The House respects the common sense and experience that my hon. Friend brings to the debate. I am following his argument closely. To summarise it—perhaps he will help me if I am wrong—the current fashion in education or the ideological approach, with new reading schemes or whatever, almost does not matter at the bottom of it all. What matters is the ability, commitment and enthusiasm of the teachers. That is the most important element in the equation. My fear about the proposal and, indeed, the Bill is that that enthusiasm and commitment, already badly undermined by the reforms of the recent past, will be undermined still further. The pendulum of fashions in education will not only continue to swing but may swing all the faster with commercialisation of the inspectorate, as my hon. Friend said in his last vital point.
  Mr. Hardy: I will illustrate the case from personal experience. In the 1960s, when I was teaching in a large secondary school in South Yorkshire, I did some research work and wrote articles in Education about the teaching of reading. Perhaps irresponsibly, I divided a large part of one year into three groups and tried three different methods of teaching reading. I said that I was a rather old-fashioned schoolmaster. I found that one group did particularly well. It was taught by the methods which, as an old-fashioned schoolmaster, I supported. I wrote an
  article in Education that cut across one of the fashions that prevailed in educational practice in my county. The director of education telephoned my headmaster and said that he was not happy about the article that I had written. I was not greatly worried because at that point I was a prospective parliamentary candidate and I had decided to enter the House rather than become a headmaster.
  I was greatly helped by the inspector who came to see the work and who was most supportive. I heard no more from the director of education, particularly after I told the inspector that I thought it distasteful that anyone should tell people what to write in educational journals. The fact remains, however, that the inspector was supportive and honourable, but what will happen with the commercial inspector who has his eye on the next contract or on getting the contract to inspect the school round the corner?
  Mr. John McFall: Like my hon. Friend, I am a former teacher, and I visited every school in my constituency during the summer. Perhaps the kernel of the argument is that the Secretary of State is a barrister who is mainly interested in winning cases and less concerned
  974
  about learning, in schools. If he were concerned about learning he would be on our side. As the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said, we want to take issues forward. Privatisation of the inspectorate will not take issues forward one whit. I say that from personal experience, but the press at the weekend supported that view. An article in The Observer said:
  "On a typical inspection day in Knottingley, West Yorkshire, last week, heads and inspectors alike agreed that schools will he tempted to award contracts to private 'experts' willing to give a good report."
  We are seeing Tammany hall politics in education. Undercutting, collusion and sharp practice could occur.
  Immediately before I entered the House, my school was the subject of an inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate in Scotland. The inspectorate did not give us any warning of the visit. They did not send a letter to say that it was coming in two weeks' time. The inspectors spent three weeks combing the school and talking to teachers and senior teachers. They made a report which we had to go over with the local authority. Instead of going forward—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is quite enough for an intervention. I remind the House that we are not in
  Committee. Interventions must be brief. I call Mr. Hardy.
  Mr. McFall rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I call Mr. Hardy.
  Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. A few moments ago I said that the proposed inspectorate would be a commercial inspectorate. It will be in business. Some Conservative Members have more connection with business than ever I had. I thought that people in business sought profit, growth, more orders, more contracts and to maximise their returns. It would look for such a level of business as could be obtained only by making sure that the customers got what they wanted.
  The schools will not pay for bad reports; they will pay for good ones. They may be prepared to pay a little more for an inspector who will give a good report than for one who will give them a bad one. That is a serious danger, especially with the weakening and diminution of Her
  Majesty's inspectorate. The commercial inspectorate may justify the Dickensian conditions referred to by the hon.
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), to be so critical of the proposal. As The Observer said, the proposal will secure the fixing of private inspections. But may I take my hon. Friend back to standards? We will leave aside the fact that the Secretary of State had to invent Labour's policy in order in a rather mediocre way to attack it. We shall deal with that later. My hon. Friend is right to say that standards rose, although not fast enough and not factually. As the primary report says, there is incontrovertible evidence of a marked decline in the past three years in reading standards at the age of seven. Woodhead, Rose and Alexander, the authors of the report, attributed that decline in part to "considerable disturbance"—I use the exact phrase—in the primary curriculum. The consequence is that, every month that the Secretary of State has been in office, reading standards among seven-year-olds have fallen. If the Bill is passed, they are likely to fall even further.
  Mr. Hardy: That is the main reason for my participation in the debate. I seriously believe—I am not making a party point—that what has happened in the past three or four years has been harmful to children and has not been conducive to promoting and maintaining high standards in education. I firmly believe that what we are about today is harmful to good educational practice. I deeply regret that the teaching profession, some people in higher education who are charged with education, and in particular teachers in large schools are so demoralised and frustrated that the vast proportion of them cannot wait to get out because they are sick and tired of what has been happening.
  The weekend before last, I spoke to a friend in my home town who had just retired. He had been a distinguished headmaster in primary education in my constituency. I said that I was sorry that he had retired so soon because he could have continued to work for another four years and he loved his job. He said, "I got out, Peter, because I had had enough. I am sick and tired of what is happening and of what has been done to education." He loved his job and was a fine primary school headmaster. If he makes such a comment it should be taken seriously.
  For every man or woman who is saying that in my constituency one can find scores, if not hundreds, in every constituency. It is time that we made an attempt to re-establish some stability in education. The destabilisation of the past three or four years will result in disadvantages for a long time to come.
  Sir Peter Hordern: The new clause is about information—the information which should be available to parents. I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) should object to school governors being given a choice of inspectors, whether commercial, independent inspectors or those from local authorities, which carry out inspections at present.
  From what my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellet-Bowman) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State have said, it is clear that there are marked differences in standards of inspection from one part of the country to another. I was shocked to hear my hon. Friend say that there is virtually no inspection worthy of the name in Lancashire. What protection can be provided for parents—especially those living in Lancashire—if school governors do not even have the right to insist that inspections take place? That case is made: as far as I can tell, there can be no valid objection to the principle that school governors should be able to insist on proper inspections of their schools. I am surprised that the Labour party appears to object to that.
  I must move away from Lancashire to another authority, West Sussex, where, far from having no inspections worthy of the name, every school is inspected every year. It is difficult for West Sussex education authority to explain to parents of children in its schools that it is not proposed that there should be inspections only once every four years, because they have been used to a high standard of inspection. They get plenty of information. Reports are available to all schools about pupils' progress and they will shortly be made available to all children.
  I wish that the standards that have been set in West Sussex had been more generally applied and were available throughout the country. I dare say that it would be difficult to arrange yearly inspections at once, but it is certainly an
  976
  objective worth striving for. I hope that, when my right hon. and learned Friend replies, he will tackle that problem. He will know that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends in West Sussex find it difficult to explain to our constituents why we should support the Government's proposal of inspections once every four years, when we have an inspection every year.
  I see no reason why school governors should not opt for an independent inspection, as proposed. It is a good safeguard. However, I hope that the education authority will be able to enter schools to respond to any criticisms which may be made, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will also deal with that.
  I am especially worried about what might happen if the Audit Commission were to report on the standard of schools in an education authority. The authority is directly responsible to the Audit Commission. The commission cannot criticise anyone else, only the education authority. Therefore, a statutory problem exists because if the Audit Commission is to make a valid criticism of an education authority it must have the right to deal with it, and to enter schools and respond to criticisms as best it may. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will also tackle that statutory issue.
  5.15 pm
  As my right hon. and learned Friend will know, because I have spoken to him recently about the matter, standards in West Sussex primary schools are the second best in the country. He will also know, because he was good enough to tell me, that standards of inspection are among the top 10. Those standards ought to be repeated throughout the country and should not be confined to West Sussex. Therefore, the Bill is capable of improvement. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will say in his reply that sensible and progressive evolution will bring the Government towards the high standards that are available to us in West Sussex, but which are regrettably not apparent within the limited ambition of the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend will tackle that issue, which so concerns parents in West Sussex that considerable numbers have written to me and to my hon. Friends.
  Mr. McFall: My apologies for taking too long in an intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given that your patience has run out with me, I shall try to be brief.
  The hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) said that the Labour party objects to inspections. That is the last thing that we object to. We are for higher educational standards, but will the inspection regime proposed by the Secretary of State achieve them? Our answer is no, and for many reasons.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) mentioned visiting his schools in the summer. I did the same and the information that I got from teachers was that they were overloaded because of what is happening in schools—the national curriculum, reading attainment, testing from five to 14, league tables and truancy rates. The system is overloaded and teachers need more time to implement the curriculum so that children can learn more.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman appears to go to schools only in the summer. I go all the year round. It is now some considerable time since the summer, and I have found that my schools are getting their teeth into those things. They are delighted that the local management of schools is giving them vastly better

  977
  surroundings and equipment. I agree that some time ago we had legislative indigestion, but that is now past. When summer comes, if the hon. Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) are still here and if they visit their schools, they will find that there has been a vast change, as I have found when I go round mine. I shall do so again on Friday.
  Mr. McFall: The last time that I was in a school was on Monday, before I came here, and the next time will be next Monday. Like the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), I go round schools all the time.
  I have found that teachers are demoralised. Last week I was in Kent, and was given the same message. Kent is a Tory authority. They questioned the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister about taking the practical aspect away from the GCSE in English. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are wrong. If they go to Tory authorities such as Kent they will get the message, and then perhaps they will do something for our children's learning.
  There is too much in the curriculum and teachers need time to plan and to make progress on the proposals which the Secretary of State has put forward.
  There is no doubt that reading standards have improved tremendously since the end of the second world war. The number of children leaving school with qualifications has increased. Since 1971, in Scotland, the number of children leaving with three or more highers has increased from 17 to 22 per cent. We have a good inspection team in Scotland. I suggest that the Secretary of State should do a case study on it.
  Before I was elected to the House, the school at which I was deputy head was subject to the inspection regime. The inspectors did not contact the school beforehand; nor did we have an opportunity to go over everything with the local education authority. Those inspectors were the school for three weeks and they spoke to senior staff such as myself, the teachers and departmental heads. They then came back for a further week and, after that, consulted the LEA. They then published their report, which was made public. However, we were given an opportunity before publication to iron out any problems with the inspectors. That is what I call public inspection.
  Those inspectors were not in hock to the local education authority or to the school. The regime that the Secretary of State intends to put in place will mean that the team leader alone is validated by the Department of Education and Science. That does not happen in Scotland, where everyone is validated. Under the proposals, governors or head teachers will be able to have a cosy relationship with the team leader. The report produced will be to the liking of that team leader and the school, because the team leader will want more contracts from that school, while the school will want a good report.
  How does one prevent such corruption? How does one prevent the head teachers of Knottingley and elsewhere in West Yorkshire from colluding with the team leaders and undertaking other sharp practices? The Secretary of State has not paid sufficient attention to the proposals. They represent a step backwards in terms of the education spectrum. The change is proposed not in the name of improving education, but because the Secretary of State wants to cut the budget for education.
  Why are the Government cutting the national inspectorate from 500 to 150? That is what the head
  978
  teachers of West Yorkshire and elsewhere want to know. Above all, how will the Secretary of State prevent the corruption which the Bill will promote? The Bill is a retrograde step in terms of education, as it will not improve children's learning.
  Sir Timothy Raison: The debate, quite rightly, is about quality in education and, in particular, about the quality of inspection under the proposed scheme of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. It is right that our debates should now focus almost entirely on the question of quality, because that is one thing that we have learnt in the past decade.
  I listened, as always, with great interest to my rather Cassandra-like hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). He reminded us, as always, that the gap between current standards and what we should like to achieve is still large. International comparisons are sometimes tiresome, but they are necessary.
  By temperament I am slightly less gloomy than my hon. Friend about what goes on in our schools. Our constituencies lie side by side in the county of Buckinghamshire, which has produced the highest level of GCE passes of any of the shire counties in England, and the second highest of any of the English local authorities. I am sure that my hon. Friend will tell me that that is nothing like good enough, and I will not necessarily dissent.
  Does it make sense to have a system under which the governors of schools commission inspection reports? I must tell my right hon. and learned Friend that I still need a bit of persuading on that score. There are qualms about the system because it seems a little odd that an obsessive left-wing body of governors, or perhaps a right-wing one—it is more likely to be left-wing—should be able to commission from a left-wing inspection team a report on what is going on in their school. My right hon. and learned Friend has said that the Bill contains the necessary safeguards against that and, to an extent, the debate hinges on their quality.
  I accept that one important safeguard is the insistence on far more information. Even the Labour party has come to accept the need for that. The way in which league tables have become a required part of the scene is all to the good. I do not necessarily want to see different schools rated in order of precedence, but it is important that the right facts are available upon which to make a judgment.
  The other validation for a loony inspection team—if I may put it like that—is Her Majesty's chief inspector of education, who is a central figure in the Bill. I had hoped to have a debate of my own on this subject, because some important questions have not been properly discussed. I am interested to know whether the chief inspector will be able to provide the kind of validation that seems to be such a keynote of the scheme that the Government have introduced.
  I am struck by the fact that clause 2(5) states:
  "In exercising his functions the Chief Inspector for England shall have regard to such aspects of government policy as the Secretary of State may direct."
  That gives the Secretary of State a great deal of power to tell the chief inspector what to do and what not to do in the realm of policy, which is a sensitive area. If we postulate the undesirable and probably improbable spectre of a Labour Government with left-wing tendencies, one can imagine the Secretary of State saying to the chief inspector, "What you must do is to pay close regard to the

  979
  Government's commitment to absolutely no screening being undertaken in schools and ensure that comprehensive education is the norm." I do not believe that that will happen, because I do not believe that the Labour party will win the election, but we must recognise that the Acts of Parliament are designed for all Governments. It would be helpful to learn how Ministers believe the provision will work.
  Why is it necessary to have clause 2(5)? Why can we not accept that someone who is appointed as the chief inspector is an independent person? Time and again, my right hon. and learned Friend has said that it is his intention that the inspectorate should be more independent than it has ever been. If so, why is it necessary to have such a swingeing provision in the Bill under which the Government can tell the chief inspector what policy he must follow?
  Mr. Walden: I shall not try to answer for the Government; that is their job. However, perhaps some of the answer lies in the following question. How far does my right hon. Friend believe that independent bodies, such as the Plowden committee, created a climate of acceptance of low expectations in British education? Given that the inspectorate is part of the educational establishment, or has become so, that climate has helped to create the problem in primary schools, which the Government are trying to attack today. The problem is that one has an inspectorate that is infected—that is not too strong a word —with the same fallacious philosophy that the Plowden report helped to disseminate. I am conscious of my right hon. Friend's special knowledge of that report. I am not being a Cassandra; I am being realistic about this. The Plowden report is why we are where we are today with all our problems.
  Sir Timothy Raison: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting question. I spent about three and a half years on the Plowden committee; to try to encapsulate a reply to my hon. Friend's question in a time tolerable to the House would not be particularly easy.
  Mr. Walden: I am patient; why not try?
  Sir Timothy Raison: That may be so, but I am not sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although a patient man, would be so on this occasion.
  In certain respects, the Plowden committee was swept along by the zeitgeist and I do not believe that that report was right in all regards. I do not believe for one minute that the deviationist aspects of the Plowden report, which my hon. Friend and others have analysed with such gusto, would have been cured by an injunction from the Secretary of State of the day to the chief inspector to say that he should not allow that sort of thing to happen. I am sure that, whoever was the Secretary of State, from whatever side of the House, we would have given a fair wind to what was going on then. In that respect, my hon. Friend's arguments do not hold water. I had better not say any more about the Plowden committee.
  The question that I am asking my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is serious. He said that one of the safeguards for the quality of inspections under the scheme is the role of the chief inspector. I understand that, but why is it necessary to diminish the
  980
  chief inspector's independence by giving Ministers a power which would be used benignly and sensibly by my right hon. Friends, but which might be used harmfully by a Minister of a different persuasion?
  5.30 pm
  Mr. James Pawsey: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) will forgive me if I do not follow his particular line of argument. Instead, I first refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who spoke about the pace of change. I understand why he did so, but he should understand that the reason why the pace of change is so great is that we want to improve the quality and standards of state education as quickly as possible.
  The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and, to some extent, the hon. Member for Dumbarton, commented on the need for stability, which was also touched on by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) in a recent radio interview. Opposition Members call for stability, but that call is difficult to reconcile with their proposals were they to be elected to government. They are pledged to abolish grammar schools, grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges, the assisted places scheme, and even the tax concessions that enable the independent sector to remain. Those pledges will not result in much stability for the thousands of children who are involved in those schools, or for the schools themselves. Indeed, they will result in total instability.
  Under the Bill, schools will have more full inspections and 25 per cent. of all schools will be inspected each year. That is a substantial improvement on the present system, in which only about 150 schools benefit from a full inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate. It has been argued that some—only some—local education authorities, also have an inspection system. As my right hon. and learned Friend said in an earlier intervention, following the publication of the Bill local education authorities have suddenly come up with inspection programmes. It may be pure coincidence, but I think that it is rather more than that.
  The fact remains that not all LEAs undertake thorough inspections, which means that some schools in some areas have had nothing that remotely resembles a full inspection. The Bill changes that and ensures that all schools will be fully inspected. Indeed, it takes the wraps off schools.
  Local education authorities, advisers will still visit schools and be able to provide help and advice. Interestingly, if an inspection report or a complaint from a parent reveals serious weaknesses in a school, the local authority can draw those shortcomings to the attention of the school governing body, which now bears the main responsibility for what takes place in its school. If the governors accept that they need help to resolve the problem, the LEA is free to provide it. That help can include the analysis of weaknesses that have been identified and the provision of training to tackle those weaknesses. I appreciate that that is not an inspection, but the effect could be broadly the same. If governors want help from their LEA, the absence of a specific power to inspect does not prevent it from being offered.
  It should be remembered that, thanks to the Education Reform Act 1988, which was strenuously opposed by the Opposition, school governing bodies are now increasingly composed of parents. Those parents, like any others, want

  981
  the best for their children. If they believe that there are serious shortcomings in the school where their children are being educated, they will want those shortcomings exposed and put right as soon as possible. That is enlightened self-interest.
  When a school governing body selects an inspection team for its school and its children, it will go not for the soft option or the cheap option but for the best, in order that problems at the school, which directly affect their children, will be identified and put right. Parents have no interest in sweeping school problems or shortcomings under the carpet—the contrary is true.
  That answers the point made by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) when she introduced the new clause. She forgets the power that is now in the hands of parents. The HMI team leader will be registered and will be directly responsible for his team members. The inspector's team will have to meet the Bill's requirements and the conditions set down by Her Majesty's chief inspector. The team need not include only those with specific experience in teaching but can include people who are not qualified teachers.
  If we were to exclude all those who are not qualified teachers, we would exclude those with knowledge of administration is education and those with knowledge in research. It is important that additional expertise should be brought into the inspection teams, although I fully agree that, in the main, the inspection teams will be composed of people with teaching experience.
  Ms. Armstrong: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that not every member of the inspection team will be approved by Her Majesty's chief inspector—that only the registered inspection team leader will be approved? I do not want the House to be under any misapprehension about that. The Secretary of State said earlier that every inspector would be registered.
  Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Lady laboured that point at substantial length in Committee. I am not sure why she chooses to do so again now.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is not that point covered by clause 10'? It states:
  "No person shall conduct an inspection of any school in England under section 9(1) unless he is registered as an inspector in a register kept by the Chief Inspector for England for the purposes of this Act."
  Mr. Pawsey: I am sure that the hon. Member for Durham, North-West has heard clearly what my hon. Friend has just said.
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Mr. Pawsey: I am delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Straw: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has such delight when I stand up. He must be aware that, in an interview last year, the Secretary of State referred to
  "inspectors, all of whom will have to be registered with HMI and all of whom will have to have a little lion stamp of quality given to them by a central Her Majesty's Inspectorate".
  That simply was not true and the hon. Gentleman who, unlike the Secretary of State, served on the Standing Committee, knows that it is not true. There will be at least 3,000 to 4,000 inspectors and only some 600 of those can conceivably be registered by HMI.
  Mr. Pawsey: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He apparently did not listen to the debate that took place in Committee, where the point was thoroughly aired by his hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West. The hon. Gentleman has already had the answer.
  Opposition Members have said that we are privatising the education service. My understanding is that privatisation occurs when something is transferred from national or quasi-Government control to the private sector and private enterprise. Clearly, that has not happened in this instance. Opposition Members' claims about privatisation are pure scare mongering. They are similar to the claims made by Opposition Members about the privatisation of the health service. In both cases, I deeply resent those unfounded allegations.
  It seems that Labour Members are failing to win the argument and are simply trying to scare patients and parents into voting Labour. There is no reason for the electorate to vote Labour other than being scared into doing so by the scaremongering tactics of Labour Members.
  Ms. Armstrong: This is an important moment. The hon. Member is declaring his opposition to privatisation. We welcome that.
  Mr. Pawsey: I wish that just occasionally the hon. Lady would listen. She fails to do so because she is only interested in what she has to say. I can understand that, but it would be helpful were she sometimes to listen to what is said by others.
  I should like to hark back to the so-called golden age of LEA inspection. Let us remember who the inspectors are. They are frequently the colleagues of the very teachers they are now called upon to inspect. That answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Dumbarton on corruption. The teams of inspections proposed in the Bill will result in less corruption.
  Mr. McFall: I should correct the hon. Gentleman. I mentioned a case study in Scotland involving Her Majesty's inspectors who were not members of the local education authority and not colleagues of the teachers. The very point that I was trying to make was that they
  were independent.
  Mr. Pawsey: I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
  I close by quoting a leading article in The Daily Telegraph of Friday 24 January:
  "The report on primary schools by Mr. Kenneth Clarke's Three Wise Men draws a thick black line under the post-Plowden experiment in progressive education whose chief legacy has been an almost unprecedented decline in children's literacy and numeracy. Why was it allowed to go on for 25 years?"
  The leader continued:
  "Furthermore, so pervasive was the ideology being peddled by the training colleges, so Stalinist the influence of local education authorities and advisors, so approving the reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors—the dogs that did not bark as night closed in—that anyone who dissented from the approbation of happy children being kept noisily busy in decorative classrooms risked dismissal as a crank."
  That extract from The Daily Telegraph leader contains the reason for the Bill's introduction. It sums up the reasons why we need to change HMI and why we have selected the system that we have.
  Mr. Lewis Stevens: I support the general interpretation of the Bill and the fact that the inspection of schools—which is to be in depth—will be a statutory requirement. Will my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State put my mind at rest on what may be a slight gap in the changes? Local education authorities such as mine in Warwickshire at present use a system of a basic minimum of three visits per annum by the general schools inspector with a rolling programme to follow up with visits on specific subjects. It seems that that policy will go under the proposed changes.
  Can my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that, following the changes set out in the Bill, schools that may have to wait for three years for full inspections will still be able to have some inspections?
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The new clause has prompted a lengthy debate. I was pleased by one aspect of the speech of the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong)—the frequency with which she seemed to invoke the citizens charter and the principles that lie behind it. She was concerned about parents' right to complain and their right to have more information about the quality of the schools that their children attend. We are in the early days of what my right hon. and hon. Friends often describe as a 10-year programme of installing the principles of the citizens charter into the administration of public services in this country. If we have made such rapid progress in persuading an Opposition spokeswoman, who are moving in the right direction.
  The new clause relates to complaints and the quality of inspection. I do not think that we require the formal procedures that it sets out. The most obvious way in which people will complain is by approaching Her Majesty's chief inspector, who will, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) said, play a crucial part in the process. The chief inspector will have the overwhelming duty to ensure that the integrity and quality of inspections is maintained.
  I did not understand the point made by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West, which ran throughout the rest of the debate, about the form of the inspections. She seemed to make the curious assertion that our proposals might damage the information received by parents in order that they might be better informed about schools and their choice of schools—our intention under the parents charter.
  Under the parents charter, to which the Bill gives effect, we set out to give parents in this country far more information than they have been vouchsafed before on the performance of their children's school. In order to add to parents' understanding and ensure that the information is of good quality, we are introducing a system of quality assurance with a new regular inspection by independent people whose quality has been validated by HMI. That is a considerable step forward.
  Having listened to the debates, I detect a sense that there is more agreement between the two sides on some of the principles than would be readily conceded. I suspect that it is difficult for Opposition Members in the run-up to an election. They keep saying that they thought of various aspects of Government policy first, which is not the strongest form of criticism to make.
  984
  There seems to be universal recognition that, hitherto, the standards of local inspection of schools have been patchy and variable. Standards achieved by the different local authorities have ranged from the excellent standards of West Sussex referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) to the almost non-existent inspection system of Lancashire, where I do not think there are any designated inspectors.
  Lancashire is by no means the only county to have fallen to such a low. From time to time, trade union general secretaries have drawn attention to the patchiness of inspections. We are all agreed that, hitherto, local inspections have been inadequate.
  Mr. Straw: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment, but I wish to make progress as I think that we may have agreement on this.
  We are also agreed that there has to be a national standard to ensure universal quality of inspection. I am not sure whether the Labour party agrees—I think that it might—that we need a regular cycle of inspection. I sense that the Labour party has been converted by the parents charter to the idea that, for the first time, parents should as of right receive unsolicited and directly the results of inspections of their children's schools.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) referred to Warwickshire. Inspection results in Warwickshire go not to parents or governing bodies but to heads. The West Sussex authority may be contemplating sending them to parents, but I do not think that it did until we suggested it.
  It is a short time since we published the parents charter and announced a system of a national standard for regular inspection of schools with regular reporting back to the parents and a straightforward summary of what the inspection states. I think that all hon. Members who have participated in the debate agree with everything that I have said so far. The only difference between us involves who carries out the inspection. We say that it could be the local education authority if it is up to Her Majesty's inspectorate standards, or an independent organisation. The governors should have the choice. If it is an independent organisation, it must be up to the national standard, which Her Majesty's inspectorate should regulate.
  The Labour party says that local authorities, and only they, should inspect their own schools. It says that outsiders should not be able to carry out inspections. In effect, it says that only the local authority that manages a school should provide inspectors. It says that there must be national standards, but we are to have a commission and a committee. It will not be Her Majesty's inspectorate that imposes national standards. After cutting through all the guff that we all know arises from hon. Members on both sides of the House during a political debate, there is only one issue that comes between us. As usual, the Labour party has no education policy worth the name. It has folded in and tried to get on the back of the best bits of our policy.
  Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State is profoundly isolated on this issue. There is virtually no support for it within the Conservative party. He is rather like a drowning

  985
  man who is clutching at straws when he seeks support for a policy that is entirely inconsistent with Conservative policy generally.
  I am astonished that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should so wilfully wish to mislead the House about Labour party policy and the chronology of events. We said that there should be reform of the inspectorate at a time when the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his predecessors were trying to defend the current system of inspection. That was why—this was way in advance of the so-called parents charter and all that nonsense—we published "Raising the Standard", which set out Labour's plans for an education standards commission. That had been presaged two years before in Labour party documents that called for reform of the inspectorate.
  The Secretary of State has talked about Lancashire. Let me quote from a letter written by the chief education officer of Lancashire:
  "It is quite untrue to state that Lancashire does not inspect schools. We have inspected schools for as long as anyone here can remember."
  When I make my speech, I shall deal with that issue.
  There is need for a much tougher regime of inspection by local authorities. The issue that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has talked about has no relationship to the Bill. How does he believe that allowing schools to pick and choose their own inspectors—to allow the provider to be the regulator—can conceivably lead to anything but inconsistent standards and an overall lowering of standards?
  Mr. Clarke: In the midst of a great deal of waffle, the hon. Gentleman almost defended Lancashire. I do not think that he often does that, although he represents a parliamentary seat in that historic county. I think that he conceded almost every point that I have made before arriving at the only difference between us. He did not rush out a Labour party document until after I had announced a review of the inspectorate. When he knew that I would produce proposals concerning the inspectorate, he reached for the back of an envelope, to use his own phrase, and rushed out his own proposals.
  The parents charter—I detect this in what the hon. Gentleman said—has established universal consent that we should have regular inspection by inspectors who are subject to national standards, and that the results of the inspections should be reported to parents. That is a substantial advance. The argument is whether a choice should be available to governors of inspectors who have achieved a standard approved by HMI or whether there should be inspection only by local authorities, with schools having no choice about the source of inspections.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: Will there continue to be regular inspections of schools that deal with children with special learning difficulties? I refer to schools that specialise in that area of education and to children who are being taught specially within schools because of their learning difficulties.
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has asked a valid question. The answer is that there will be regular inspections of those schools. The inspectorate's work in validating the standard of inspection will not be changed. There will be the same number of inspectors within HMI.
  The argument is whether inspection should he the monopoly of a local education authority, albeit supervised
  986
  by a commission, which I describe as a committee or quango with the usual appointees—we shall debate that issue when we come to consider new clause 10—or whether there should be a choice. Responsibility may rest with the local education authority if it is up to HMI standards or inspection may be carried out by others. The issue is whether governors should be able to choose and thereby to ensure quality.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North-West was less than candid, as the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has been in every one of his frequent interventions. Their principal aim is to ensure that no one outside local government, which manages education, should be allowed to inspect schools. I cannot understand how that is compatible with the constant reiteration by the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman of the claim that they share our views about standards. They are insisting on a monopoly organisation—local authorities—to inspect its own schools.
  Under the Labour party's proposals, it seems that those from the local authorities who advise schools would take part in inspections. They would examine their own work and then comment on what they think are the results of it. The inspectors would all be employed by local education authorities. They would produce reports that would be sent to parents. They would undoubtedly be inhibited because, if reports become too critical of certain aspects of a school, they will be seen to be criticising their own employers.
  The Labour party is obsessed by those who continue to see education as essentially the monopoly of local authorities and the teachers' trade unions. That is the difference between us. The quality controls of independent people and local authority people answer the hon. Gentleman's wild criticism.
  The letter that has been cited by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West is signed by many people who have asked us to achieve a consensus. I think that we are rather nearer to a consensus than most people would acknowledge. This near-consensus has been created by the parents charter. The Labour party dare not refuse to provide parents with the sort of information that we shall make available to them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) and I have been pressed for a definition of the education establishment. With one or two honourable exceptions, the signatories to the letter cited by the hon. Lady and all the acronyms that follow them are a pretty good collection of representatives of the education establishment. Many of them, including the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of London Boroughs, could have done something about inspection over the past 10 years. They did not but they have responded now to our proposals. They are seeking to defend the monopoly of inspection rights by their members and by those who currently are solely responsible for schools.
  Mr. Straw: Do the right hon. and learned Gentleman's insults extend also to the National Association of Governors and Managers and the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall not refer to every organisation in turn. I said that there were some exceptions. I shall not refer to the exceptions that I would excuse and I am not

  987
  too particular about the ones that I would attack. Anyone who goes through the forest of acronyms will have a pretty good cross-section of the various parts of the education establishment, which has been resisting most of our reforms. It is now resisting the idea that anyone who is outside the closed world of local government and the teachers' trade unions should be allowed to inspect schools and then to report to the general public, including parents, on what has been found.
  The important feature of our new system is the integrity and the quality of the inspection that is carried out. Those of us who advocate the parents charter want to provide parents with straightforward descriptions of the strenghts of schools, which will be praised, and their weaknesses, to which attention will be drawn. These descriptions will come from inspectors whom parents can trust. That is the objective of the parents charter. We put at least as much emphasis on that as do the Opposition. The Opposition, however, put more emphasis on the closed world of local government and teachers' trade unions being allowed to continue to dominate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham talked of what could be a danger. There were exchanges between him and the hon. Member for Blackburn that replicated the exchanges between my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, and the hon. Member for Blackburn that took place in Committee. An example that we have focused on from time to time is a school whose governors are dominated by a dogma of education that is now discredited. We now have what has been described as post-Plowdenism. There are some left-wing ideologues who dominate education in far too many Labour boroughs who are dominating governing bodies, and the example is that they decide that they want to choose an inspectorate that matches their approach to education.
  There has to be a safeguard against that, which is Her Majesty's inspectorate. Only the leader of each team will be registered, but the registration will be lost if a report is submitted that plainly is not of the quality that it ought to be. All the members of the team will have to be trained to the satisfaction of Her Majesty's inspectorate. All of them will have to be approved by Her Majesty's inspectorate. For them to be chosen, the quality of inspection will have to be up to standard.
  6 pm
  If an independent group of inspectors were dominated by dogma of any kind—I refute the defence that the left wing now put up, of accusing all their critics of somehow being right-wing ideologues, since I believe that in the opinion of most people we represent common sense—I would expect HMI not to approve that group. If the results of a particular school were below par, its inspectors would no longer be available to left-wing governors because they would not be approved by HMI.
  If the hon. Member for Durham, North-West fears that a team of inspectors might peddle a particular philosophy, she need look no further than a few local authorities whose monopoly of inspection rights she defends. Reference has already been made to the Alexander report on Leeds schools, which shows how Leeds council spent a great deal of money and time on trying to dominate the teachers in
  988
  Leeds and get them to adopt a philosophy of education that was plainly a failure and that led to lower standards in primary schools.
  Mr. Fatchett: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: In a minute.
  The position of the hon. Gentleman's party is that only Leeds authority people should be allowed to inspect Leeds schools. Only local authority staff, under the control of the same political party as that to which the hon. Gentleman belongs, should be allowed to do that. Nobody from outside should be allowed to challenge the basis upon which they inspect their primary schools.
  Mr. Fatchett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman grossly distorts the picture in Leeds. I suspect that he is one of the great many who has not read the Alexander report. If he had read it and understood its genesis, he would also understand that it was commissioned by Leeds local education authority. The authority did not try to conceal the report. It published it.
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): How long did it take to implement it?
  Mr. Fatchett: Who are we going to have—the monkey or the organ grinder on this occasion? It is clear that the Secretary of State does not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I will get on with it if hon. Members will keep quiet and not shout out from a sedentary position. The Secretary of State continually makes comments about Leeds, although with little knowledge. He relies upon his Minister of State to provide the information. The fact is that Leeds commissioned the report, published it and acted upon it. It would be good if the Government recognised that fact, applauded Leeds local education authority for doing so—
  Mr. Eggar: It did not publish all the reports.
  Mr. Fatchett: No, that is not so. All the reports were published and therefore are available. The Secretary of State has to recognise that fact and put it on record that this authority behaved in a way that other authorities ought to behave and that Leeds provides an example to other authorities.
  Sir Giles Shaw: Before my right hon. and learned Friend replies, he will recall that Leeds community charge payers had to foot the bill for this travesty of a report, which cost £14 million, and that from their point of view it was useless.
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is correct, although he made one slight slip of the tongue. In fact, between £14 million and £15 million was spent by the community charge payers of Leeds on experiments in schools that were then condemned by the report. Extra expenditure was embarked upon in Leeds, with results that I should be quite happy to describe. I have read the report. Rather than indulge in exchanges across the Floor, I commend hon. Members to read the report and its clear description of the catastrophe that the experiments caused in Leeds schools.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) leapt to his feet to defend what happened by saying that Leeds local education authority commissioned the report

  989
  and eventually published it. He then had an argument with my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) about how long it took Leeds to take any action in the light of the report. I stand by my description of the report. It criticises the council and shows that the experiment was a failure. Despite that experience, the Labour party remains committed to saying that only employees of Leeds city council shall be allowed to inspect schools which only Leeds city council shall be allowed to run. I do not regard that as a defence of quality.
  I have already said that I have great respect for the views of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). He described himself as an old-fashioned teacher. I suspect that he used the word "old-fashioned" in a way that I would regard as a compliment. I have no doubt whatsoever about his commitment to higher standards in schools. We had a long exchange about whether things had got a lot better in the last few years and also about what things were like in Rotherham.
  Yesterday, at this Dispatch Box, I praised the standards achieved in Rotherham and contrasted them with the achievements in nearby Labour-controlled Sheffield, which spends more but achieves lower standards. I hope that, at the conclusion of the debate, the hon. Gentleman will accept that he is on the wrong side of the argument. I do not intend to enter into an argument with him about the noble Earl who owned Wentworth school in the 19th century.
  The last example that the hon. Gentleman gave related to his expression of views about teaching that got him into trouble with his director of education 20 years ago. On that occasion he escaped only because an inspector helped him. In any case, he decided to make a distinguished career in this House and not to carry on teaching.
  The position has changed in the last 20 years—and not just in Leeds. There are boroughs where expression of views that are inconsistent with the ideology of the council gets teachers into serious difficulties. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman groans. If he wants protection against that—I agree with him that good teachers should be protected against it—one form of protection is not to say that only the local authority shall be allowed to provide inspectors, even if the governors want somebody else.
  Mr. Hardy: The right hon. and learned Gentleman paid tribute to Rotherham, but he did not do so when he addressed the Conservative party in Wentworth last summer.
  Mr. Pawsey: Was the hon. Gentleman there?
  Mr. Hardy: No.
  Mr. Pawsey: The press were.
  Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman is not a competent Member of this House if he does not know what is said by Ministers. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may not have known that certain members of the press were present, but I found out very quickly.
  The Secretary of State may have misinterpreted the fundamental point that I made. I accept that standards improved dramatically in primary schools throughout most of the post-war period, but the point that I made was that during the last few years that progress has not been maintained, as a result of the disturbances—that is an appropriate word in this context—that have been inflicted on schools by his Department.
  Mr. Clarke: I stand by the criticisms that I made of the garden in Wentworth and the capital and maintenance programmes of Rotherham borough council, but I pay tribute to the standards achieved by its schools—and even to the school buildings, as maintained by the borough council. It is not true, as the hon. Member for Blackburn keeps saying, that the three wise men's report says that the introduction of the national curriculum has resulted in a decline in standards during the last three or four years. That is a gross misquotation. His argument that the changes of the last three or four years are undesirable does not stand up to examination.
  When one is asked about the national curriculum and about local management of schools, one finds that there is a overwhelming support for the principle. I agree that it has been hard work introducing it: I always pay a compliment to that. I do not think that the process of change is causing damage; it is paving the way for a further advance in standards.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham raised a point which was also referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton. Where local authorities are inspecting more regularly than once every four years, they wanted to know whether that would be damaged by the statutory requirement to have four-year cycles of inspection. Again, I pay tribute to what is being achieved by West Sussex in its comparatively new system of annual inspection. My one reservation is that we are not comparing like with like. What West Sussex calls an annual inspection, as I understand it, is a brief visit and not the full inspection once every four years. The inspectors have regular calls to go into the schools, as has been happening in recent years in Warwickshire as well. My answer to the queries of my hon. Friends is that we could not have annual inspections nationally on the full parents charter without enormous expense. A four-year cycle is a more reasonable timetable.
  The local education authority will retain its right to enter schools in pursuit of any of its statutory duties. It will also have the right to enter a school for the purpose of inspection and looking into a problem if the governors have invited it or if it is acting on a complaint. The reason why my hon. Friends resisted in Committee amendments designed to give the local education authority a general duty to inspect is that, where somebody else is brought in to inspect, we do not want local authorities duplicating the statutory inspection under the parents charter so that schools are over-inspected.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I must move on. I am not sure whether we have had a filibuster in the debate, but I do not propose to delay my own Bill excessively. I will give way on the West Sussex point.
  Sir Peter Hordern: The point is of importance to all parents in West Sussex. Supposing a parent complains to the local authority in West Sussex about standards in schools, what is the position? Will the authority have the right to enter the school to examine the complaint, or will the obligation remain with the governors of the school to invite the local education authority to come in to examine the problem?
  Mr. Clarke: Whether the authority has a right or a duty will depend on the nature of the complaint and whether it

  991
  bears on the statutory duty of the local authority. If it was a complaint about inspection or about some aspect of teaching in the school, West Sussex county council would almost certainly approach the governors for their consent to go in and investigate the complaint. That position would be established under the Bill.
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: My right hon. and learned Friend himself posed the correct question on the point a moment ago when he wondered whether the proposed change would damage the existing system which West Sussex is very keen on, as indeed are parents in West Sussex. What is the answer to the question which he posed? Will we be able to continue with the existing system?
  Mr. Clarke: We shall certainly do nothing to stop it. I have no reason to disbelieve my right hon. Friend when he says that the system is popular with governors and parents in West Sussex. No doubt it is good quality inspection. I cannot imagine that any governors will start defying parents by preventing West Sussex from carrying on with the system. So long as parents and governors are content with the system, there is no reason why it should not continue in parallel with the system under the parents charter.
  I shall not reply at length to the comments of the hon. Member for Dunbarton (Mr. McFall). I am delighted to see him taking part in the debate. When I came into the Chamber earlier to await the start of the Bill, I walked into what I can only describe as a Scottish riot at the end of Question Time and a series of points of order. The hon. Gentleman was one of those who leapt to his feet, protesting vigorously about English Members having the temerity to intervene in Scottish Question Time. The hon. Member made an interesting speech on the Bill. I welcome his participation in a debate on a new clause which would have no application to Scotland or his constituency. At least he has sufficient regard for a United Kingdom Parliament to take part in English debates. No doubt, if there is a vote, he will exercise his right as a Scottish Member to vote on an education matter which has not the slightest application in Dumbarton. I trust that he will respect the continued right of English Members to take part in Scottish debates and to cast their votes on Scottish affairs as well.
  Mr. McFall: I have spoken on the Bill simply because clause 17 refers to Scotland. The last thing that I would do would be to prevent English Members from talking about education issues in their constituencies, as they disgracefully tried to prevent Scottish Members doing earlier. While I shall contribute, I want English Members to give their points of view. In that way we will respect the sensibilities of the House.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Clarke: That is probably enough of constitutional debate. At least we will accept that the new clause does not apply to Scotland.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth took us back to the key point of the proposition—the quality of education provided in schools and how far it can bear on raising standards. As to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, the critical
  992
  figure is Her Majesty's chief inspector. My right hon. Friend is right to remind me that I have always stressed the increased independence which the changes will give to that key figure—independence of Government and independence of the Department of Education.
  Her Majesty's chief inspector, the work of his or her staff and the criteria drawn up for inspection will be crucial to quality control. In due course, when the Bill has received Royal Assent, we will see Her Majesty's chief inspector in post and we will see Her Majesty's inspectorate working for him or her. The numbers of HMI—one point which has most exercised the Opposition—have been determined by the best judgment that the present senior chief inspector and I can make of what will be required for the national monitoring role.
  My right hon. Friend also draw attention to the clause which allows the Secretary of State to cause Her Majesty's chief inspector to have regard to aspects of Government policy. It may be a cautious thing to put in. It is a limited power. My right hon. Friend may say that at the last moment I drew back from cutting this great and powerful figure loose of all advice and control, but it is not a fettering or silencing control. That clause would not enable the Secretary of State in any Government to stop Her Majesty's chief inspector saying whatever he or she wanted, either on the process of inspection or on any aspect of education standards which HMCI would be free to issue reports on and comment on.
  HMCI would only be enjoined by the Secretary of State to have regard to aspects of policy, but if the Secretary of State is to be answerable for education policy at all, at least he should have the ability formally to point out to HMCI that he or she ought to have regard to policy for which the Secretary of State has been accountable to the House. I do not think that goes back seriously on all the other steps that we have taken in the direction of independence. HMCI will be a much more independent postholder, because he or she will have his or her own statutory functions under the Bill, giving independence of a kind that such a person has not had for many years. I am not sure whether there was so much independence in the 19th century; I doubt it. Certainly there will be greater independence than in modern times.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth also stressed the quality of education and went back to the main point between us. He talked about all the swings of fashion in recent years and how there have been times when everybody has gone with the fashion. He echoed the words of the hon. Member for Wentworth on that.
  In addition to stressing how important it is to keep national standards, my hon. Friend made the case against a monopoly at any given time of inspection in the hands of a commission, local government and so on. The fact that governors will have some choice and the ability in any county to go outside the inspectors who usually inspect there, if they are beginning to lose confidence in inspections, is a guarantee that never again will the whole education world be swept one way or the other without governors and parents having more ability to restrain matters.
  We have had a wide-ranging debate. I shall conclude as I began. Odd tinges of the citizens charter imbued quite a lot of Labour Members' contributions. Much of the huffing and puffing by the Opposition disguised the fact

  993
  that we have converted them almost overnight to about four fifths of our policy and that they will never again deny the need for regular inspection and reports.
  When Opposition Members go on about governors picking their own inspectors, they disguise the fact that they are defending a closed world of monopoly which would be harmful. The one reference to privatising the inspectorate is the Opposition's daftest argument to try to disguise their lack of any policy. There is no existing inspectorate to be privatised. I have never heard the word more misused.
  The parents charter is a great breakthrough in the direction of quality control, openness in education, better guarantees of standards, more information for parents, and more ability on the part of governors and of parents to keep an eye on what is happening in schools so that standards can be driven up. For that reason, I trust that the House will reject the new clause if it is pressed to a Division by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Our debate has been wide-ranging and has had the tone more of a Second Reading debate than of a debate on amendments. I do not intend to make a wide-ranging speech because I did so on Second Reading and in Committee. One point which has been pressed by Conservative Members has not been answered properly by the Secretary of State.
  When the Secretary of State was asked by West Sussex Members what would happen about more frequent or ad hoc inspections outside the regular cycle, he avoided answering any questions from Opposition Members or giving a clear answer to his colleagues. The clear answer is that it will be impossible for inspections to take place outside the four-year cycle. In Committee, Ministers made it clear that although local authorities, following their statutory duties, may go into schools and may offer advice, they cannot undertake a formal inspection either of part of what is going on in the school or of the school as a whole, no matter what problems may have arisen.
  It has been suggested that it would be possible for inspectors to go into a school following the wider powers which the local authorities have, but there is a catch which guarantees that no such inspections will take place outside the four-year cycle. The catch is that if any LEA inspector goes into one of the schools in the LEA area to perform an inspection outside the four-year cycle, he will be regarded as giving advice to the school and therefore barred from undertaking an inspection of that school in the future.
  No local authority can afford to have its inspectors undertaking inspections outside the four-year cycle because the team that it maintains to offer that service to local schools will gradually bar itself from undertaking an inspection in any school in the LEA area. So there could not be ad hoc inspections by the LEA. Indeed, there could not be an inspection service at all by the LEA. That is why the Secretary of State did not want to answer points made by the Opposition, and that is why he did not give a straight answer to Conservative Members who were rightly concerned about the issue.
  I hope that Conservative Members who are concerned about that aspect, which does not impinge on the rest of what is intended in the Bill, and about the principle of a need to have ad hoc inspections from time to time when problems arise will continue to pursue the matter. Amendments which would have met the concern of the Secretary of State that LEAs would simply undertake a
  994
  parallel four-year cycle and which would have ruled out that possibility were tabled in Committee, but Ministers would not accept them. If that point is not pursued successfully here, I hope that those Members who are concerned will use their contacts in the other place to ensure that it is successfully pursued there.
  There should be nothing between the parties on this. The issue is straightforward and I fail to understand why the Secretary of State cannot understand the point. Instead, he resorts to sending letters to hon. Members in which he argues that the matter is being pursued on purely partisan grounds. Today's debate has made it clear that that is not so. I hope that the Secretary of State will give a straight answer on that important point.
  Mr. Straw: It is plain from the debate that the Secretary of State, who did not serve in Committee, does not understand the impact of the Bill or its major defects. He tried to pretend a moment ago that the Bill says only that the chief inspector "may have regard" to
  "such aspects of government policy as the Secretary of State may direct."
  In fact the Bill says clearly that the chief inspector "shall have regard" to
  "such aspects of government policy as the Secretary of State may direct."
  The Secretary of State gave no answer to the important point raised by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and by the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern). I appreciate that the Minister of State is trying to make a point to the right hon. Member for Worthing, but I will make it too. The point was examined at great length in Committee, as the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) has just said.
  The power of local government to inspect and to intervene if it discovers that something is wrong is based on section 77(3) of the Education Act 1944. Under schedule 5, that power is to be removed and will not be replaced by any other power for the local authority. As a result of that removal, almost every local authority apart from Wandsworth—certainly every member of the Association of County Councils, Tory and Labour, and also Conservative boroughs such as Croydon—has thoroughly objected to the removal of the power because it believes that if a school faces difficulties the authority will not have the power to intervene. The Secretary of State is legislating for a local authority to be powerless in the face of a school where standards are sliding.
  There is another major flaw in the Secretary of State's scheme. Not only will local authorities not have the power to intervene; they will not have the money to employ inspectors who could intervene if they had that power. Under clauses 9 and 15, a local authority can employ inspectors only as a separate, semi-privatised
  operation—
  Mr. Eggar indicated dissent.
  Mr. Straw: The Minister of State shakes his head, but he must know that under the Bill the inspectors have to be a self-financing operation. They will have to get back their salaries and other costs from the fees that the schools pay for the inspection. Almost by definition, a school which faces serious problems will probably have the governors on one side of the issue and the local authority on the other. It is almost certain that the governors will have exhausted their pot of money to pay for an inspection because an inspection can be carried out only on a

  995
  four-year cycle. The funds to pay for such an inspection will not exist. The consequence is that there is no power for a local authority to intervene and there would be no funds for the local authority to employ inspectors even if that power existed. The Secretary of State needs to answer that point directly.
  This has been a wide-ranging debate and we are grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State sought to apologise for the Bill by suggesting that it was not a privatisation measure. Privatisation used to be a badge of honour which was worn with pride by every Tory. Now it seems to be a mark of shame that Ministers wish to hide at the first opportunity.
  The reason is simple. When the Secretary of State first published the proposals at the beginning of July 1991, virtually every newspaper said that the Government were privatising the system with private inspectors going into schools. The Secretary of State discovered that he had made a profound political and educational error in dismembering Her Majesty's inspectorate, in cutting its numbers from 480 to 175 and in trying to pretend to an incredulous electorate that the result would be that HMI would be strengthened. It was not until he proposed to hand over inspection not to co-ordinated teams, but to one team of privatised inspectors and it was not until he proposed allowing governors to pick and choose inspectors that he suddenly realised that privatising the inspectorate was going down like a lead balloon both with those running schools and with the electorate.
  That is why, in all the great publicity that the Government have come out with recently about strengthening the inspectorate, scarcely a word has been heard about the notion of privatised inspectorates. Perhaps the Secretary of State will now tell me what precedent exists, in the entire administration of public services under this Government, for a provider of a public service to choose the regulator to inspect it. He knows that even with the semi-privatised trust hospitals he insisted not that they should appoint their auditors but that the Audit Commission should do so.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for inviting me to intervene by asking questions. He mentioned my objection to the word "privatised". I am not against privatising commercial activities, but it is a word that we should use correctly. It means transferring something which goes on in the public sector into private hands.
  The hon. Gentleman has always acknowledged—this time he did not, he tried to go back on it, but I repeat my own belief—that there is no inspectorate in Lancashire. There is nothing being transferred from the public to the private sector. A new inspectorate is being put in place, and the hon. Member is misleading the public to keep on about our privatising it.
  It is really no good the hon. Member for Blackburn lecturing me or any other member of the Government on the need to separate inspectors from providers of service. The people who inspect will be independent of the governors. They will be taken from the list of those registered by Her Majesty's inspectorate, nationally
  996
  approved, independent inspectors. The provider will have a choice between two inspectors, both of whom are quite separate from the providers.
  The hon. Member's proposition is that the providers, Lancashire county council, should be the only people entitled to inspect their own, the provider's, schools. He is misusing the argument, and it can easily be turned against him. He is resisting the independence of inspection that the Bill introduces.
  Mr. Straw: I asked the Secretary of State a straight question and he has sought to waffle for about three minutes in reply. He said nothing about what I had asked him, but at least he has confirmed that he cannot draw a single precedent to our attention of a provider of a public service, under this Government, being able to pick and choose its own regulator.
  Mr. Clarke: Will the hon. Member for Blackburn agree that his position is that Lancashire county council should be the only people allowed to inspect Lancashire schools? What sort of independent regulator or guarantee of independent quality is that?
  Hon. Members: Answer!
  Mr. Straw: We will deal with Labour's proposals under new clauses 10 and 20. Our proposals will ensure that there are far more rigorous standards of inspection and also that the inspectorate stands at arm's length from the people it inspects. If the Secretary of State is going down the ludicrous road of asking whether the inspectors are to be employed by the local authority, I remind him that the police are employed by the local authority but are able to exercise independence. Twice I have put a straight question to the Secretary of State and twice he has refused to answer it. What he proposes to set up is a system without parallel. even under this Adminstration.
  To their credit, the present Administration have at least ensured, when privatising a public service, that the regulator is separate from the provider; but here we have a situation where the provider is to be the regulator. It is because of that, because the governing body of the school, including the head teacher, is to pick and choose its own inspector, that nobody with any experience either of the regulation of public services or of the educational services supports the proposals.
  HMI does not. For the first time in 150 years, HMI came here last Thursday to lobby hon. Members on both sides and to tell them that the scheme proposed by the Secretary of State was profoundly defective, would undermine and weaken the inspectorate and would lead to inconsistent standards of inspection. HMI, which is supposed to run this ramshackle system, has itself said that it cannot work.
  The National Association of Governors and Managers, in whose interests, apparently, this has been set up, has said the same. The National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations has said it. So, too, have scores and scores of head teachers who, as reported in The Observer on Sunday, said that it could not lead to consistent standards of inspection and some of whom said that they would "fix" these private inspections.
  There has never been a crazier, more ludicrous scheme for trying to raise standards. It will lead to a lowering of standards and it must be opposed.
  Question put and negatived.

New clause 2

  FUNCTIONS OF THE CHIEF INSPECTOR WITH REGARD TO THE CURRICULUM
  'In Section I of the Education Reform Act 1988, in subsection (1), after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted"—
  "(aa) of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England as respects every maintained school in England;
  (bb) of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales as respects every maintained school in Wales;".'.—[Mr. Fatchett.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Fatchett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) moved new clause I, she said that it was a modest new clause. Perhaps that was characteristic of her own approach, but I am sure that she did not expect the sort of debate that the new clause stimulated. If I may make a slightly immodest point at this stage, I feel that new clause 2 is probably more important than new clause 1. It is not the modest clause that new clause I was, because it relates directly to the inspectorate and the independence of the chief inspector.
  In the previous debate, we had comments, particularly from the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison), about the need to preserve the independence of the chief inspector. The right hon. Member for Aylesbury specifically drew attention to clause 2(5), which I think the Secretary of State had not had an opportunity to read, because when he referred to clause 2(5) he spoke of the word "may", whereas the word "shall" is used in the Bill. The crucial element of the new clause is the preservation of the independence and integrity of HMI.
  To achieve that objective, the new clause would insert in section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988 the responsibility of the chief inspector to make sure that the national curriculum is delivered within the terms cif the 1988 Act.
  It is interesting to recall the debates on the Education Reform Bill. My colleagues who served on the Standing Committee will recall that the Government said at the time that it was the last substantial piece of education reform that they expected in this Parliament. It was deemed to be similar to the Education Act 1944 and would set in place a legal framework for education for many years. It is not without significance that this year we are debating two major education Bills, neither of which will probably be enacted but both of which attempt to fill the gaps already created by the Education Reform Act 1988.
  One thing was clear from the debate on new clause 1: the respect of those who know about education for the independence and integrity of HMI. Anybody involved in education recognises that HMI performs a difficult task with integrity, skill and knowledge of the education system. The inspectorate is an essential attribute of the system, and the independence of the chief inspector is an important element in putting the system above party politics, making it a national system and one in which, while we may disagree about many aspects, we may have some national pride. The inspectorate is valuable in its own right and it is therefore important that we try in new clause 2 to preserve its integrity and independence.
  We have moved new clause 2 not simply because of that traditional respect for Her Majesty's inspectorate, but for
  998
  other reasons. It is crucial that new clause 2 is added to the Bill because the measure as it stands would create a charter if not for corruption, certainly for collusion about inspection. That point was made in our earlier debate on new clause 1.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) realised as a result of interventions by Opposition Members that only the leader of an inspection team requires the approval of the chief HMI. The rest of the team could comprise anyone. As I said on Second Reading, the net could be cast so widely, that even the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) might be a member of an inspection team. Only the team leader must be approved by the senior HMI. As the hon. Member for Buckingham recognised, that system could work only on the basis of, to use his term, trial and error.
  The wrong inspectors may be appointed. The definition of "wrong" is interesting. Do we mean wrong ideologically or in terms of efficiency? It has been said that, if the wrong inspectors are appointed, the right team might appear on subsequent occasions. If the wrong team has been chosen, during the rest of the four-year cycle, the standards in the school concerned will decline. The best defence that the hon. Member for Buckingham could offer for that system was that it would be based on trial and error. Our schools and the education of our children are too important to depend on a system that relies simply on trial and error.
  Mr. Pawsey: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that parents are concerned about the quality of their children's education? The quality of that education will depend at least to some extent on the quality of the inspection. Why does not the hon. Gentleman agree that parents will ensure that they select the best teams to inspect school adequately?
  Mr. Fatchett: In a sense, the hon. Gentleman has just made my argument for me. Obviously good education depends on good inspection. However, the hon. Member for Buckingham and the right hon. Members for Aylesbury (Sir. T. Raison) and for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) made similar points. There is no guarantee that an inspection team will be appropriate or efficient. It may prove to be the wrong inspection team.
  The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth fell back on the argument of parental choice. He said that parents will be able to choose a new inspection team. Let us consider a primary school that is inspected by a trial and error team which I will call T and E inspection. That inspection may take place when a child is half way through the primary cycle. Four years on, that child will be out of the primary cycle, and into the secondary cycle. What parental right will then exist?
  We have learnt from the Secretary of State for Education and Science that there is no guarantee of a right of complaint. Parents will not be able to demand a further inspection. In those circumstances, that child's education will be put at risk. That is what the T and E system will create and that is the system which the Government and the hon. Member for Buckingham are advocating.
  Mr. Pawsey: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's basic premise. Why should there be trial and error? I do not understand why he uses that phrase. If a team leader is registered, he will ensure that the team with which he is working and for which he is responsible, will perform its

  999
  work satisfactorily. The hon. Gentleman is straining at gnats, such is the weakness of his argument. He is calling into aid the most improbable situation.
  Mr. Fatchett: I am not calling into aid improbable situations. With his sycophantic enthusiasm for Government policy, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth tends to forget that the statements were made by the hon. Member for Buckingham and the right hon. Members for Aylesbury and for Worthing. They expressed concern.
  6.45 pm
  Concern has also been expressed by others. It would be useful if the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth talked to a wide range of parents' organisations which have expressed the same concerns. The hon. Gentleman will have seen reports suggesting collusion in the system. It does not make for good inspection to have the potential for collusion within the system.
  In our debate on new clause 1, the Secretary of State said that the local education authority would have a monopoly, as purchaser of the inspection team, as the employer. We must bear it in mind that HMI is in the system. It is independent and not employed by local education authorities. Its role is being changed substantially by the Bill. HMI is a source of independence and integrity.
  There is a weakness in the argument of the Government of the Secretary of State. The Government argue that because the LEA is the employer, it will call the tune. However, if that is a flawed relationship, will not the same relationship exist in terms of the contractual relationship—and even more so? The team of inspectors will be dependent on a contract with the governing body for its inspection function. Because of the nature of business, the team will be looking for more work. If it does that, it will want to satisfy the governing bodies for which it is producing reports. In those circumstances, the relationship is more controlled and incestuous than the relationship with an individual local authority.
  Mr. Enright: I want first to declare an interest as I belong to the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association and 1 express a specific view. In supporting new clause 2, the association is concerned that, as the Bill is drafted, there will be political control from the centre.
  I was a teacher for 22 years and spent some time teaching in the west riding. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has already referred to the old west riding, which was Conservative-controlled. At that time, we were determined that we would not be controlled by politicians. When Wakefield metropolitan district council was Labour-controlled, we were equally concerned not to have political control. Will not control now directly pass to the Secretary of State for Education and Science? Have we not seen the disastrous results of his interference in the national curriculum? Would not the new clause give independence to the inspectorate?
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend has made many valid points. He was right to refer to collusion in terms of the contractual relationship between the inspectorate team and the governing body. He is right to say that there is no guarantee of quality from the inspectorate. He must have
  1000
  looked at my notes to make his point about the constitutional importance of new clause 2, which is to preserve the independence and integrity of the inspectorate. My hon. Friend is assiduous in such matters, so he will be aware, unlike the Secretary of State, that clause 2(5) states:
  "In exercising his functions the Chief Inspector for England shall have regard to such aspects of government policy as the Secretary of State may direct."
  That is a substantial power. If, as the Minister of State tried to pretend in Committee, the subsection does not mean "shall" but really means "may", why does the Bill not say that? The Bill states that the chief inspector, on a mandatory basis and under a mandatory responsibility, "shall have regard" to aspects of government policy. He "shall have regard" to the Secretary of State's whim, because the Secretary of State has very substantial directions.
  The Bill does not give any flexibility. It talks simply in terms of a mandatory obligation upon the chief inspector. There is no freedom—the chief inspector will be fettered. Why is it so important that we try to limit the Secretary of State's fettering power? There are good arguments for limiting that power. For example—it is a general point, but it is an important constitutional point—we know from the Government's record that there seems to be a crucial criterion that they use in appointing people to senior public office. That criterion is simple—"Are you one of us? Do you support the Conservative party?"
  The Minister of State looks surprised by that point. I sometimes wonder what a sheltered life he leads. If he ever left his garden and looked at what was going on in the world, he would understand the issues that take place. Let us consider the Government's appointments in the health service. This matter is very important to the integrity of the chief inspector. Each appointment seems to be vetted by Conservative central office. They are card-carrying members of the Conservative party. We have the atavistic element on the Conservative Back Benches. Conservative Back-Bench Members enjoy every party-political appointment. I warn them not that Labour will not do that in office but that Labour will have regard to the constitution. When Conservative Members behave in that way, they undermine the country's constitution.
  Mr. Enright: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the Wakefield health authority district, democratic results gave only two seats to the Conservatives but that every appointment in the health authority area is a Conservative? Is not that a disgrace? Does not it give us cause to fear clause 5?
  Mr. Fatchett: Again, my hon. Friend makes a valid point relating to new clause 2 and the method of appointment. We are trying to preserve the integrity of the chief inspector. My hon. Friend will know that, not too far from Wakefield, the chairman of one of the hospital trusts in Leeds, who is the largest private donator to the Tory party—a man who decided last week that he would use private medicine in the hospital trust that he manages—was yet another of those appointments.
  You probably consider that my remarks are a little wide of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there has been a recent discussion about contextual factors in education. This is a contextual argument, which makes one understand the way in which the Government are prepared to make appointments for political reasons.

  1001
  We know that from time to time, there has been a slight delay in publishing the HMI annual report. We also know that the Government are not reluctant to make it clear to those working on their behalf exactly what sort of political message they want to receive. There are real risks in that. I refer, for example, to a recent HMI report. My hon. Friends will be interested in this matter, because]t is an HMI report on the first city technology college, Kingshurst, in Solihull in the west midlands. It is a creature of the Government, a college in which the Government have invested substantial money, and a college which, in the Government's terms, should be a success.
  The independence of the inspectorate enabled it to make its comments, which is why new clause 2 is so relevant. On the Kingshurst CTC, it stated:
  "On occasions, the lessons are undemanding."
  On curriculum management, the inspectorate report stated:
  "There is no co-ordination of the various aspects and strands that support the curriculum, nor are there effective links with the social education programme or with careers education and guidance."
  In other words, a college had substantial Government money but was producing education standards that were not satisfactory to the inspectorate. I want an inspectorate to have the ability to make comments and criticisms and to be free of direct government interference.
  Why have we decided to relate the responsibility and the duty to the national curriculum? We have linked back to the Education Reform Act 1988 for several reasons. There is broad acceptance of the principle of a national curriculum. It seems sensible for the inspectorate to maintain that national curriculum. There are certain characteristics that any national curriculum should have. It must be national and it must not be the plaything of any political party.
  Mr. Pawsey: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Fatchett: Yes. Over recent months, we have seen good evidence of a Secretary of State who is prepared to overturn independent expert advice in order to satisfy his own prejudices. We saw that in terms of history, and we recently saw it in terms of music, although he did a famous U-turn after his cage was rattled, I suspect. In those circumstances, we have seen party-political interference as represented by the idiosyncratic views of the Secretary of State.
  We want a national curriculum which is above and beyond the suspicion of party politics. Above all, it must be a national curriculum that gives all our children a guaranteed entitlement to higher standards in education. That has been the Government's argument for a national curriculum—it has been broadly accepted—but we need a national curriculum that is secure and delivered by the inspectorate. We need an inspectorate that is powerful and independent and has a chief inspector who can make comments on aspects of Government policy, free from the interference of Education Ministers.
  There are points on which my hon. Friends would like HMI to comment. For instance, they would like HMI to comment on the increase in class sizes in primary education, the scandal that one in four of our children are now taught in classes of 30 and over, and the fact that 10,000 of our children in primary education are taught in classes of 40 and more. We should like the inspector to
  1002
  comment on what those large classes do to the quality of education. A reading of the report of the so-called three wise men last week will show the difficulties in delivering key stage 1 and key stage 2 in very large classes.
  I have no evidence to support it, but I suspect that Ministers looking for private schools for their children will not take as a key selling point class sizes of more than 35 or 40. They will be looking for smaller classes. We should like the inspector to comment on that point. We should also like the inspector to comment on the quality of our school buildings. We are faced with a backlog of £3.5 billion of school repairs. We need comment on that. We need to know what that does in terms of the quality of education and the standards of education for our children. They are legitimate matters. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) seems delighted to have children taught in substandard schools.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said. I said that schools in my constituency are improving substantially under LMS.
  7 pm
  Mr. Fatchett: Clearly the hon. Lady does not understand LMS. Let me explain it to her. We may find that there is a substantial difference.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. This is not a Second Reading debate. Let us get a bit closer to the new clause.
  Mr. Fatchett: I believe that this is close to the new clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Indeed, it is totally within it to talk about the fact that the inspector has a right to comment on the quality of school buildings and its impact on education.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that the hon. Gentleman, for the benefit of the hon. Lady and the House, was going to explain LMS.
  Mr. Fatchett: I appreciate that in that respect I was drifting out of order. I probably felt that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, thought that the task was beyond my intellectual capacity. In the circumstances I was asking a great deal.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Surely the hon. Gentleman would expect an inspector commenting on school buildings to do so in proper context by drawing attention to the fact that deterioration, about which we are all concerned, has been prevalent for 40 or 50 years, and sometimes much longer. This is an historical situation that must be addressed by everybody.
  Mr. Fatchett: That was an interesting intervention. The hon. Gentleman says that the problem has existed for 14 years.
  Mr. Greenway: No, 40 or 50 years.
  Mr. Fatchett: Ah, 40 or 50 years. I was about to remind the hon. Gentleman that the present Government have been in office for the past 13 years and therefore must accept a great deal of responsibility. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a considerable understanding of education issues and will realise that all the independent evidence suggests that the problems have worsened over the last few years. There is the problem of crumbling schools. Literally hundreds of thousands of children are taught in

  1003
  substandard buildings. That must have direct effect on education standards, and it is legitimate that Her Majesty's inspectorate should comment on it.
  I want the independent inspector to be able to comment on other aspects of Government policy. Whether the Government are Labour or Conservative, the inspector ought to have the right to comment, on, for instance, funding and on what is currently going on in the Prime Minister's county of Cambridgeshire, where there have been some very severe reductions. These must be matters for the inspector.
  A report prepared by head teachers in Cambridgeshire and circulated to all county councillors comments on the impact of the £2 million cut in the county council's budget. It refers to the reduction in the number of teachers, to cuts in the provision for children with special educational needs, to larger classes, to cuts in the expenditure on books and equipment and to the national curriculum. The hon. Member for Lancaster will be interested to hear that it says that the national curriculum will not be delivered because of the difficulty—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It will be delivered in our schools.
  Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Lady demonstrates the typically inward-looking Tory approach. She says that the national curriculum will be delivered in her schools. It does not seem to matter to her what will happen on the other side of the road. She is bothered only about what happens in Tory Lancashire. That is a quite legitimate interest, but surely what is going on in other parts of the country should be of interest to all of us. If we are to improve our general education standards we must have funding for the system and an inspectorate able to comment on that matter.
  I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, take a keen interest in educational matters. If you look at other schools in Cambridgeshire, you will find cuts in physical education, technology, language assistance and music. All that is the result of the Government's funding policies, and an independent inspectorate has a right to comment on it.
  An independent inspectorate would have a right to comment also on teacher supply and teacher shortage and on instances of classes being taught subjects in which the teachers are not qualified. The Minister of State does not see this as a legitimate area of concern for the inspectorate, but I do. It is an important matter. We know from an HMI report of last year that more than three quarters of our secondary schools are finding it difficult to deliver the national curriculum because they do not have properly qualified staff in every subject. This is a crucial difficulty.
  We should be concerned not just about the number of teachers but about their quality. We should be concerned about whether a science teacher is available to teach a science lesson, or whether the only person available is someone trained over a very short period. We want an independent inspectorate that is able to comment on all those matters.
  We want, above all else, a system of inspection that does not derive from ideology, that is not a quick fix, that does not represent a commitment to privatisation on the ground that the Department of Education and Science must deliver its element of privatisation. We want an education partnership between parents, schools, local
  1004
  authorities, industry and higher education—a partnership that will enable us to achieve standards comparable to those in the rest of western Europe. The only way we can achieve such standards is to have a chief inspector who is independent and free and who brings integrity to the partnership. That is why we have moved new clause 2.
  Mr. Eggar: Before hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) I was going to say how much we had missed him in Committee. Having heard him speak, I can just about forgive him for not understanding the Committee debate. Indeed, he probably did not read the report of it. But there is something for which I have rather more difficulty in forgiving him. It is quite clear that he has failed to read not only the Bill and the report of the Committee's proceedings but his own party's policy document "Raising the Standard".
  It is up to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to decide whether hon. Members are in order, but I must say that the hon. Gentleman went on at considerable length about matters some of which seemed to stray interestingly from the subject of the amendment. The hon. Gentleman spoke at some length about his desire for a totally independent inspectorate. If he had bothered to read his own party's policy document he would have seen that it is his party which seeks to deprive the inspectorate of its independence; that it is his party which is determined to put the inspectorate under the control of a new quango quaintly called the educational standards commission; that it is his party which would deprive Her Majesty's inspectorate of an essential part of what has given it independence and credibility—its role in advising the Secretary of State of the day.
  I am not the first one to have criticised this side of the Labour party's proposals. The criticism came from the former senior chief inspector, Mr. Eric Bolton, who pointed out that, under Labour's proposals, the inspectorate, instead of advising the Secretary of State directly, would have to rely on the secondment of some senior inspectors. It must have been a considerable disappointment to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to hear Mr. Eric Bolton describe their proposals as "cloud cuckoo land".
  To people who seek to follow the Labour party's proposals in this area I suggest that the new clause demonstrates very deep and very worrying confusion. Her Majesty's inspectorate—presumably still under the control of the education standards commission—would apparently have executive responsibilities. That is what the new clause suggests. The chief inspectors would be responsible for the curriculum in all schools. As well as supposedly advising the Secretary of State on policy and standards, they would take on the responsibilities of the Secretary of State, the local education authorities, the governors, the heads and the senior management of schools. For good measure, it appears that the inspector is meant also to advise in respect of a number of other matters, including resources.
  I was interested that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central said nothing about the importance of separating inspection from advice. I recommend to him a good paragraph in "Raising the Standard":
  "We propose that every LEA should be placed under a legal duty to maintain a local inspectorate of schools, separate from any team of advisers or advisory teachers."
  The hon. Member for Leeds, Central will recognise those words, and he should own up to them. The hon. Member

  1005
  for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara)—whom I welcome to the Chamber—missed that point in Committee, where we enjoyed the confusion that reigned on the Opposition Benches in respect of this issue.
  Although one can understand the Opposition having difficulty with their own Back Benchers, I never expected that they would have difficulty with members of their own Front Bench. It is no use the hon. Member for Leeds, Central looking to either side of him; he is the guilty man. In a document that has conveniently been leaked to me, the hon. Gentleman, without any hesitation, contradicts the words of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) in "Raising the Standard". I refer to a letter written by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central on 28 November 1991 to the secretary of the Society of Chief Inspectors and Advisers:
  "The subsequent evaluation, monitoring and implernentation of new practices could be carried out by both the initial inspector or by a group of advisers. At this point, whilst we define separately the responsibility of inspection and advice we also recognise that in certain circumstances approved by the LEA and the Education Standards Commission inspection and advice could be offered by the same group of people."
  That is directly contrary to what was stated in "Raising the Standard" and to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Blackburn from the Opposition Front Bench in Committee.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Blackburn is not here to set the hon. Member for Leeds, Central right. I would welcome an intervention from the hon. Gentleman to explain whether Labour's policy is that described in "Raising the Standard" or that stated by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central in his letter to the Society of Chief Inspectors and Advisers. I suspect that the Opposition are in the same muddle on this as on every other issue—including taxation, over the past three weeks.
  If the Opposition Front Bench cannot get its act together, how can we believe that they want to introduce effective inspection? New clause 2 is humbug. It clearly exposes the weakness that is at the heart of Labour's inspection policy, and demonstrates that the hon. Member for Blackburn does not speak to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central.
  Mr. Fatchett: It is flattering of the Government to
  spend so much time on Labour's proposals. There is a growing consensus, which the Minister is prepared to
  support, that there will be a Labour Government before too long—when our proposals will be implemented.
  It is characteristic of the Government that although the Minister spoke for one quarter of an hour, he did not once refer to new clause 2 or defend the Government's record. That is typical of the Government's tactics and negative approach.
  The Minister called the new clause "humbug". If he regards the inspectorate's independence and integrity as humbug, he is not fit to serve as Minister of State. We are not satisfied with the Minister's response and will divide the House on new clause 2.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 203, Noes 285.

  Division No. 60]

  [7.15 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Anderson, Donald

  Allen, Graham

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Alton, David

  Armstrong, Hilary

  1006

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Grocott, Bruce

  Ashton, Joe

  Hain, Peter

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Hardy, Peter

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Barron, Kevin

  Haynes, Frank

  Beckett, Margaret

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Beggs, Roy

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Bell, Stuart

  Henderson, Doug

  Bellotti, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

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

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Benton, Joseph

  Home Robertson, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hood, Jimmy

  Bid well, Sydney

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Blair, Tony

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Blunkett, David

  Howells, Geraint

  Boateng, Paul

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Boyes, Roland

  Hoyle, Doug

  Bradley, Keith

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ingram, Adam

  Caborn, Richard

  Janner, Greville

  Callaghan, Jim

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Carr, Michael

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cartwright, John

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Lambie, David

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Lamond, James

  Clelland, David

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Leighton, Ron

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Corbett, Robin

  Lewis, Terry

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Litherland, Robert

  Cousins, Jim

  Livingstone, Ken

  Crowther, Stan

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretlord)

  Cryer, Bob

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cummings, John

  McAllion, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McCartney, Ian

  Cunningham, Dr John

  McCrea, Rev William

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Darling, Alistair

  McFall, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McKelvey, William

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

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dewar, Donald

  McMaster, Gordon

  Dixon, Don

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dobson, Frank

  Madden, Max

  Doran, Frank

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Marek, Dr John

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Eastham, Ken

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Enright, Derek

  Martlew, Eric

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Maxton, John

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Meacher, Michael

  Fatchett, Derek

  Meale, Alan

  Faulds, Andrew

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Fisher, Mark

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Flannery, Martin

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Flynn, Paul

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Foster, Derek

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Foulkes, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Fraser, John

  Murphy, Paul

  Fyfe, Maria

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Galbraith, Sam

  O'Brien, William

  Galloway, George

  O'Hara, Edward

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  George, Bruce

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Parry, Robert

  Gordon, Mildred

  Patchett, Terry

  Gould, Bryan

  Pendry, Tom

  Graham, Thomas

  Prescott, John

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  1007

  Reamona, Martin

  straw, JacK

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Robertson, George

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rogers, Allan

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Rooker, Jeff

  Turner, Dennis

  Rooney, Terence

  Vaz, Keith

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Walley, Joan

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Short, Clare

  Wilson, Brian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

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

  Worthington, Tony

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

  Wray, Jimmy

  Spearing, Nigel

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stephen, Nicol

  Mr. Eric Illisley and

  Stott, Roger

  Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

  Strang, Gavin

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Alexander, Richard

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Couchman, James

  Amess, David

  Cran, James

  Amos, Alan

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Arbuthnot, James

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

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Day, Stephen

  Ashby, David

  Devlin, Tim

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Atkins, Robert

  Dicks, Terry

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dover, Den

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dunn, Bob

  Bellingham, Henry

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Benyon, W.

  Eggar, Tim

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evennett, David

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fallon, Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Farr, Sir John

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Favell, Tony

  Boswell, Tim

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bottomley, Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brazier, Julian

  Forth, Eric

  Bright, Graham

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Franks, Cecil

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

  Freeman, Roger

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  French, Douglas

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Fry, Peter

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Gale, Roger

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Burns, Simon

  Gill, Christopher

  Burt, Alistair

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Butcher, John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Butler, Chris

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Butterfill, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Cash, William

  Gregory, Conal

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Grist, Ian

  Chope, Christopher

  Ground, Patrick

  Churchill, Mr

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hague, William

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Conway, Derek

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

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  1008

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Norris, Steve

  Hayward, Robert

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Page, Richard

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Paice, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hill, James

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Patten, Rt Hon John

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

  Pawsey, James

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Portillo, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Irvine, Michael

  Price, Sir David

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Raffan, Keith

  Jack, Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Jackson, Robert

  Rathbone, Tim

  Janman, Tim

  Redwood, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Key, Robert

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kilfedder, James

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rost, Peter

  Knapman, Roger

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knowles, Michael

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Knox, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Latham, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lightbown, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lord, Michael

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Speller, Tony

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Steen, Anthony

  Maclean, David

  Stern, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stevens, Lewis

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Madel, David

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mans, Keith

  Summerson, Hugo

  Maples, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marlow, Tony

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

  Mates, Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Thorne, Neil

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thurnham, Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Townend, John (Bridlingtonj

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Mills, lain

  Tracey, Richard

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tredinnick, David

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Trotter, Neville

  Moate, Roger

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Walden, George

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Walker, Bill (Tside North)

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Waller, Gary

  Moss, Malcolm

  Ward, John

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Warren, Kenneth

  Needham, Richard

  Watts, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wells, Bowen

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Wheeler, Sir John

  1009

  Whitney, Ray

  Yeo, Tim

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Wilshire, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mr. John M. Taylor and

  Wolfson, Mark

  Mr. Tom Sackville.

  Wood, Timothy

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

  Power of Chief Inspector for England to promote studies for improving efficiency etc.
  'The Chief Inspector for England may, with the consent of the Audit Commission for Local Authorities in England and Wales, promote or undertake studies in connection with his functions designed to improve efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the management of schools in England.'.—[Mr. Straw.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Straw: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New Clause 4—Power of Chief Inspector for Wales to promote studies for improving efficiency etc.—
  'The Chief Inspector for Wales may, with the consent of the Audit Commission for Local Authorities in England and Wales, promote or undertake studies in connection with his functions designed to improve efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the management of schools in Wales.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 26, 27, 48 and 49.
  Mr. Straw: I am sure that the House is pleased that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), is to answer the debate. It may explain why scores of hon. Members are trying to get into the Chamber.
  Mr. George Howarth: It is the other way round.
  Mr. Straw: One of the problems with the Official Report is that heavy irony usually fails to come off, and it certainly did on that occasion.
  New clause 3 proposes to add to the Bill the following:
  "The Chief Inspector for England may, with the consent of the Audit Commission for Local Authorities in England and Wales, promote or undertake studies in connection with his functions designed to improve efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the management of schools in England."
  Clause 4 has the same wording, except that it applies to the chief inspector for Wales.
  7.30 pm
  Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 appear on page 412 of the amendment sheet. We need not worry about No. 26 because it simply deletes the word "and". Amendment No. 27 proposes to insert in clause 16, at the end of the two sets of criteria, the words:
  "assist in assessing the degree of efficiency with which the financial resources of those schools are managed."
  Government amendments Nos. 48 and 49, which can be found on page 413, do the same in respect of clause 17 and the exercise of functions in Scotland.
  In Committee there were substantial debates about how far the effectiveness of schools could fairly be judged simply by the publication of crude raw data on their results. We shall deal with that later.
  1010
  New clause 3 touches on those issues because it proposes that, after consultation with the Audit Commission, the chief inspector ought to be able to "undertake studies in connection with his functions…to improve efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the management of schools".
  It would be difficult for us to object to Government amendments Nos. 26 and 27 since, as I recall, they arose from amendments that we tabled in Committee. Thus, we do not object—it would be churlish to do so.
  Amendment No. 27 is concerned only with assessing the degree of efficiency with which a school's financial resources are managed. The Chief Inspector ought to be able to study wider criteria. Obviously efficiency is important, but he should also consider economy and effectiveness.
  The Audit Commission provides an important model of how Government institutions, which are there to monitor the work of public services, should work. I pay tribute to the Audit Commission's work in the 10 years or so since it was first established. Under the leadership of the first controller, John Banham, and more recently under the leadership of the present controller, Howard Davies, the Audit Commission has achieved the enviable position of being respected by both central and local government, by the health authorities and by the public, who view it as a body which will rigorously assess, scrutinise and seek to monitor the effectiveness of public services on their behalf. Interestingly, the model offered by the Audit Commission in respect of auditing the accounts of local authorities and health authorities is wholly at variance with the scheme of the Bill.
  My hon. Friends will recall that I asked the Secretary of State, not once but three times, if he could name one area of public services where such a crackpot scheme had been introduced as the privatisation of the schools inspectorate and allowing the provider to pick and pay the regulator.
  I am glad to see the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) in the Chamber. He is the only Conservative member of the Standing Committee—apart from the hired hands on the second row—in his place. Indeed, he is the only Conservative member of the Standing Committee who has taken any part in the debate. Although he is not a hired hand—in the sense that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is—he holds the esteemed position of chairman of the parliamentary Conservative party education committee, so it is his duty to be here. The fact that the other Conservative members of the Committee listened to the debates hour after hour but cannot bring themselves to come into the Chamber today, let alone speak in support of the measure, shows how bankrupt their argument is.
  Mr. Pawsey: It is not duty which brings me here, but pleasure—the pleasure of hearing my right hon. and hon. Friends demolishing the Opposition's arguments.
  Mr. Straw: I suspect that that pleasure will be long delayed.
  Mr. Pawsey: Yes, I suspect that it will be.
  Mr. Straw: The curiosity of the Bill is that it has no parallel in public administration here or elsewhere in the world. I do not think that anyone in the western industrialised world or the developing world has ever dreamed up such a madcap scheme as allowing schools to

  1011
  pick and pay inspectors. At least the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth has the good grace to smile—perhaps with some acquiescence—at what I am saying.
  The interesting thing about the Audit Commission is that its method of operation is different from that proposed in the Bill. It is fascinating that the Audit Commission was established by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) when he was last Secretary of State for the Environment.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon): First.
  Mr. Straw: Yes, it was when he was first Secretary of State for the Environment. Now he is their last Secretary of State for the Environment.
  The Audit Commission was established in 1981–82 because of worries about inconsistent standards in the inspection of local authorities' accounts. One of the main concerns of the Government and the public at that stage was that local authorities were allowed to pick and pay their auditors. It was the main objection to that system of inspection. The right hon. Member for Henley said in the House at the time that it was crucially important that not only should the auditing of local authorities be independent, but that it should be seen to be independent. Rather than allow local authorities to decide, the Audit Commission was given powers, under its enabling legislation, to determine who should audit their accounts. Some local authorities objected to the fact that their right to decide was to be taken away.
  I happen to think that that was the correct decision. It was also entirely consistent with the Conservative Administration's approach of the past 13 years to the auditing and regulation of public services. However, the Secretary of State for Education and Science had a brainstorm in the summer after reading the draft pamphlet produced by the Wandsworth chief inspector and immediately introduced the Bill. I believe that he did so in the hope, if not the expectation, of an October election so that the Bill would never see the light of legislative day. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has had to rue the fact that we prevented the Government from calling an election in November. Now he must deliver the Bill.
  Mr. Fallon: We could have the election now.
  Mr. Straw: We would be delighted, but the last person who would want an election now must be the hon. Gentleman as one of the certainties of that election is that he will not represent Darlington after it, especially in view of the way in which he has so gratuitously offended Catholics in his constituency.
  Mr. Fallon: I have not offended anyone in my constituency. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recall that, in the past, the Labour party underestimated the Darlington electorate.
  Mr. Straw: Once bitten, twice shy. I am sorry to say that it is a racing certainty—
  Mr. Fatchett: Do not apologise for it.
  Mr. Straw: Again, that remark is full of deep irony. It is a racing certainty that the Under-Secretary of State will not represent Darlington after the election.
  1012
  Some of us believe that the hon. Gentleman's approach to politics in the past year has been dictated by a desire to secure a safe seat somewhere else rather than by concern for his constituents in Darlington. Only someone who had already decided to abandon his constituents would so offend a large number of them, the Catholic population. The hon. Gentleman has thrown his seat away.
  Mr. Fatchett: What has he done?
  Mr. Straw: I do not believe that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a stickler for order, would wish me to pursue that. I must relate my remarks to the Audit Commission.
  Mr. Fatchett: It might be a serious matter.
  Mr. Straw: It might indeed, but it has nothing to do with the Audit Commission. I know that the Under-Secretary of State has offended a lot of people, but I am not aware, as yet, that he has offended the Audit Commission. In any case the commission has a broader back and no votes—unlike the Catholic population of Darlington.
  As a result of the local government legislation of 1982, the Audit Commission and not the local authorities appoints the auditors to local authorities. The Audit Commission also appoints the auditors for the health authorities and even the opt-out hospital trusts. Earlier, the Secretary of State wriggled and wriggled on that parallel, but it is well known that those trusts sought to argue that, as they were semi-privatised. they should have the right to appoint their own auditors, as though they were the shareholders of their trusts' property. One can appreciate the argument, given how detached they are from the health service. However, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was Secretary of State for Health, he insisted that the Audit Commission should appoint the auditors to the opt-out trusts.
  It is true that for the audit of local authorities the Audit Commission uses not only the district auditor service but a number of private audit companies. Conservative Members could have used that fact as an argument for saying that, with the system of audit of local authority accounts, the Audit Commission offers a parallel to the proposed privatised inspection regime.
  The important difference is that the Audit Commission uses only seven or eight firms of auditors. Those firms are carefully controlled and regulated by the commission, not by the local authorities. The crucial difference between the scheme proposed in the Bill and that operated by the Audit Commission is that it is the Audit Commission which pays the fees of those firms. The Audit Commission chooses those firms and, on behalf of the public, ensures that they do the job.
  Mr. George Howarth: He who pays the piper.
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend with his usual sagacity—I could have used other words—has put his finger on it; he who pays the piper calls the tune.
  I believe that the Bill will be defeated by the fact that the Government and the Opposition will run out of time—
  Mr. Fatchett: And by the electorate.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Straw: That goes without saying, including the electorate of Darlington.

  1013
  Part of the Opposition's function is to try to improve legislation even if we do not agree with the principles behind it. In the unlikely event of the scheme coming into effect, I hope that the senior chief inspector would be able to draw upon the experience of the Audit Commission by seeking to judge in a wider sense the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of the management of schools.
  The Audit Commission began the serious scrutiny of the work of the local inspectorate with its excellent report, "Assuring Quality of Education", published in 1989. The Secretary of State flies so many canards that it is difficult to know where to start in terms of correcting him. However, one of the many inaccuracies that he has uttered—he usually does so when he has nothing better to say—is to suggest that our proposals for an education standards commission were hastily put together when we heard about the citizens charter.
  I am glad to note that the Secretary of State has now taken his place on the Front Bench. I accept that it is a well-known political truth that if one side of the House finds out what the other side is doing it sometimes tries to take pre-emptive action. However, our discussions about the education standards commission predate any hint or suggestion of a parents charter or a citizens charter.
  We proposed an education standards council, as it was first called, as policy to the Labour party conference in 1988. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that that predates the parents charter. We published a document on our proposals in May 1989, which predated the Audit Commission proposal. However, when that proposal was published, we studied it in detail.
  The Audit Commission has an obvious interest in the running of the local inspectorate. Although the Audit Commission report spelled out the steps that local authorities needed to take, it did not, at any stage, suggest that the inspectorate should be privatised.
  Recently the Audit Commission published a working paper entitled "Two Bs or not…", which is an important study of the performance of schools and colleges at A-level. We shall consider some of the main conclusions of that report when we discuss school effectiveness. However, that report revealed that it is silly to seek to judge institutions simply on the absolute level of results that they achieve. They are an important starting point for judging how schools and colleges are proceeding, but they cannot be the finishing point, any more than, as any accountant knows, the only basis for judging the financial soundness of a company is the total amount of its sales. That is a received wisdom among Conservative Members, but we have moved on from that method of judging the effectiveness of companies to much more sophisticated techniques that tell us how much value added they produce and how much work they do.
  Similarly, the Audit Commission, a number of whose officers work in education, decided to look not just at crude results but at the attainment of young people in sixth forms, sixth form further education and tertiary colleges, and private schools. It compared their GCSE attainment when they entered those institutions with their A-level attainment when they left and sought to judge from those results the effectiveness of those institutions.
  I am glad to welcome to the Government Front Bench the Minister of State, Welsh Office, the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), who is the longest serving Minister in the same post in this Parliament and whose
  1014
  record can scarcely be exceeded by anyone this century. I hope that I shall not ruin his chances at the general election by saying that I have always had considerable affection for him. I am glad to see that he is here, because the debate also concerns Wales.
  The results that the Audit Commission found were interesting. They showed that the GCSE results of young people in the middle of the range were better in independent schools but that independent schools did worse in terms of those with a lower attainment and, at the top, had average results. Those results were important in focusing on what makes institutions effective and in debunking some of the myths about the performance of such institutions.
  I hope that, in explaining the background to the proposal and the Audit Commission's work, I may have persuaded the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) that he could easily accept the amendment. It would help to strengthen the work of the chief inspector of schools, as the Government wish.
  New clause 3 says that the chief inspector should, with the consent of the Audit Commission, be able to undertake studies. It is important tht he should be able to carry out research into what is going on because the difficulty of the Government's scheme is that the main source of data on what happens in schools would come from inspections carried out by privatised inspectors.
  May I put on record the fact that there is now no Conservative Member left in the Chamber apart from Ministers? Although this is supposed to be a flagship policy, no Conservative Member is here to support the Government—[Interruption.] A Conservative Member is now scampering on to the Benches. We look forward to her contribution to the debate. The Bill is a Government measure and it is for Conservative Members to argue in favour of it. It is noteworthy that Conservative Members have not volunteered press statements or speeches in support of the privatisation of the inspectorate. Their silence is deafening.
  When the Prime Minister was trying to relaunch the beached citizens charter the other day, as to how central the privatised, pick-and-pay, pick-your-own inspectorate would be within the parents charter or the citizens charter, there was virtual silence. The Prime Minister's apparent scepticism and distaste for the measure is plainly shared by most Conservative Members, who have shown their unhappiness about the measure by leaving the Chamber.
  Mr. McFall: To add substance to my hon. Friend's remarks, early-day motion 574, signed by six Conservative Members, deplores the action of Labour Members and asks them to clarify their position during the Report stage of the Bill. Where are those six Conservative Members? The fact that they are not here illustrates the vacuousness of their position and the fact that they are not interested in the Bill. Those interested in the rights of parents are the Labour Members who are present to debate the issue.
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. One or two Conservative Members are interested in those issues. The Secretary of State dealt neither fairly nor with the respect that they deserved with the points raised by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), who made an important contribution to the debate on the rights of local authorities. One can never accuse those Conservative

  1015
  Members of being in the pocket of the left-wing educational establishment. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Darlington, may do so, but I certainly would not.
  Those Conservative Members are concerned with ensuring that consistent standards of education are maintained in their constituencies. They know that removing a local authority's power to inspect schools in the period between the privatised inspections that will take place evry four years and refusing to provide the local authority with the money to pay for inspectors will mean that schools that fall below standard between inspections—arithmetically, schools will probably not fall below standard exactly at the point of inspection, but problems will arise at other times—will go unmonitored and standards will fall further under the so-called parents charter, which represents declining standards and mediocrity.
  The Government claim that the main data that will flow to Her Majesty's chief inspector, from which he will judge the state of the education service, will be derived from individual inspections.
  Mr. Fallon: The hon. Gentleman is filibustering.
  Mr. Straw: I am not filibustering. This debate is raising important issues. In the previous debate, many Conservative Members were as unhappy with the Government's proposals as we were. They were certainly unconvinced by the Secretary of State.
  The Government claim that the main source of data will be individual reports from the privatised inspectorates. We believe that those individual reports are bound to be of an inconsistent standard, for the reasons that the Minister of State admitted in the Standing Committee. Governing bodies will be able to pick and choose inspectors who follow their approach.
  The Minister of State also made the damaging admission that, if a school was following an integrationist approach, for example on special needs, it could appoint inspectors without expertise in that subject. Therefore, there will be no consistency in the standard of information and, even if there were, it would still need to be backed up by nationwide studies such as those undertaken until now by the Audit Commission in its relatively narrow field and which HMI and organisations such as the Assessment of Performance Unit used to undertake until it was abolished.
  Mr. George Howarth: I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend and it is clear from his detailed analysis of all the implications of the process that it will be disastrous. In Committee the Government heard all the criticisms being made. In my hon. Friend's opinion, why are the Government carrying on with the Bill? Are there sinister reasons for it?
  Mr. Straw: I think that the Government have got themselves stuck. I believe that Conservative Members wish for an early election if only to see the end of the Bill.
  The Secretary of State has a history of introducing measures and then changing his mind. He did so with the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill that he brought before the House in November 1990. He commended it in fulsome terms and said that he agreed not only with the
  1016
  Bill but with his hon. Friend's comments. Then, hey hoe, about two months later the matter is turned on its head and the Secretary of State says that he does not agree with a word of it and introduces a different measure. That is on the record and the Secretary of State had clearly not thought his position through and so had to change his mind. He could easily do the same on this Bill; if he did, we would applaud his action.
  8 pm
  Mr. Martin Flannery: We spent about 300 hours discussing the so-called Education Reform Bill. I alluded to it as a "deform" Bill. The Government thought through that Bill with such urgency that it was almost doubled in size by Government amendments. Endless Government amendments had to be introduced before the Bill could be made to work. The present Education (Schools) Bill is also being rushed through at such a rate that people are not conversant with what is happening. However, the Government will not accept one Opposition amendment out of hundreds, but every now and then Ministers say that there is not much difference between the views of the parties.
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend brings experience and wisdom on educational matters to the House. It is no good the Secretary of State going on about the need to keep the pace of change going. Change is in the nature of life, but our charge against the Government is that they have failed to think through their changes and have then mismanaged them.
  It is known—perhaps the Secretary of State will wake up to this fact at some stage—that our 1987 manifesto contained a proposal for a national core curriculum which we would have introduced had we won the election. We did not oppose the principle of a national curriculum in 1987 and we are not undergoing a latter-day conversion, but we certainly depart from the way in which the Government have put the national curriculum into practice. They have failed to think the matter through, and consequently one change after another has been imposed on schools. Some 165 separate documents have been sent to schools—more than one for each week of every term since the Education Reform Act 1988 has been in force.
  Before I was interrupted, I was saying that we believe that—[Interruption.] Sometimes one feels bound, out of deference to colleagues to allow interventions from hon. Friends. We think that there is a strong case for studies, as well as receiving information and making judgments on the basis of the local inspection reports.
  Mr. Fallon: The House will have listened to the most extraordinarily discursive speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) which started with mention of Darlington. I must correct what he said—I have provided £243,000 for Church schools in Darlington but the Labour-controlled Durham county council is threatening to refuse to spend any of that money on Catholic schools there, and I shall hold the council to account.
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: The Minister has just given the House—I shall not say "deliberately"—some misinformation. Durham county council, in consultation with the Department of Education and Science, proposed extra accommodation for Catholic

  1017
  schools. The Minister turned it down—the people of Darlington know that and the Catholics will remember it at the general election.
  Mr. Fallon: I have made it clear that I provided £250,000 for Church schools in Darlington—[Interruption.]—personally. Durham county council is threatening to withhold that money from schools in Darlington—I think that the people of Darlington will clearly understand that.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn attempted to explain the Government amendments in this group, but I shall do that myself later. New clauses 3 and 4 are wholly inappropriate. They would not add anything to the powers of the chief inspectors. Instead, the amendments would reduce their ability to act as they see fit. The clauses may appear to give a function to the chief inspector. They state that he may, in connection with his functions, arrange studies into how schools might be more efficiently, economically and effectively managed. However, nothing in the Bill as drafted would prevent him from doing this, if he so chose.
  The clauses add nothing to the powers of the HMCIs for England and Wales in this respect. The clauses would reduce the ability of the HMCIs to follow their own independent judgment in carrying out such studies. They would be required to obtain the consent of the Audit Commission before they could act as laid down. That is unacceptable, and quite out of keeping with the increased independence we are seeking for the HMCI.
  I expect that in practice HMCI and the Audit Commission will carry on and develop the relationship which HMI and the commission have already established. The House may not fully appreciate that there is already considerable co-operation between the Audit Commission and HMI. A number of HMIs have been seconded to the commission's staff in recent years, and such individuals have been involved in several published reports on educational matters, including that on local authority inspection and, more recently, on management in primary schools. At present, the commission and HMI are carrying out joint exercises looking at 16-to-19 education and special educational needs. They are co-operating on work in performance indicators which will be relevant for the implementation of both this and the Local Government Bill.
  I fully accept that the Audit Commission's experience and expertise are relevant to those parts of HMI's functions which have to do with efficiency and value for money in schools. It is equally true that HMI's experience and expertise are relevant to that part of the Audit Commission's work which has to do with education. I am sure that co-operation will increase under the new legislation. I am sure, for example, that HMCI will want to talk to the Commission about relevant aspects of his guidance to registered inspectors. But I am sure we can rely on HMCI and the Audit Commission to achieve that, and do not need to give their relationship the backing of statute.
  I do not see any difficulty in the two bodies continuing to work alongside each other as now, both with their separate remits. The Local Government Bill now before Parliament gives the Audit Commission new powers to require the publication of performance information covering local authority services including education. The Education (Schools) Bill gives a formal basis for HMI's
  1018
  increasing interest in the efficiency with which resources are used in schools. It will be essential, as now, for the two bodies to co-operate and consult as they carry out their duties. But I see no reason for that to be set out in law—and certainly not for HMCI to be made subordinate to the Audit Commission in that respect.
  That must have been the original view of the hon. Member for Blackburn. Paragraph 64 of his document "Raising the Standard" states:
  "There should be consultation between the ESC and the Audit Commission about the transfer of appropriate staff and about where the dividing line between the work of the two Commissions should be precisely drawn."
  That is a far cry from new clause 3, which would impose in statute the subordination of the HMI to the Audit Commission.
  It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is making this up as he goes along. It seems that he drafted the new clause on the back of an envelope during a delayed railway journey between Blackburn and London when he had forgotten what was set out in "Raising the Standard". It is not often that we praise "Raising the Standard", but we think that he had it right before he scribbled new clause 3.
  There will, of course, be consultation between the two bodies. They will work out between them precisely where the dividing line should lie.
  To show that we are not opposed to improvements to the Bill in the cause of encouraging efficiency, I commend Government amendments Nos. 26 and 27 and the corresponding amendments, Nos. 48 and 49, for Scotland. These amendments meet a point that was urged upon us by Opposition Members in Committee, which we undertook to consider further. It appears that the powers in clauses 16 and 17 do not extend to the collection and publication of information about efficiency in schools. That is a gap. When indicators are available through the work of HMI and the commission, we want to be able to include them in relevant publications. Inspection reports will cover quality, standards and efficiency, and so, as far as possible, should other publications.
  I hope that the Opposition, on reconsidering the merits of their new clauses, will be able to give their full support to the Government amendments, which are designed to bridge a gap in the Bill to which they, the Opposition, drew our attention in Committee. Accordingly, I hope that new clauses 3 and 4 will be withdrawn and that Government amendments Nos. 26, 27, 48 and 49 will be accepted.
  Mr. Eddie O'Hara: I listened with interest to the Minister's response. It astounds me that the Government still do not understand, after the decade of disturbance that they have caused within the education system, that they are responsible for a veritable blizzard of "innovation". Whenever I speak on this subject I find myself searching for new and more adequate ways of describing what the Government have done. I have used various words, such as storm, wave and carousel, and tonight I have opted for blizzard. I feel for our hard-pressed teachers, who have the unenviable task of delivering education to our children in the face of the blizzard of "innovation".
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has said, the pace of change is astounding. There is at least an administrative circular each day. One can imagine the amount of time that head teachers and teachers must spend reading the literature that is produced by the Government. It is no wonder that they have not

  1019
  caught up with one change before they are overtaken by the next. It is not surprising that there is a crisis of morale in the teaching profession. The Government have failed to recognise the crisis but it has been researched. Warwick university undertook a study and concentrated especially on those who teach pupils of seven years and over.
  8.15 pm
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret that the hon. Member is straying and I must draw his attention to the new clauses that we are considering. I invite him to address his remarks more specifically to them.
  Mr. O'Hara: I shall do so, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am setting out the background to the new clauses. I have drawn attention to the crisis of morale among those who deliver education to our children. It has arisen because of the constant disturbance that they suffer in undertaking their task.
  In deference to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall refer more briefly to the difficulties that face local authorities in managing their budgets as a result of the changes that the Government are introducing and the cuts that are being inflicted on local authority spending. The problems that are experienced in the local management of schools are shared by the schools themselves and local authorities. They are trying to share a cake that is too small to meet demand.
  Surely the most pressing need is a period of consultation within the education system. We need a period of review and overview. We need to stand back and assess whether we are moving forward or merely spinning round and getting nowhere fast. We must determine whether we are moving fast but ineffectively.
  For example, how much time are teachers able to devote to teaching? I have referred to the time that they must spend reading Government circulars. They have to spend time preparing and testing. Studies have shown that teachers of seven-year-olds are spending only about 42 per cent. of their time teaching. The rest of their time is devoted to other duties.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret having again to call the hon. Member's attention to the new clauses that are before us. The hon. Member has excellent parliamentary manners and I have never known him attempt to abuse the House in any way. I must ask him to convince me that he is speaking to the clauses, which relate to the powers of the chief inspectors for England and for Wales. He must address himself to the substantive matters that are set out in the new clauses.
  Mr. O'Hara: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I assure you that all my remarks are relevant to the new clauses. New clause 3 states:
  "The Chief Inspector for England may, with the consent of the Audit Commission for Local Authorities in England and Wales, promote or undertake studies in connection with his functions designed to improve efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the management of schools in England."
  If an overview, initiated by HMI in consultation with the Audit Commission, of the way in which teachers are spending their time in schools is not an examination of "efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the management of schools in England",
  1020
  I do not know what is. What more expensive resource is there in this context than staffing costs? I am sure that we all want as much as possible of the money that is allocated to be spent on the teaching of children. There has been some limited research, but there is a crying need for the sort of study to which HMI has drawn attention repeatedly during its distinguished history. It is surely the best-equipped organisation to carry out that study.
  We are told repeatedly when we complain about the allocation of resources to local authorities that they have surplus places in their schools and that if they were more efficient in eliminating them they would be able to allocate their resources more efficiently. Surplus places are not just a matter of space, not just a matter of square metres. There can be many reasons why surplus places cannot be taken out. For example, they may be on the wrong side of the main road. In the case of Church schools, of which I have a large number in my constituency, surplus places do not match conveniently the parish boundaries.
  There is an educational as well as a financial dimension to the problem of surplus places. I hope that I have convinced you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that new clause 3 would enable the chief inspector for England, in consultation with the Audit Commission for Local Authorities in England and Wales, to carry out such a study. Therefore, the two new clauses should be accepted so that tasks that Her Majesty's inspectorate are well suited to carry out can be carried out in the interests of good and efficiently provided education.
  Mr. Paul Boateng: The two new clauses are particularly to be welcomed, not least at a time when entirely misconceived proposals are being considered by the Conservative-controlled Brent borough council. They seem to be designed to close down schools in the southern part of the borough. I congratulate my Front-Bench colleagues on introducing the two new clauses. Some of my constituents have written to me only recently. One of those letters was written by Mr. Peter Herson of 73 Fortune Gate road, Harlesden, NW10. He writes with good cause about his concern, and that of many other parents who are in a similar position, about the public consultation document "Primary School Provision in Brent" that was recently published by the council.
  If new clause 3 were to be given a Second Reading by the House, it would be possible to have an independent audit. Newfield school, like similar schools, is delivering the goods in terms of the quality of the education that it provides to pupils in my constituency. It has won praise from the inspectorate. It is geared to achieving the highest standards while at the same time ensuring efficient and cost-effective use of resources. That school is now threatened with closure.
  I am opposed to the closure of Newfield school. The overwhelming majority of parents in my constituency who send their children to that threatened school are also opposed to its closure. They would welcome an independent report that would show just how well resources are being used in that school and just how well the needs and concerns of parents about the educational welfare of their children are being met.
  It does not end there. The consultation document is misconceived. The Conservative chairman of the education committee, Mrs. Elisabeth Ormiston, has acted not like a bull in a china shop—
  Mr. Pawsey: A heifer?
  Mr. Paul Boateng: No. I do not intend to go down the road that the hon. Gentleman urges me to go down. However, that lady acts like someone who has not considered the consequences of her actions. She has shown a singular lack of sensitivity in her approach to her job and in her willingness to close schools, regardless of the quality of education that they provide.
  My borough is particularly proud of its standards of primary school education. They are being achieved despite the lamentable lack of financial support, at times, from the Department of Education and Science and the Department of the Environment, and despite the lamentable politicisation of education, spearheaded by the Conservative group on Brent borough council which is determined to take its lead from Conservative Members of Parliament and to engage in an absolutely deplorable form of social experimentation when it comes to the education of my constituents' children. We are sick and tired of—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not seek to breach our procedures or our Standing Orders. What he says is very interesting, but as far as I can see it does not relate to the new clauses that we are considering. May I ask him to relate what he has to say to the two new clauses, which I know he is interested in? Furthermore, we want to hear his views on them.
  Mr. Boateng: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was seeking to address my remarks precisely to new clause 3. Its value to the pupils and parents of Newfield school and Chamberlayne Wood school—also threatened with closure, which will be overwhelmingly opposed by the majority of parents in the borough who, particularly in the southern part, seek to exercise the widest possible choice and to make wise choices for their children—is that it would then be possible for an independent review to be carried out of the education provided for those children.
  Mr. Fallon: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument on new clause 3. Is it his position, and that of the Opposition generally, that the chief inspector for England, as proposed in the Bill—or his equivalent, as proposed by the Opposition—should have the power to intervene over the provision of school places and the proposal to remove surplus places? Does he want the chief inspector to have the power to challenge the decision of local education authorities?
  Mr. Boateng: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) has made it clear that that is not the case.
  Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Lady has not spoken yet on this new clause.
  Mr. Boateng: If my hon. Friend has not yet made that clear, I am sure that she will do so shortly, which will allay any suspicion that may linger in the mind of the hon. Gentleman as to our intentions.
  Ms. Armstrong: I am amazed by the Minister's intervention. The Government's proposals for opting out have distorted the surplus places issue. What has happened in Brent is partly due to the idiotic policies that the Government have pursued. There are far more surplus places now than at any other time. That has come about
  1022
  specifically because of the way that the Government have frozen proper reorganisation. We want a reorganisation that will provide parents with proper rights of consultation and independent rights of consultation. Again he cannot read. We produced another document on this last year and I invite him to read that. It deals specifically with the reorganisation of schools.
  Mr. Pawsey: What is it called?
  Ms. Armstrong: Off the top of my head, I cannot remember. [Interruption.] I do not understand why that should be an issue for derision. I cannot remember the name of every document. The document deals with reorganising schools properly in a way that would give an independent right of appeal to anyone with an interest in the school, be that person a parent, a governor or any member of the community.
  Mr. Boateng rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will now relate his remarks to the new clause.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Boateng: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for her helpful intervention. The Minister mentioned surplus places and I am only too happy to respond. I am concerned particularly about Newfield school. The position there emphasises the point made by my hon. Friend about the importance of consultation.
  Newfield school's actual capacity is 201. In the consultation document issued recently in my borough its capacity is determined, wrongly, by the architects as 243. At present the school has 173 pupils in six classes, which leaves just one surplus place per class. Should a new family move into the area, with three children all of primary age, without the spare capacity Newfield school could not offer them all places. That is why we welcome the new clause.
  Mr. Fallon rose—
  Mr. Boateng: The Minister will have his opportunity in a moment.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to eat his dinner while sitting on the Front Bench?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I do not see any hon. Members having dinner or any form of refreshment. If they were, perhaps they would offer some to me.
  Mr. Boateng: Whatever the Minister is chewing, it is as indigestible as the Bill that we are considering.
  Mr. Fallon rose—
  Mr. Boateng: In due course, please.
  What I and my constituents are concerned about is that the chief inspector for England may promote studies to improve efficiency. With the consent of the Audit Commission he should be able to
  "undertake studies in connection with his functions designed to improve efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the management of schools in England."
  Such studies would be welcomed warmly by the governors and teachers of Newfield junior, middle, and infant school which is threatened with closure. They would also be

  1023
  welcomed by the parents, governors and staff of Chamberlayne Wood school, another school threatened with closure.
  It does not end there. In being able to exercise those functions, the chief inspector could also draw the attention not only of my local authority but of local authorities throughout the country to the good work being done in William Gladstone school, yet another school in the London borough of Brent, under Conservative control, which is threatened with closure. Overwhelmingly among staff, parents and in the constituency there is opposition to closure.
  Before sitting down, I invite the Minister to meet me and other hon. Members who are concerned about the reorganisation of primary education in my borough and about the closure of William Gladstone school. Excellent work is being done in primary schools in the borough of Brent and in William Gladstone school. That work would contribute to the study which the chief inspector would have power to make under new clause 3. We should like the opportunity to make representations to the Minister. Will he meet us to discuss the problems of primary schools in Brent and of William Gladstone school, which is also facing closure? That is a challenge to the Minister; I look forward to him taking it up.
  Mr. Flannery: New clause 3 is the same as new clause 4 except that it applies to England while new clause 4 applies to Wales. We have all met chief inspectors at various times. At that level the inspectorate is very much an independent body. Anything that would destroy its independence is alien to education. The inspectorate can say whatever it wishes, in an honourable way, to try to bring about changes not only in schools but in the organisational groupings which deal with schools.
  Independent reports began only a few years ago. To his credit, it was a Conservative Minister who introduced them. Those reports can be uncomfortable for a Government and for an Opposition. We want enough money for the inspectorate to promote or undertake studies. What does that mean? It means that the inspectorate could initiate courses to try to do something about what is happening in schools. When we want the chief inspector to undertake work
  "in connection with his functions designed to improve efficiency, economy and effectiveness",
  we mean that schools should be used at weekends to provide in-service training.
  In our city we had a teachers' centre. Not as an architect, but as a teacher, I was one of the people who planned it. It was one of the first. Some of us travelled the country to try to find out about it. It was in Melbourne house. In fact, it was outside there that the ripper was caught. We were very worried because many women teachers went along a rather dark road to the teachers' centre.
  That teachers' centre has gone. it is now part of the girls' high school, a private school. The school has enough money to keep it going, but we had not. As a result we have lost the in-service training and teachers' meetings which took place there. I hope that, as a result of inspections and discussions, an inspector, independent of the Government, would be disturbed about that. I hope that, if that were brought to the notice of a chief inspector, he would want
  1024
  to initiate studies into what was happening to teachers' centres throughout Britain. Such studies would induce efficiency and promote economy. It is necessary for us to have teachers who are surplus to immediate requirements in schools to free other teachers to go to the teachers' centres and similar places to study education further.
  The Scottish system of education is wholly different from ours. It is a very fine system and I hope that one day the two systems will come much closer together. The National Union of Teachers in England and the Educational Institute of Scotland are close to each other already.
  Mr. O'Hara: Does my hon. Friend agree that another study might concern a subject of topical interest—the seven-plus test? HMI would be well placed to carry out a long-term study of the experience of nursery education and its effect on children's progress to assessment at age seven and further up the age range.
  Mr. Flannery: I am sure that such a study would be one of many that would improve "efficiency, economy and effectiveness" in the education system. During my lifetime in teaching, the task of the inspectorate has been to bring to the notice of Governments in a civilised way how they can promote efficiency in the schools by whatever methods, and how they can initiate methods, including the teacher at the chalk face, to make our system better. That is why we tabled new clauses 3 and 4.
  The new clauses would give the chief inspector himself or herself—I hope that one day it will be herself—the power to initiate research on aspects of education which he or she deems to be worthy of such attention. Although the aim is to promote economy, such research requires money. Education cannot be done on the cheap, and nobody knows that better than HM inspectorate.
  I have met HM inspectors on many occasions and have found them a most civilised group. Teachers have found that the breadth of their approach to education has often contrasted with that of the local inspectors who, no matter how willing and able, do not have the knowledge of HM inspectors who travel round the whole country. Inspection must be intended primarily to assist the development of education institutions, whether primary and nursery schools or in the secondary sector, and to dispense information on policy decisions for effectiveness in the management of schools.
  The Secretary of State is not an educationist and he needs advice. That advice will come from an independent inspectorate. It may sometimes be unpalatable to the Secretary of State, whoever he is. From my experience on the Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts, I know that Secretaries of State—not just the present Secretary of State—often lack knowledge of education, no matter how high-powered they may be. The chief inspector, his inspectorate and the teachers will not lack knowledge of education. We want the inspectorate to convey to the Secretary of State and to others involved in education the fact that they have noticed aspects in schools that need attention. There should be gatherings of teachers or those who run the education system to consider what has gone wrong.
  The inspectorate put out a document entitled, "The Implementation of the Curriculum Requirements of ERA". It stated that in primary schools, there were

  1025
  "too few micro-computers, inadequate or outdated library collections, a lack of good quality books and shortages of some items of basic equipment for mathematics and physical science."
  One would expect Government action to flow from such a report when such criticism had been made by the inspectorate. We want the chief inspector to have the right to make such reports. The document said of secondary schools:
  "about three-quarters of the schools visited expected problems in staffing Key Stage 4. Shortages were predicted in a significant number of schools for every national curriculum subject except PE".
  Such reports go to the Government and we want the chief inspector to be able to promote efficiency and economy, as we have said in the new clauses.
  8.45 pm
  The annual report of HM senior chief inspector of schools for 1989–90 stated:
  "In many primary schools, the lack of non-teaching time for class teachers remains a serious obstacle to effective planning and preparation of work."
  The report pointed out that inefficiency flows from certain matters in school. The inspectors have also said that schools are crumbling and that buckets wait for the water. I should expect the inspectorate to convey such information to a Secretary of State—especially this one. Until recently, he had not even visited a school in his constituency, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has often said.
  The chief inspector must have a broader brief than that determined by the political interests of the Secretary of State. He must be able to stand up to a Secretary of State and to initiate developments without being dominated by him. Valuable comments such as those I quoted will not be forthcoming unless the inspectorate is independent and can initiate studies, as we have suggested in new clauses 3 and 4. We have made serious points, yet the Government take no notice of what is happening in schools. We are trying to get them to take notice.
  Ms. Armstrong: I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). Manoeuvrings are going on among the usual channels and my hon. Friend is continually called out to take part. I suspect that that is why the Secretary of State is also absent.
  We are debating a critical aspect of the Bill, and I listened with care to the Minister. I was far from convinced that he had understood what we are trying to achieve through new clauses 3 and 4. I was also far from convinced that he had taken on board the issue of school effectiveness which we pushed in Committee.
  The Minister continues to assert that the issue of how the national inspectorate will undertake its duties is being stirred up by the Opposition. He believes that quality is not an issue. We are very concerned that the method of inspection, other than through HMI, will be substantially flawed. We are also concerned by the severity with which HMI is to be cut down. The number of inspectors will be considerably fewer than at present.
  We want a national inspection of schools, with an ability to enforce recommendations. We want to know whether what an inspection team says about a school in Northumberland, for example, being effective cart be compared with a report of a similar inspection in, say, Norfolk or West Sussex. We hope that this aim is al the
  1026
  heart of the Bill and that the Government want to introduce a system that will allow it, but we feel that the Bill will not achieve that. In the new clause, we seek to insert conditions which would enable the chief inspector to undertake comparable studies in different parts of the country; this would lead to the national protection of standards that we feel is absolutely critical.
  When I worked in a polytechnic, HMI inspected the course on a regular basis and worked with it, and I was able to talk to individual inspectors over many years. They felt that a critical part of their expertise was their knowledge of what went on in different parts of the country. Although individuals inspected individual institutions, the inspectorate as a whole covered the country. Inspectors discussed their findings and no report was written on any institution without the involvement of other members of the inspectorate. One of our concerns is that, under the proposed system of inspection, that would not happen.
  There is another aspect. Under the proposed system, school inspections will take place in a well-heralded way. They will take place when the school asks for them to take place, and they will be well organised beforehand. While most of HMI's inspections are of that regular nature, one of its important methods of operation has come from its power to drop in when it wants to and not when an institution invites it. In this way, inspectors sometimes see things that they would not see if they announced their visits well beforehand or were invited to come.
  That is what gives us confidence that at present HMI can maintain a national perspective and acquire wide experience which enables its members to judge whether something is working well. The new clause would enable the inspectorate to promote and undertake studies of efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the management of schools in both England and Wales. We are critically concerned with school effectiveness, how a school enables a child to progress. It is the way in which the school ensures that every child makes progress that is the measure of its effectiveness. It is not simply an outcome, it is the progress that a child makes in the school. W
  e particularly want HMI to be able to consider and monitor that.
  Mr. Steinberg: My hon. Friend will be aware of the report commissioned by the National Union of Teachers from Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte—"The Cost of Implementing the National Curriculum in Primary Schools". The report, from what no one can deny are leading management consultants, estimated that the average recurrent costs of the national curriculum would be something like £671 million per annum over the first five years, plus start-up costs of £1,263 million. If the new clause were accepted, inspectors could, on the basis of such information, examine schools to see where resources were necessary, what schools were missing out on and what was needed in the way of extra teachers, equipment and so on. The report, which is a wide-ranging one, gives that information, and this is the type of information that the new clause would allow the inspectors to encourage in schools.
  Ms. Armstrong: My hon. Friend makes a telling point.
  We must know the effect of legislation not just on an individual school but across the educational system. The inspectorate has been severely pared, yet it has been given new powers so that its work load will increase rather than

  1027
  decrease. Training is very much in my thoughts and is important to me. I should have thought that training alone would make sufficient work for the number of people that the inspectorate will have to train, yet training will be only a small part of HMI's functions. The new clause would give the inspectorate, through the chief inspector, the right to look at school effectiveness, and to commission from others studies that would allow it to look at effectiveness across the system.
  The Minister failed to recognise that earlier when he tried to rubbish the clause. It is precisely because the Bill fails to cover this point and is weak on monitoring standards across the system that we want the new clause accepted. I constantly live in hope. I live in hope as regards the Government and look to whatever better feelings they may have. While not being too optimistic, therefore, I hope that the Minister will reconsider and accept the new clause and the one relating to Wales, as we accept the amendments that the Minister tabled in respect of the other clauses. We do not object to them.
  Mr. Steinberg: The introduction of the Coopers and
  Lybrand Deloitte report states:
  "The National Curriculum, introduced by the 1988 Education Reform Act and progressively implemented by Statutory Order from the date of the Act, is having wide-ranging consequences for the way in which schools structure the educational experience of their pupils. These consequences are widely perceived to include:
  increased demands on teachers' time, which must be addressed either by appointing further staff or by informally expecting staff in post to work longer hours
  changes in maximum class sizes, particularly for practical work, which again has implications for teaching staff increased resource expenditure as heads and governors equip [or re-equip] their schools to meet the curriculum demands
  increased staff training for teachers
  and possibly new training needs for Governors also, changes to the balance of the curriculum between different subjects and activities."
  That is a grand assessment of what the national curriculum has meant since it was introduced by the Education Reform Act 1988. New clauses 3 and 4 would give the chief inspector the power to initiate research into aspects of education deemed by him or her to be worthy of that study. They would allow chief inspectors to investigate the problems highlighted by the independent report carried out by Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte.
  If the national curriculum is to be successful, we should know what resources are needed. My colleagues and I fully support the national curriculum, but if it is not resourced, it will be of no value to the educational system.
  9 pm
  If HMI cannot initiate research into aspects of the national curriculum and its resources, we will not know whether the curriculum is working. I hope that the Minister will consider the new clauses seriously and not
  rubbish them as he did earlier.
  If new clauses 3 and 4 are accepted, we should be able to discover, over several years, whether the national curriculum was working and whether more resources were needed. The Government always shudder when they hear the word "resources". They believe that the schools and education are being resourced. However, over the past few years, education spending, in real terms and as a proportion of GNP, has decreased. If the national
  1028
  curriculum is not being implemented, we should be aware of that fact. The new clauses would allow the chief inspector and the staff to carry out research to find out what is happening.
  I hope that the Minister will take note of what my colleagues and I have said and consider seriously the implications of the new clauses so that we can discover whether the national curriculum is a success.
  Mr. Fallon: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
  We have had what I suppose I can describe as an interesting debate. A number of points have been raised, several of which were more oblique to the new clauses than others. I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not comment in detail on the speeches of the hon. Members for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery).
  The hon. Member for Brent, South specifically asked whether I would receive a delegation at the Department of Education and Science. Ministers are well known for their courtesy in receiving delegations where there is a reorganisation. I do not know the details of the Brent reorganisation or whether it is within time, but I would be only too delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman and to hear his views and those of his constituents about any particular proposals in his constituency.
  However, I must reply to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong). I am grateful for her welcome to the Government amendments. I hope that we can put them to one side and, when the time comes a little later this evening, they can be written into the Bill without further ado.
  I had already explained at some length to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that it is not necessary to define in statute either the relationship between the two bodies—a point accepted in "Raising the Standard"—or the particular function of the chief inspector. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West did not explain why the Labour party now suddenly wants to define that relationship precisely and make HMCI subordinate to the Audit Commission and why new clause 3 is inconsistent with "Raising the Standard."
  Leaving that aside, I assure the hon. Lady that HMCI will not need the new clause to perform the studies and research work about which she was worried. Those powers are in the Bill. The hon. Lady thinks that the Bill does not cover that point. I draw her attention and that of the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) to clause 2(1), which states:
  "The Chief Inspector for England shall have the general duty of keeping the Secretary of State informed about—

  (a) the quality of the education provided by schools in England;

  (b) the educational standards achieved in those schools; and

  (c) whether the financial resources made available to those schools are managed efficiently."

  It is our contention, therefore, that the chief inspector already has all the powers that he needs to carry out the studies that are suggested in the new clause.
  With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Lady will finally be satisfied that she does not need the new clause to give HMCI the power to undertake the studies that she wants. We think that he already has that power in the Bill. We think also that it would be

  1029
  introduce the subordinate relationship with the Audit Commission. We would much rather see those two bodies work in happy consultation with each other.
  Mr. Straw: As I moved the new clause, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 6

  ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS WITH REGARD TO INSPECTION TEAMS
  '( ):—(1) The Chief Inspector may determine that a person who has completed a course of training in accordance with paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 is in need of supervision, induction or probation and he shall maintain a list (the "Conditionally Approved List") of the names of such persons.
  (2) Without prejudice to the power of the Chief Inspector to register a person subject to conditions under subsection 10(5)(c), the Chief Inspector may in particular impose conditions which determine the circumstances in which a person whose name is entered on the list maintained under subsection (1) may be a member of an inspection team for the purposes of Schedule 2.'.—[Ms. Armstrong.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Ms. Armstrong: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 62, in clause 10, page 6, line 32, at end insert—
  '(6A) Nothing in this section is to be taken as preventing the Chief Inspector from imposing conditions under subsection (5)(c) which determine the eligibility of persons acting as a member of an inspection team assisting the registered inspector in conducting an inspection in addition to the provisions regarding such eligibility mentioned in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of Schedule 2 to this Act.'.
  No. 10, in Schedule 2, page 19, line 17, at end insert—
  '5A.—(1) The Chief Inspector shall not admit to a course provided or arranged under paragraph 4(1) or 5(1) any person, not being a registered inspector, who in his opinion is not a fit or proper person for the purpose of carrying out an inspection.

  (2) Any person admitted to a course provided or arranged under paragraph 4(1) or 5(1) shall be excluded from it if, in the opinion of the Chief Inspector, he is unlikely to qualify for a certificate under sub-paragraph (3).

  (3) Any person who has completed a course provided or arranged under paragraph 4(1) and 5(1) and who, in the opinion of the Chief Inspector, is adequately trained for the purpose of carrying out inspections under this Act, shall receive a certificate to this effect.

  (4) No person shall carry out an inspection under this Act unless he has received a certificate under sub-paragraph (3).'.

  Ms. Armstrong: I may need to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I hope that you will now catch the eye of one of my hon. Friends.
  Mr. O'Hara: I trust that, at the beginning, you will see that I am addressing the subject, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I hope you now accept I was doing in my previous contribution. Perhaps it was not so obvious at the beginning—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be more precise in his presentation.
  Mr. O'Hara: I shall, to the best of my ability, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  1030
  The new clause and the associated amendments are concerned with quality control, which is central to the Government's citizens charter and, I hope, central to the policies of any Government. I therefore appeal to the Government to consider the new clause with sympathy.
  There is a fundamental flaw in the Bill—the contradiction in the Tory philosophy of separation of the provider from the monitor. The provider is the master of the monitor—he hires the monitor. As we said earlier, who pays the piper calls the tune. We must have monitors, but if we cannot separate the monitor from the provider, we must at least have effectiveness in the monitor. We are considering the quality control of monitors—in other words, "quis custodiet ipsos custodies".
  Clause 10 refers to persons who shall conduct inspections of schools in England and Wales.
  "No person shall conduct an inspection…unless he is registered…for the purposes of this Act."
  That is fine. It is provided that the chief inspector shall compose the register and shall not register a person except in certain conditions—for example, if it appears to him that the person is a fit and proper person to discharge the functions of a registered inspector and that he will be capable of competent and effective inspection under the legislation.
  The clause goes on to deal with the way in which a person might apply for registration. Such a person will have to pay a fee. If one turns to schedule 2 one sees that registration criteria are specified. Paragraph 4 says:
  "No person shall conduct an inspection of a school in England, or act as a member of an inspection team…unless he has completed a course of training".
  That, too, is fine. There are some criteria for registration. The course of training will be provided by the chief inspector for England or will comply with arrangements approved by the chief inspector. But the provisions peter out when it comes to payment of the fee.
  Paragraph 4 of the schedule says simply:
  "Where the Chief Inspector for England provides such training he may charge such fees as are reasonable for the purpose of recovering the whole, or part, of the cost of providing it."
  But there is something missing. We are told about the length of the training course and about the price, but not about the quality. No standards are set. This is a good example of "Never mind the quality; feel the width and look at the price."
  The question of standards will arise only if a person failing takes the matter to appeal. In those circumstances the inspector may give the reasons for failure. That is not satisfactory. In respect of the training courses there is no reference to standards or even guidelines. We need to know by what criteria a would-be inspector will be said to have passed. That is a serious omission. Such guidelines would be helpful to various people. For example, they would help registered inspectors to select suitable team members. Some hard and fast quality criteria would be set. The guidelines would also help team members to secure employment. They would be particularly helpful to lay members of inspection teams—and the Bill makes it very obvious that the Government are anxious to recruit such people.
  I understand that there have been disturbing suggestions that certain groups of people may be accredited by the senior chief inspector almost on the nod.

  1031
  That cannot be satisfactory. Surely the Bill should contain some provision setting the standards that must be achieved by would-be inspectors attending these training courses.
  One could extend that principle and stipulate—as is done in other professions—a probationary period, particularly in the case of a lay member entering education, to ensure both that the member fulfils the promise that he or she showed during training, and the monitoring of the skills that inspection team members bring to the system. A wide variety of skills will be needed among those recruited to the many teams which are to undertake 6,000 inspections per year.
  9.15 pm
  It has long been an accepted principle of teacher training—at least until the Secretary of State recently kicked over the table—that the responsibility vested in a teacher is such that he or she must complete a probationary period. That is a common requirement in many other professions. If the responsibility vested in a teacher is so great, how much greater is that vested in an inspector in monitoring the effectiveness of teachers? It seems anomalous that one should be subject of quality control, but not the other.
  The Secretary of State may argue that the registered inspector will oversee that aspect. However, one team member will almost certainly serve many teams. Some people will make their living doing that. If quality control is left with the many registered inspectors for which an individual team member may work at any one time, that will be a recipe for chaos.
  The principle of a probationary year for teachers marries well with the evident pathological distrust of teacher trainers that the Government have manifested—particularly in recent weeks. However, I cannot understand how that distrust marries with the Government's trust in the capabilities of an untried cadre of registered inspectors in a shifting market of inspection teams.
  Schedule 2(2)(a) states that at least one member of a team shall be a person??

  "(i) without personal experience in the management of any school or the provision of education in any school otherwise than as a governor or in any other voluntary capacity); and

  (ii) whose primary function on the team is not that of providing financial or business expertise".

  Schedule 2(4) states:
  "Any experience of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(a) which it is reasonable to regard as insignificant, having regard to the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), may be ignored by the registered inspector."
  There is enshrined in the Bill an ascending scale of insignificance by which the experience of team members will be graded, and their capabilities to perform the job for which they put themselves forward will be forecast by few relevant clues from their past performance and experience.
  Mr. McFall: My hon. Friend mentioned the registered inspectors. The registered inspector may have to take on different people for certain schools—for example, schools which teach minority subjects. My hon. Friend mentioned an example of such a school. The inspector will not be familiar with the people in that school. How will the inspector ensure quality control in the inspection of
  1032
  schools? That is an important point. The Bill does not tell us the answer to that question, and certainly the Secretary of State and his Ministers have not explained that point.
  Mr. O'Hara: My hon. Friend leads me neatly to my next point—the nature of the skills that the system needs. I maintain, as my hon. Friend implies, that the many registered inspectors are incapable of monitoring what skills the system needs because of the nature of the system.
  The system needs a full range of skills. I acknowledge that the Government have shown a commendable commitment to developing and targeting skills and allocating resources so that the skills that the system needs are developed. For example, they introduced the local education authority training grants scheme. I am prepared to concede that the scheme is an improvement on the old free-for-all system of training. I am referring to in-service training in particular but applying the principle to the development of a cross-section of skills for the system.
  As a school governor several years ago, I was often worried by the reports of the number of training courses that members of staff had attended. The audit of the training was weighted on the side of those who received training and went on to develop their careers. That was fine—of course, one needs to provide that opportunity for
  staff—but the new-found skills often contributed little to the curriculum of the school that was effectively supporting the staff training. The LEATGS gave better assurances that the funding allocated to training went on skills that the schools needed and could use.
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about the grants and education support and training scheme and LEATGS. I am sure that he has noticed that the amount of money that the Government make available for training is 50 per cent. more for grant-maintained schools than for schools in the maintained sector. That disparity will clearly have an impact on the provisions with which we are now dealing. The ability to train teachers will be considerably reduced in the maintained sector. I wonder whether, in his interesting speech, my hon. Friend was about to come to the unfair differences between the grant-maintained sector and the maintained sector?
  Mr. O'Hara: Indeed, that is a good example. If one assumes that the resources for the development of skills in the system as a whole are finite, the disproportionate allocation of resources to the sector which is independent of the LEAs must be at the expense of the maintained sector. That is at a time when, as I said earlier, there is a desperate need for new skills to be developed and for teachers in post to have their skills updated.
  Given the Government's commitment to the development and deployment of the necessary skills in teachers, it is difficult to understand their failure to make similar provision for school inspectors. Given the enormous number of inspectors who will be needed to carry out all those inspections every year and the openness to the trade—I use the word advisedly because of the evident desire, judging from Minister's comments, that butchers and bakers be avidly recruited to inspection teams—it is crucial that inspectors recruited have the skills required by the team if it is to be called that.
  Mr. McFall: I am interested in my hon. Friend's argument and would like him to give us a greater insight

  1033
  into it. Paragraph 3(2)(a) of schedule 2 contains the butcher and baker clause, which states that at least one member has no
  "personal experience in the management of any school".
  Given his earlier remarks, and his experience in dealing with probationary teachers who need two years' experience, how does my hon. Friend think that that butcher or baker person can have the proper experience to evaluate his own skills? I have been responsible for liaising with probationary teachers, and for guiding them through the two-year period. My experiences have led me to believe that they need the experience gained in those two years and that assistance. How can butchers and bakers get that when they are drafted into schools straight away?
  Mr. O'Hara: It is indeed difficult to see how, and I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. One of the most important things that those butchers and bakers might learn on a training course is the limit of their prerogative in assessing the effectiveness of a school. Certainly it is a conundrum. Without a course of training and some criteria for assessment of their suitability at the end of it, it is difficult to see how the requirement that my hon. Friend reminds us of could be met.
  I must get away from the subject of the butcher and baker because I might be accused of dwelling unfairly on an untypical example, although I do not think so, given the clear and full statement of that provision in the Bill. I am thinking of people who might have skills in one area, but might not be able to transfer them to another.
  For example, someone with skills in an academic subject—perhaps a redundant inspector recruited on to an inspection team—might apply the skills that he used in his former existence when on one of the new model inspect ion teams. He might have to make an assessment at a school for special educational needs, a specialised area where he might not be able to make such an assessment. I have come across people who have come from the outside and have come a cropper—and may even cause damage—because they do not understand the subject of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. A special skill is required to deal with that.
  Mr. McFall: I know of one example and ask for my hon. Friend's comments. It concerns the pastoral field of education. Educationists who devote themselves to the pastoral care of children have a different perspective of such care than a social worker would have. I have had experience of trying to merge and manage both the social work and educational perspectives. It takes a number of years before that commonality of view is established. That quality is germane to the inspection team in terms of the perspective of the individual when assessing the worthiness of a school.
  Mr. O'Hara: I attempted to make that point earlier, when I sought to intervene on my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). He was addressing the difference between efficiency in monetary terms and effectiveness in educational terms.
  Cost-effectiveness may be achieved by front-loading the provision of nursery education, as that will save costs later on, especially as it is a sector in which resources should be spent. Likewise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) has just said, a judicious allocation of resources to the pastoral sector of education provision is money well spent because such pastoral care
  1034
  often leads to savings when a pupil continues his educational career. Such pastoral care is a specialised area of education, and it can identify problems early.
  9.30 pm
  Given the facility that inspectors will have to tout around for recruitment by different registered inspectors, there must be some quality control over the system. That system should consist of a package which contains, at the very least, a scheme of certification at the end of the course training—which we applaud—and the facility for a provisional or limited right to practise. One could take that even further by including a need for people to acquire new skills if they intend to make inspections of a sector of education of which they have no experience.
  The new clause and the amendments could be adapted for the purpose. The underlying point is that there should be provision for a range of skills to be available and some system whereby those skills can be standardised and certified.
  Such a responsibility is too great a task to be left to the registered inspectors. In fact, it would be impractical for those inspectors to undertake that task, given the way in which the market is designed to work. That is why new clause 6 states:
  "The Chief Inspector may determine that a person who has completed a course of training in accordance with paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 is in need of supervision, induction or probation and he shall maintain a list (the "Conditionally Approved List") of the names of such persons.
  Without prejudice to the power of the Chief Inspector to register a person subject to conditions under subsection 10(5)(c), the Chief Inspector may in particular impose conditions which determine the circumstances in which a person whose name is entered on the list maintained under subsection (1) may be a member of an inspection team for the purposes of Schedule 2.'."
  Amendment No. 10 complements the new clause, and part of it states:
  "The Chief Inspector shall not admit to a course provided or arranged under paragraph 4(1) or 5(1) any person, not being a registered inspector, who in his opinion is not a fit or proper person for the purpose of carrying out an inspection."
  That responsibility is most effectively and appropriately left in the hands of the chief inspector, so that we avoid the entry into inspection teams of mythical individuals as
  exemplified in the joke advertisement that I have before me, which says:
  "V. cheapo licensed plumber and HMI schools inspector. All types of schools and drains inspected. Estimates free. Guaranteed customer satisfaction. Very keen prices."
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I apologise to the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) for being absent at the
  start of his comments. It was largely because I had expected a vote on the previous new clause.
  The new clause and amendment tabled by the Labour party and my amendment on behalf of the Liberal Democrats are all aimed at essentially the same issue, which was debated at length in Committee and which relates to the supervision of team members. Opposition
  Members are worried that only the registered inspector will be directly controlled.
  Ministers have accepted the argument that team members must be suitably qualified. I shall not repeat my discussion with the Minister, when it was suggested that team members' training would be overseen because the registered inspector would have to ensure team members' in-service training and the updating of their skills. I pointed out that, precisely because those teams will not be

  1035
  attached to a particular registered inspector and because people with particular skills may be called on infrequently by different inspectors, the necessary oversight will not Occur.
  It is not hard to imagine subjects in which the situation may change rapidly. The most obvious is technology, where changes can be fundamental and relatively sudden. The Bill should provide that the chief inspector ensures that people who carry out inspections in schools under a registered inspector have the necessary skills. Amendment No. 62 proposes that in a way which I hope will meet the objections that the Government raised in Committee. It is not the same as amendments that I moved then, which sought to require, first, control or identification of team members and, secondly, the regular recertification of team members in every case.
  The new version would permnit Her Majesty's chief inspectors to take action only where they considered it necessary in particular cases or classes of case, such as when a change in respect of a technology teacher or inspector had taken place and that change was considered fundamental enough to require it, or perhaps where team members should be aware of and understand important changes to the national curriculum. I hope that that introduces the necessary provisions that should have been in the Bill all along, while meeting the desire for flexibility, rather than inserting the over-prescriptive format that the Minister described in Committee.
  Mr. McFall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that without the amendment the Bill contains nothing to validate and assess individual members of the inspection team? That concern is held not merely by Opposition Members but is articulated throughout the country. I have a letter from Alderbrook school in the metropolitan borough of Solihull—a Tory authority, as far as I know. It states that the school is worried about the quality of people who will make up the inspection team under the Bill's proposals, and the basic criteria and consistency of appraisal that will apply.
  The letter states:
  "Serious problems will undoubtedly arise if the teams lack credibility with staff and parents."
  If communications between the inspection team and the staff are flawed from the beginning, that will cause serious problems. The governors of Alderbrook school believe that it is bizarre that one member of the inspection team should know nothing of the educational system. In order to allow for the short, perceptive, searching, professional queries that are currently made by inspectors, it is important that the Government should accept the amendment, or there is nothing to guarantee quality control.
  Mr. Taylor: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is the Minister's express concern that the HMI should set national standards. Without the sort of measure proposed in my amendment, it is hard to see how, in a changing world, HMI will be able to ensure that inspections are carried out to that uniform standard.
  It is important to stress that, while I think that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and I both have strong objections to some of the Bill's principles—the way in which inspections will take place and the private contractual relationship—the amendment is not an attack
  1036
  on the Government's principles. Those arguments have taken place elsewhere. The amendment is designed merely to ensure the quality and standard of the inspection.
  I introduced the amendment having listened to what the Minister said in his objections to earlier amendments that tackled the same issue. It responds to the Minister's concerns and I hope that he will take the opportunity and show the same flexibility in meeting the worry which, as the hon. Member for Dumbarton rightly says, comes not just from the Opposition but from many people within the Conservative party at local level and perhaps even at national level. Those people want to ensure, above all else, that the highest quality standards are maintained throughout the inspection team as well as at the level of registered inspector.
  Mr. Fatchett: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) on the way in which he spoke to the amendments. He raised a number of important points. Central to the thrust of the debate on the amendments and new clauses is the issue of standards of inspection.
  Anyone who has followed the debates with interest will recognise that there is a fundamental division between us. The Government essentially believe in a free market in education and that sensitive and important issues such as inspection can be left to the free market.
  Mr. Fallon: That is nonsense.
  Mr. Fatchett: The Minister rightly says that that is nonsense—I agree that it is nonsense to hold those views. However, they are underpinned by a philosophy that the flow of information to parents will ensure that, in a free market, free choices are made and parents will be able to guarantee quality of schools on that basis.
  That philosophy totally ignores two important factors. First, it assumes that each and every parent is equal in the education market, and has the ability and resources to make an equal choice about which is the best school in the locality. As the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) said on Second Reading, that is far from the case. If a market is operated, it will be inapplicable in rural areas. Those who live in rural areas—this applies to the majority of parents everywhere—want a good neighbourhood school. They are not looking for market provision, which reflects the notion that it is possible to pick and choose. Parents in rural areas want to send their children to a good neighbourhood school. In that sense, the Government are abdicating their responsibilities.
  9.45 pm
  The Government have refused to recognise that the system has to be managed and that they have a responsibility. The Bill represents the Government washing their hands in respect of standards in the education system. Last week saw the publication of an important report on primary education, which referred to signs of declining standards over the past four years in literacy and numeracy. During those four years there has been substantial change as a result of the Education Reform Act 1988. The committee of inquiry made it clear that the pace and burden of change had been two aspects among others that may have led to a decline in education standards.
  It is interesting that during the same period the only body that could achieve the "standardised" approach that

  1037
  my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South talked about—the Assessment of Performance Unit—was disbanded by the Government. We are not able to make comparisons of reading performance and numeracy performance over the years. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) has rightly said on many occasions that it is important that we should be able over a period to make an assessment of standards in the education system. The hon. Gentleman asked earlier for a broader perspective. Indeed, he talked about an international perspective so that we could compare British children with children in France, Germany, Holland and other European Community countries.
  Mr. Allen McKay: As my hon. Friend knows, my constituency is divided into urban and rural areas. Many small schools in the rural areas have been closed irrespective of their standards. In some instances, the children who attended these schools had a better educational start than some children in urban areas as a result of better teacher-pupil ratios. On the basis of standards, many small schools in rural areas would have remained open. They have been closed because of the Government's financial problems in the education system.
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend has made an interesting and important intervention.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am happy to say that, when Lancashire county council tried to close five rural schools in my constituency—they were all of a very high standard—my hon. Friend the Minister did not permit the closures to take place and we still have the schools. The same thing happened in the north end of my constituency. Closure was not permitted, we still have the schools and they have excellent standards.
  Mr. Fatchett: I shall pay the hon. Lady a compliment. If I were the chair of the education committee, I would not even dream of closing a school in her constituency. The risk involved would be too great.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) made an important intervention on the quality of small rural schools. Sometimes their standards can be affected in terms of ability to deliver the national curriculum. I do not know whether this goes wide of the new clause, but it has been brought to my attention that the Under-Secretary of State—we have heard him defend the Roman Catholic community in Darlington—is keen to close small rural schools. That might well bring him into conflict with the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). It would be a case of the irremovable object meeting the untestable force. It would be an interesting phenomenon.
  I was saying that there is a need for some overall assessment and some management of the education system. When the Government disbanded the assessment of performance unit they left their responsibility behind. They said that they had no real reason to maintain assessment figures and no reason to maintain any system of measurement. That is an abdication of their responsibilities. Parents have a right to know what is happening and whether, under this Government's stewardship, standards of education have improved during the last 12 or 13 years.
  Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that education standards cannot possibly be maintained
  1038
  without sufficient money and expertise? Reference has already been made to paragraph 3(2) of schedule 2 which says:
  "It shall be the duty of the registered inspector to ensure that—
  (a) at least one member of the inspection team is a person—
  (i) without personal experience in the management of any school or the provision of education in any school (otherwise than as a governor or in any other voluntary capacity)".
  It is bizarre to believe that somebody who knows nothing at all—it almost says that here—about something can become an inspector. I wonder what lawyers and doctors would think about that. Educationists are disgusted about it and wonder who, in God's name, thought it up.
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend makes two important points. He rightly pointed out that in the context of declining and tight resources it is difficult to achieve high education standards. During the last few years, great pressure has been put on many local authority budgets. My hon. Friend knows, from his experience in Sheffield, that this Government's education policies have caused devastating damage.
  My hon. Friend was also right to point out, as we must continue to point out, that if standards have declined, they have declined under the stewardship not of a Labour Government, but of a Conservative Government who have invested little in the state education system.
  My hon. Friend also raised another important point: in what other context would it be a statutory condition that a person without any suitable qualifications should apply for a particular job? My hon. Friend said that this seemed a little bizarre to him. He referred to what would happen if lawyers and doctors were able to set themselves up as part of a team without any relevant expertise. One might then see advertisements containing words such as "Doctors wanted for a general practice; expertise not required."
  Through you, Mr. Speaker, I had intended to ask my hon. Friends to think of any other circumstances in which a person would go to an interview for a job and make it clear that he had no expertise. I can provide an example. Throughout the last 12 years, we have had Ministers with responsibility for education who have no expertise in education. That is a very bad model to work from, particularly for schools.
  Mr. McFall: According to paragraph 3(2) of schedule 2, only the registered inspector will have to be validated by the Department of Education and Science. The registered inspector's team will include somebody with the minimum training as outlined in schedule 2 and no or very little expertise in education, but within the inspector's team he will be regarded as an expert. That person's comments will be included in the report and will then be put into the public domain. That could mislead parents, even though the Government say that they do not want that to happen.
  Mr. Flannery: More than one person could have no training and expertise in education.
  Mr. Fatchett: I intend to deal with that matter, but the framework for my speech is tight and detailed. My hon. Friend would be disappointed if I dealt with these points out of sequence.
  Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend is looking for examples. One example might be the Prime Minister, who is not sure whether he is qualified to do anything. He cannot remember what qualifications he has. Perhaps my hon. Friend would agree that it sounds very much like an Arthur Daley system of certification that we are contemplating.
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend makes a distinctive and separate point.
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: Hon. Members have referred to schedule 2(3), which says:
  "at least one member of the inspection team is a person—
  (i) without personal experience".
  There is nothing to say that several members of the team may not be people without personal experience. When someone is setting out in a new business, one problem is pricing a job. That might lead to skimping and to the employment of a number of people without personal experience because they would come cheaper. That is one danger inherent in the provision.
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend was not in the House for the earlier debate on new clause 2, when I talked about a trial and error inspection team. My hon. Friend's notion is close to a trial and error inspection team. Presumably the Government intend to get the price right and will not worry about the quality. In a sense, those remarks were a preamble to the more detailed points which I want to make.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South made strong detailed arguments about four or five central points, including the cost of training inspectors. He wondered how that cost will be met. If you have read schedule 2, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you have, because you like to keep yourself fully informed of the affairs of the House, you will have seen that in the various paragraphs there is no reference to cost. Particularly in paragraph 4(3) there is no reference to how the system is to be paid for. There is a reference to
  "recovering the whole, or part, of the cost"
  but it does not give the source of the recovery or the nature of the courses which will be provided.
  My hon. Friend made the important point that the training of registered inspectors may be expensive. Will that cost be met by the team of registered inspectors, by the new business to which my hon. Friend referred or out of the DES programme? Will the full cost, or only part of it, be met? We need answers to those important questions, because they may affect the quality of the training.
  Given that the system is designed to be cheap, coming from a cheap Government, the training that is deemed to be attractive may be cheap for the inspection firm. In setting up the firm, one may look at the possibility of finding cheap initial training. If so, the quality of the training may not be substantial.
  We need to know more about the cost of training. We also need to know more about the quality guidelines for the initial training. We have heard that the training of the registered inspector, and the team may not be subject to quality guidelines. The inspection may satisfy the chief inspector but there is no indication about the quality of the inspection and the guidelines to be met.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South has much experience of teacher training. He has great experience with the Council for the Accreditation of
  1040
  Teacher Education, which has set out important and specific guidelines on what is necessary for initial teacher training. Such a model could be used effectively to satisfy the provisions of the Bill. That is essentially what we recommend in the new clause and amendments. We need guidelines to ensure that standards and quality are maintained.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South also talked effectively about the breadth of the inspection team. You may know, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. Friend has a genuine interest and ability in the classics, and that he has a fluency in Greek which is rarely shown in the House.
  Mr. O'Hara: My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to satisfy the Minister, who challenged me in Committee—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I may be able to assist the House. We have a lengthy amendment paper on which we have not made much progress. Since 7 pm, no Conservative Back Bencher has taken part in the debates, although there have, of course, been the usual ministerial replies to debates. It has become clear that the House is unlikely to be able to complete the business at a reasonable hour tonight.
  I have been discussing through the usual channels and with my opposite numbers our progress so far, and I have been seeking ways in which, if the Opposition take up less time in debate, we may be able to shorten matters. It is a long time since I have had the experience of feeling myself trying to force an agreement on an opposite number who seems not to be disposed to reach an agreement as the evening goes on. For that reason, the Government decided not to move the business of the House motion at 10 pm. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House proposes to make a business statement on how we shall now proceed.
  Mr. Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just witnessed a Government who have no stomach for a fight. The Bill, which was introduced by the Secretary of State to privatise the schools inspectorate and to dismember HM inspectorate, has no support outside the House and precious little support inside the House. The Secretary of State was right to say that no Conservative Member spoke in support of the Bill after 7 pm. However, there was not even a Conservative Back Bencher sitting in silent support of the measure after 7 pm.
  Of a total of 75 amendments and new clauses selected for debate today, 31 have been tabled by the Government. It is the Government's unwillingness to debate the measure through tonight which has forced them to withdraw the business at this stage.
  Mr. Allen McKay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious that the Government, who usually use the protection of a guillotine but who have not done so on this occasion, are disinclined to debate the amendments and new clauses tabled by the Opposition. They are frightened that we shall expose their policies for what they are. The privatisation of the inspectors has gone wrong and people outside the House do not agree with the Government. The Government are frightened of being exposed and that is why they did not move the business motion at 10 pm.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. These are not really points of order for me.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you consider the fact that a Select Committee is considering the hours that the House sits? The Government are pre-empting the Select Committee with their enthusiasm for not moving the business of the House motion when there has not been reasonable discussion on Report.
  You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, from your long service in the House that it was fairly common for Report stages to take a considerable time. I understand the lack of morale among Government supporters and their reluctance to stay after 10 o'clock to debate these matters, but when we have serious issues concerning the future of our schoolchildren to consider, it is surely reasonable to expect the Government to be prepared to provide adequate time and not to pre-empt decisions about the hours of the House with precipitate guillotine motions.
  Mr. Speaker: These are not matters for me.

Business of the House
10.5 pm
Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission I should like to make a short business statement. The business for tomorrow will now be as follows:
Timetable motion on the Education (Schools) Bill, followed by conclusion of remaining stages of the Education (Schools) Bill. I will announce in my business statement tomorrow the arrangements for the business originally set down for tomorrow.
Mr. Jack Straw: Is the Leader of the House aware that that is a statement of which he ought to be ashamed? As I said earlier, the Government have no stomach for a fight. If they had been willing to debate these matters through the night, as we were, and then to ensure that there was sufficient time next week, they would have got their Bill, but the truth is that they are now in total panic over this measure. They know that even with the guillotine tomorrow they have no chance of getting the Bill through the other place and then back here if an election is called for 9 April. Will the Leader of the House confirm that that is the case—if an election is called in the middle of March, there is no way in which this measure can become law?
Will he also explain what will happen to the Welsh revenue support grant order which was due to be debated tomorrow?
Mr. MacGregor: We were willing to accommodate the Opposition in any way today on the Bill. They never asked in any of our discussions for more than one day. Well into today's debate, there was, for the first time, an indication that the Opposition were not prepared to see the Bill through in one day. They never approached Ministers until well into the debate, and we had been quite unable to understand the purpose of their concern. It is now absolutely clear.
I cannot comment on the progress of the Bill when it reaches another place. What I can tell the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is that he has now revealed that his concern is entirely about election timing and the position of the Opposition on election timing.
It is important to make it clear to the House that I have been under pressure from all sides of the House to accommodate a large number of debates. I am under great pressure to accommodate the Friendly Societies Bill and hon. Members on both sides of the House want that Bill to be passed. I am trying to secure it in this Parliament.
After every business statement, I am asked to fit in more debates. I have endeavoured to meet the wishes of Members on both sides of the House, including their desire to debate the Friendly Societies Bill, and it was on that basis that we agreed to spend one day on this Bill. When it was clear that there was no agreement on that, we had to take the steps that we have taken to protect the rest of the programme.
Mr. George Howarth: Will the Leader of the House explain to us why important groups of amendments that are still to be discussed have to be put back to tomorrow? Several of my hon. Friends wished to speak. Several of us were concerned about important aspects of the Bill. Not one speech has been ruled out of

1043
order by the Chair, and we have not been pulled up for being out of order. The whole issue was still to be debated, and we were most concerned about it. Moreover, will the Leader of the House explain what is to be done when local authorities all over the country are waiting to hear what is to happen with the revenue support grant—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask hon. Members below the Gangway not to converse among themselves? It is difficult to hear at this end of the Chamber.
Mr. George Howarth: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.
Can the Leader of the House explain how those of us from Merseyside who have had correspondence with the Merseyside fire authority about the rate support grant assessment—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should ask the Leader of the House a question, as Members do with an ordinary business statement.
Mr. Howarth: How can the local authorities which are most concerned about the revenue support grant settlement and how it will affect services—[Interruption.] When will they know when the grant settlement—[Interruption.] When can local authorities sort that out? It is disgraceful that the Government are running away from—[Interruption.]
Mr. MacGregor: I could hear only a small part of the hon. Gentleman's question. However, if I heard him aright, I will make clear the position on the revenue support grant settlements in my business statment tomorrow.
With regard to the question about the time to be given to the Education (Schools) Bill, we had originally agreed absolutely that one day would be sufficient to see the Bill through. If we can agree the timetable motion early tomorrow afternoon, we will have two full days to debate the Bill instead of one.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order. These are business questions.
Mr. Hayes: If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is right in saying that he offered the Opposition more than one day to debate the Education (Schools) Bill and they refused that, it is clear that the Opposition were simply filibustering tonight for political ends. The Opposition have only one person to blame, and that is the shadow Leader of the House.
Mr. MacGregor: The Opposition did not ask for more than one day. We are now giving the Bill two days.
Mr. Paul Boateng: Is it not a little disingenuous of the Leader of the House to pray in aid—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say again to hon. Members below the Gangway that it would be helpful if they would carry on their conversations in the Lobby?
Mr. Boateng: Is it not a little disingenuous of the Leader of the House to pray in aid the long-awaited
1044
Friendly Societies Bill when he has already put off the publication of that Bill on several occasions? When will he publish that Bill and stop using it as an excuse to curtail debate about this disastrous measure—the Education (Schools) Bill?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot ask for the publication of the Friendly Societies Bill and also claim that I am not trying to find time for it. There is a great deal of legislation ahead of us, and many hon. Members on both sides of the House want me to fit in many debates. I am trying to accommodate the Friendly Societies Bill because I am well aware of the desire on both sides of the House in respect of it. I am hoping to find time for it, and that is precisely why I thought that we had reached agreement to deal with the Education (Schools) Bill in one day. If we can find time, I hope to be able to publish the Friendly Societies Bill before long.
Mr. Bob Dunn: With regard to the debate on the Education (Schools) Bill, is it not clear that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has been forced to make his statement because of the systematic abuse of the procedures of the House by the Labour party and continuous filibustering to prevent proper debate on very important legislation?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I repeat that, if we can move quickly back to the Bill tomorrow afternoon, we will have two days to debate it.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Leader of the House will be aware that the debate will continue tomorrow at very short notice and that that will make it difficult for some hon. Members who had intended to do so to take part in the debate. Why must the right hon. Gentleman rush ahead with the Bill tomorrow when other business had been arranged? Why did he not arrange for it to be debated at the beginning of next week when it would have been easier for hon. Members, who have a genuine interest in the Bill, to see it through?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sorry that this is the case, but it was forced upon me. It is important that we proceed with the Bill and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to rearrange his affairs so that we can proceed with it and so that he can participate in the debate.
Mr. David Ashby: My right hon. Friend, in support of his decision, should know that, every time that I have walked into the Chamber on a regular 10-minute basis throughout the evening, there have been only two rather bored Members sitting on the Opposition Benches and one person speaking. Will my right hon. Friend put tomorrow's business back to 14 February, as that would be a jolly good time to discuss tomorrow's business?
Mr. MacGregor: I am not quite sure whether I follow my hon. Friend. I hope to be doing other things on 14 February.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the 10 o'clock motion was not moved because the Government feared that they would not be able to sustain the business as they did not have 100 Conservative Members in the House? [Interruption.]

1045
Will the Leader of the House make a statement tomorrow on the arrangements that he will make for debating the important revenue support grant orders for England and Wales? He will be aware that local authorities have been notified of that debate. They have budgeted accordingly, and it may cause them great difficulty because they are now faced with the problem that they will have no certainty until those orders are passed.
In his statement tomorrow, will the right hon. Gentleman make it abundantly clear that the reason is the confusion and incompetence of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the rest of the Government in organising the business? Will he also confirm—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an ordinary business statement. I think that the hon. Member has asked two questions.
Mr. Cryer: May I conclude, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: No. I think that that is enough.
Mr. MacGregor: On the hon. Gentleman's first point in relation to the number of Conservative Members and the closure, it is quite clear that he cannot count, just as the Opposition generally cannot count on their tax and expenditure plans.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point about the revenue support grant orders, I understand the importance of clarifying the position on that, and I shall do so tomorrow.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be related to the business announced by the Leader of the House. I shall allow questions to continue until 10.25 pm, when we shall move on to the Adjournment debate.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is it not evidence of the extreme cynicism with which the Opposition have been dealing with an important education measure that, in Committee, they should not have any problem with the timetable, yet this afternoon should spend no less than three hours debating the first new clause and then not even vote on it?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has a point. As I have said, we are now giving two days for the Bill to be considered on Report and on Third Reading.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Leader of the House confirm that, throughout the 12 years of the Conservative Administration, there has been concern about standards in education? Will he confirm also that previous Secretaries of State, including himself, have not considered it necessary to introduce such a Bill? Will he confirm also that—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is the third question. Let us have the answer to the first two questions first.
Mr. Spearing: I am coming to the question for tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. Will not the business for tomorrow, which changes the goalposts for the assessment of standards and upsets an inspectorate of 130 years' standing, cause extreme cynicism not only among the teaching profession but among most parents in this country?
Mr. MacGregor: I confirm that throughout the period of this Government we have been concerned about standards in education and we have constantly been improving them. I confirm also that I wholly support my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in bringing forward the Bill. Had I still been at the Department, I would have done so. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's third point arises.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, unless there is more self-discipline on both sides of the House between now and the general election, we shall do no credit to ourselves? Is it not a fact that my right hon. Friend offered two days for the business but that in the end it was agreed that there should be one day? Now the Government have agreed to provide two days. What on earth do the Opposition have to grumble about? They must be interested only in pure filibustering to frustrate legislation. Can my hon. Friend confirm that in the end the House will be the loser?
Mr. MacGregor: I can confirm two things. First, we now propose to provide two days for the remainder of the Report stage and Third Reading to enable the Bill to be discussed thoroughly, as happened in Committee. Secondly, we are getting on with the business of the normal legislative programme and endeavouring to do as much as possible in a parliamentary Session that will inevitably be shorter than usual. It is to do that in an orderly fashion that we are taking this action tonight.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: While welcoming the provision of two days for the remaining stages of the Bill, may I ask the Leader to ensure that, in the consultations about the timetable motion, discussions will be held with all parties in the House? Four or five clauses in the Bill which relate to the Welsh Office were dealt with very inadequately in Committee as a result of the make-up of the Committee. Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have an opportunity to discuss those clauses on the Floor of the House tomorrow?
Mr. MacGregor: That could best be achieved by having the timetable motion disposed of very quickly, so that the whole day could be devoted to the Bill itself.
Mr. Michael Brown: Will it be possible, during the debate on the timetable motion tomorrow, to raise the fact that headmasters in my constituency are refusing to deliver the leaflet that the Department of Education and Science produced? Shall I have an opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Grimsby Evening Telegraph takes a very dim view of that?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has made his point already. I hope that, if he wants to make it again, he will do so during the debate on the Bill rather than in the debate on the timetable motion.
Mr. John McFall: Is not this shambles the Government's own doing? I speak as one who has been here since half-past three this afternoon, and I heard the points of order just now from Tory Members of Parliament who never graced the Benches opposite. Now we have this shambles led by an inept Leader of the House. That is the reason for the rearrangement of business. That is why the programme should be reinstated.
Mr. MacGregor: In recent days there have been many points of order from the Labour party, but today points of order took up very little time.
Mr. James Pawsey: May I, as someone who has been here for most of the debate, ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that, by debating this matter again in prime time tomorrow, we shall enable the people of this country properly to understand the benefits that will flow from the Bill?
Mr. MacGregor: I know that my hon. Friend always takes a very great interest in educational matters, in which he is a great expert. He makes a very good point. The many excellent aspects of this Bill will be debated in the House tomorrow at a time when the public can be made aware of them. I am sure that that will be of great benefit.
Mr. Martin Flannery: I have been here all day and have contributed to the debate, and I expected the business to be disposed of tonight. In all the years I have been a Member of Parliament, I have never seen such a situation. I should like to put a simple question to you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Not to me.
Mr. Flannery: May I, then, ask the Leader of the House whether his Government are in some kind of mess?
Mr. MacGregor: Certainly not.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Has the Leader of the House taken fully into account the fact that the Government will be seen as having acted in a most cavalier fashion by their handling tomorrow of the revenue support grant and that this will cause a great deal of distress throughout local government? As the Leader of the House wishes to appear reasonable, will he tomorrow look at the Official Report, which will show that, in the early part of our proceedings, speeches were deliberately lengthened by means of extremely long interventions from the Government side? I rose to make a short speech in the earlier debate. There was a series of long interventions, including one that amounted to a speech by the Secretary of State. Given the Government's filibustering tactics—
Mr. Speaker: Order. No pointing, please.
Mr. Hardy: Given the filibustering tactics adopted by the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman), and one or two others among the few Conservative Members who were in the Chamber, does the Leader of the House really think that his action could be described as reasonable?
Mr. MacGregor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there were no filibustering tactics on this side of the House. I repeat the important point that we are giving more time to consideration of the Bill by allowing a second day of debate. I am sure that it is in the interests of the House to conclude consideration of the Bill in that way. As to the hon. Gentleman's point about revenue support grant, I acknowledge the importance of clarifying the situation, and I will do so tomorrow.
Mr. John Greenway Rydale): Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when the Bill received its Second Reading, it was rare to see Opposition Members in their places? That debate almost collapsed before 10 o'clock. However, many of my right hon. and hon. Friends
1048
participated in that debate, and I was one of them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason for the Opposition's pathetic protest is that Labour realises that it has lost the initiative on education, and is now behind in the opinion polls?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes two good points, and he is right on both.
Dr. John Cunningham: No one is clear why the Government panicked at 10 o'clock this evening. It can be explained only by their desperation to get the Bill into the other place, in order to meet their timetable for a general election. The Leader of the House has organised a loss of Government time tomorrow for the revenue support grant orders for England and Wales, which we shall presumably now have to consider next week, when the Bill could have been completed in the early hours of the morning. Instead of all this nonsense, why do the Government not announce the date of the general election now?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that we have been endeavouring for several hours to have discussions on those matters and to reach a conclusion, so that it might have been possible to complete the Bill in the early hours. However, we were unable to do so. We are therefore giving the Bill an extra day, to ensure that it is properly considered.
The hon. Gentleman's point about the revenue support grant orders was very much in my mind. As he knows from our exchanges in business statements, I am anxious to accommodate all the pressures on the parliamentary timetable in agreement with the Opposition, and to meet their desire for supply days. The more days I lose, the more difficult it is to do that.
Dr. Cunningham rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member asked one question.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There must be some discipline in this place.
Dr. Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order for me?
Dr. Cunningham: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House is mistaken. There were no discussions about not suspending the 10 o'clock rule. What is more, there was no filibustering on this side of the House. [HoN. MEMBERS: "He was not here. "]
There are 31 Government amendments for debate on the Order Paper, and 44 Opposition amendments, so the idea that the Opposition have been delaying the passage of the Bill is complete nonsense—and the Leader of the House knows it. If the right hon. Gentleman had sought for one moment to discuss the matter through the usual channels—with me—as he did not seek to do, we might have resolved the problem and the Government could have had their Bill. This is about the Government panicking because of their general election timetable. It has nothing to do with this side of the House—and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.
Mr. MacGregor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say briefly—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is disgraceful behaviour.
Mr. MacGregor: The business statement has nothing to do with the point that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made. I am aware that discussions have been going on for some time. We have endeavoured, as I always endeavour, to accommodate the requests of Members on both sides for time and to enable the Government's legislation to get through in the best possible way.
Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will not take the point of order.

Wing (Bypass)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]
10.30 pm
Mr. George Walden: I should like to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic to a serious difficulty in my constituency over the proposed bypass for the village of Wing. If there were a traditional division of opinion in my constituency about the route of the bypass, I should not take the time of the House tonight, but that is not the position. The village is virtually united against the present proposal.
The proposal has a long history which has tried the patience of my constituents, who have had to live with uncertainty for so many years. A bypass was first mooted two decades ago. It has now grown like Topsy, but unlike Topsy it has grown into a monster. That monster is no longer a bypass—that is to say, a road which passes by the village. It has developed into a major trunk road which could have three lanes in each direction—a six-lane road verging on a motorway. It will go through the northern part of the village and divide part of the village from Burcott, which has become virtually part of the village.
The new road will not only have environmental effects—for example, it will disrupt the view of the Chilterns—but will pass close to elderly people's bungalows at Park Gate and residential areas in Moorlands road and Moorhills road. I have been there to examine the site and have seen that the proposed road will be within a few yards of those residential areas. People will be able to hear and smell the road. The idea that it might one day grow from a two-lane to a six-lane road is intolerable.
The main problem has been well summed up by the organisation called STRIVE, which stands for Stop Trunk Road Invading Village Environment. That sums up the problem. I stress that STRIVE is not an ad hoc organisation of amateurs. I have met the group several times. It includes professionals with experience of road engineering, who know what they are talking about, and they have given careful and balanced thought to the issues.
STRIVE has sound democratic roots, and has carried out a survey within the village, consulting 2,094 electors personally, of whom 1,418 replied—68 per cent., which is
a high rate of reply. More than three quarters—78 per cent.—of those replying agreed that the road, which has developed into a major trunk route, should be further from the village.
What is the history? How did we get where we are today? In the early 1970s, it was decided that a close-in by-pass should be eliminated from the possibilities by the Department of Transport. That decision was taken because a close-in bypass would intrude into Wing park, because self-evidently it would have an impact on the village, and because the proposed route would have passed through a grade I ancient site.
In the early 1980s, a north route and a south route were proposed. To cut short on history, in 1989 a proposal to upgrade the Wing bypass into a new dual carriageway was included in the White Paper, "Roads for Prosperity".
The need for the road is contested by no one. Clearly it is of major strategic interest to the Government and to business to connect to the east ports of Felixstowe and Harwich. That is understood by my constituents, who are by no means backwoodsmen. They understand the

1051
commercial and transport rationale behind it. What they do not understand is how the road, which was originally a bypass, has been allowed to evolve in a somewhat organic way to the point where it will invade their village and their environment.
The real problem is that a number of interrelated schemes have been dealt with independently. The three schemes are as follows: first, the A418, Leighton to Linslade, southern bypass, which has been promoted by Bedfordshire county council. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) has taken the trouble to be here for the debate. The Wing bypass is the second scheme, and is promoted by Buckinghamshire county council, and the A4146 Linslade western bypass, which is also promoted by that county council, is the third scheme.
The three separate schemes are obviously interrelated. The more strategic the roads become, the greater the need for them to be interrelated. However, they have not been interrelated in such a way as to allow the public to express their views or to propose alternative routes. As a result of the interrelating that has taken place, the meeting point of the three roads has been decided at a preconceived point—a roundabout. Obviously that limits the options open to dissenters, because it freezes the position, making it impossible for them to suggest alternatives, which can always be dismissed on the grounds that they do not tie in with the pre-arranged nodal point.
What we have had is a historical muddle—the organic growth of the bypass—plus an over-rigid reliance on this one meeting point. That is causing enormous irritation and frustration to my constituents. The Minister must take note of that.
To complicate matters still further, the Wing bypass is covered by section 272 of the Highways Act 1980 with the county council taking the lead. To the west, the Rowsham and Bierton bypass has the Department of Transport in the lead. There is an element of incoherence in this situation, as no one seems to have taken an overall look at where the road will go. Just as important, no one has considered the implications for the people who happen to live in its path.
To complicate matters still further I am informed that publication of the A418 west of Aylesbury to Wing proposals will be delayed until May 1992 so they will not be available to be seen in relationship to the proposed Wing bypass. Again, there is an element of fragmentation.
What will come out of all this is a de facto situation in which, because of the preconceptionabout the meeting point of those roads, the way the project has evolved over time and the lack of co-ordinated planning between the two county councils-co-ordinated in a manner in which the public could get at the whole system and question the assumptions behind the bypass—the democratic right of my constituents to challenge the route has been effectively undercut. Therefore, what is needed is a joint public inquiry. For that reason, I propose that the Secretary of State should consider calling in that particular bypass.
My constituents have been extremely patient over the years as the route has evolved. They have lived with the uncertainty. There are obvious implications for the people of the village, whether the route goes to the north or the south—there have been plans for both options. All are
1052
agreed—I stress this—that the bypass must be taken further away from the village, but that can be done only if proper oversight is taken by the Department of Transport, which, after all, is funding the roads. This affair must not be allowed to continue to evolve in a higgledy-piggledy, patchwork way.
10.43 pm
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): Over the past year, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) has sent me several letters from his constituents about the route of the Wing bypass. He and his constituents support the need for a bypass, but there is no consensus about the route that it should take.
Various routes have been examined to the north and south of Wing. Back in 1984, Buckinghamshire county council gave planning permission for a southern bypass. In 1989, the A418 through Wing was identified in the "Roads for Prosperity" White Paper as a local authority scheme which could form part of a strategic route linking the M40 with the M1. Traffic predictions warranted a dual carriageway and Buckinghamshire county council reviewed the relative merits of alternative routes. This led to formal consultation by the county council in April 1991 on three options, one to the north and two to the south of the village.
In May 1991, the county highways sub-committee recommended southern route S2. An application seeking planning permission was submitted in December 1991 to the county and district council planning committees, and I understand that the application is likely to be considered in March. I neither wish nor intend to interfere in the local democratic decisions on this matter, although I am well aware of the concerns that some have expressed about S2.
It is probably inevitable that no route will please everybody. In 1983, an outer route north of Burcott was rejected by the county council. It would have gone along the south of a valley facing Wing and had a strong visual impact on the village. The April 1991 consultation carried out by the county council canvassed a northern route developed in conjunction with consultants representing Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, a prominent local landowner. His consultants have also since put forward a further alternative.
The county council's preferred route to the south has been criticised for going too close to Wing, having regard to the amount of traffic likely to be using the road, but an alternative route further to the south is criticised because it would be insufficiently attractive to traffic going between Milton Keynes and Aylesbury to bring maximum relief to Wing.
It has therefore been suggested by some that the county proposals be abandoned in favour of a scheme developed using trunk road procedures. But that would mean starting again from scratch, causing delay and prolonging uncertainty. The scheme has been revised once to take account of the wider implications of its national role and represents the refinement of prolonged and detailed studies.
Mr. Walden: Before my hon. Friend the Minister gets lost, may I point out that he said that further delays might be caused if the entire scheme were reviewed from scratch. I suspect that my villagers would prefer further delay to

1053
having a four-lane, and potential six-lane, highway foisted on them, which would run very close to, if not through, some parts of the village.
Mr. Chope: I hear what my hon. Friend says. Ultimately, it is a matter for the local people in consultation with their elected representatives on the county council. Nothing would remove the need for a dual carriageway bypass of Wing. The traffic predictions show that a dual carriageway would be warranted. If the villagers want a bypass, it is inevitable that it will be a dual carriageway. The route for that bypass has already been the subject of a consultation, and the next stage in the planning process will be for the planning committee of Buckinghamshire county council to decide on the issue in March. Much argument remains prior to that meeting and it will not be an easy task for the county councillors because there is considerable opposition, as my hon. Friend has made clear to the House.
My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment has, potentially, the opportunity to use his powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to direct an authority to refer a planning application to him for his own personal decision. More generally, the county council has produced—as it is required to do—an environmental statement setting out the expected environmental impact and mitigation of the proposed road. That environmental statement is currently being considered by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Should the line of the route eventually receive planning permission, the next step for the county council would be to make draft side roads and compulsory purchase orders under the terms of the Highways Act 1980, probably by spring 1993. The public will have the opportunity to comment and object to the proposals. It seems likely, because of the level of concern, that a public inquiry would then be necessary. That inquiry would be conducted by an
1054
independent inspector appointed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and would have a forum for a full debate on the issues in great depth. It would give objectors an opportunity to express their views and enable alternative proposals to be examined and discussed.
This is a controversial scheme, but I hope that the county council, in conjunction with the representations made by my hon. Friend on behalf of his constituents and other local opinion, will be able to reach a conclusion that is reasonably satisfactory for all involved. Clearly, there is a demand for the uncertainty to be brought to an end as quickly as possible. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that the best people to bring that uncertainty to a conclusion are the Buckinghamshire county councillors who have carried the scheme forward so far and are much closer to local opinion—or should be—than is any other authority.
My hon. Friend is clearly concerned about the present position. He can ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to call in the application. That could be done before the county council takes a decision in March of this year. I am sure that my hon Friend the Member for Buckingham will not be slow to draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should he wish to do so.
I do not think that I can add anything further this evening. The road has been promoted by the county council, although it has national implications. When it is built, it will be funded largely by the taxpayer. However, that does not mean that the Government are dictating which route should be taken. They are listening to the views of people and relying on the county council to choose the best option.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Industrial Diseases
  Industrial Diseases
  Default Cases
  Default Cases
TRANSPORT
  Radioactive Materials (Transport)
  Radioactive Materials (Transport)
  A40(M)
  A40(M)
  Cornelis Johanna
  Cornelis Johanna
  Motorway Accidents
  Motorway Accidents
  Roads Programme, North-West
  Roads Programme, North-West
  Speed Limit Enforcement
  Speed Limit Enforcement
  Vehicle Registration
  Vehicle Registration
  Safety Belts
  Safety Belts
  A38
  A38
ENVIRONMENT
  Dockland Forum
  Dockland Forum
  Waste Disposal
  Waste Disposal
  Water Contractors
  Water Contractors
  Rural Development Commission
  Rural Development Commission
  Defective Housing
  Defective Housing
  Canada Geese
  Canada Geese
  National Parks
  National Parks
  Housing Investment Programme, Easington
  Housing Investment Programme, Easington
  Noise
  Noise
  Overcrowding
  Overcrowding
  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mortgage Repossessions
  3D Ltd.
  3D Ltd.
  Arthur Ford Ltd.
  Arthur Ford Ltd.
  Councillors (Allowances)
  Councillors (Allowances)
THE ARTS
  Japan Festival
  Japan Festival
ENERGY
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Refuseniks
  Refuseniks
  Treaty of Rome
  Treaty of Rome
  East Timor
  East Timor
  Cameroon
  Cameroon
  Somalia
  Somalia
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Armley Prison
  Armley Prison
  Extradition
  Extradition
  United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service
  United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service
  Derek Bentley
  Derek Bentley
  Rule 43
  Rule 43
  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Police Officers (National Memorial)
  Police Officers (National Memorial)
  Assaults on Police
  Assaults on Police
  Gatwick Airport
  Gatwick Airport
  Prison Officers
  Prison Officers
  Crime Prevention, Peterlee
  Crime Prevention, Peterlee
  Passport Applications
  Passport Applications
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Dioxins
  Dioxins
  Foxes
  Foxes
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Central Statistical Office
  Central Statistical Office
  Golden Shares
  Golden Shares
  Excise Duty
  Excise Duty
  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Competitive Tendering (Derbyshire)
  Competitive Tendering (Derbyshire)
  Company Taxation
  Company Taxation
  Nurses
  Nurses
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Baltic States
  Baltic States
  Aid
  Aid
WALES
  Business Rates
  Business Rates
  Schools Inspectorate
  Schools Inspectorate
  Pentreclwydau
  Pentreclwydau
  Sheep Annual Premium
  Sheep Annual Premium
  Radon Gas
  Radon Gas
  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Royal Navy Armaments Depot, Trecwm
  Royal Navy Armaments Depot, Trecwm
  RNAD, Milford
  RNAD, Milford
  Job Losses
  Job Losses
  Quangos
  Quangos
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Nominee Shareholdings
  Nominee Shareholdings
  Auditors
  Auditors
  Shipbuilding Intervention Fund
  Shipbuilding Intervention Fund
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Cable and Wireless
  Cable and Wireless
  Company Boards
  Company Boards
  Regional Selective Assistance
  Regional Selective Assistance
  Instruments of Torture
  Instruments of Torture
  Steel Production
  Steel Production
  Furniture Industry
  Furniture Industry
  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
HEALTH
  Factor 8
  Factor 8
  Blood and Plasma
  Blood and Plasma
  National Blood Authority
  National Blood Authority
  Waiting Lists (Haringey)
  Waiting Lists (Haringey)
  Capital Charging System
  Capital Charging System
  Arachnoiditis
  Arachnoiditis
  NHS Staff and Beds
  NHS Staff and Beds
  Myelograms
  Myelograms
  Research Institutes
  Research Institutes
  Private Nursing Homes
  Private Nursing Homes
  "Putting Women in the Picture"
  "Putting Women in the Picture"
  Home Care Services
  Home Care Services
  Low Income Scheme
  Low Income Scheme
  Specialist Hospital Units
  Specialist Hospital Units
  Spinal Injury Units
  Spinal Injury Units
  Mesothelioma
  Mesothelioma
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Electors
  Electors
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  GCSE Results
  GCSE Results
  Training
  Training
  Local Authorities (Sport)
  Local Authorities (Sport)
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Farming
  Farming
  Fire Services
  Fire Services
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
  Prisoner Statistics
  Prisoner Statistics
  National Insurance
  National Insurance
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Students (Vacation Payments)
  Students (Vacation Payments)
  Employment Training (Disability)
  Employment Training (Disability)
  Homes (Fees)
  Homes (Fees)
  Housing Costs
  Housing Costs
  Cold Weather Payments
  Cold Weather Payments
DEFENCE
  Battalions
  Battalions
  Military Training Grounds
  Military Training Grounds
  Tracked Vehicles
  Tracked Vehicles
  Military Satellites
  Military Satellites
  REME Workshops, Liverpool
  REME Workshops, Liverpool
  Firefighters
  Firefighters
  Industrial Base
  Industrial Base
  Defence Budgets
  Defence Budgets
  Defence Establishment Closures
  Defence Establishment Closures
  Military Bases
  Military Bases
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Theft
  Theft
EMPLOYMENT
  Training
  Training
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Unemployment (Costs)
  Unemployment (Costs)
  Offshore Installations
  Offshore Installations
  Silica Dust
  Silica Dust
SCOTLAND
  Exports
  Exports
  Royal Hospital for Sick Children
  Royal Hospital for Sick Children
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Industrial Development
  Industrial Development
  Ravenscraig
  Ravenscraig
  Housing
  Housing
  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Textile Industry
  Textile Industry
  Power Lines
  Power Lines
  Health Services
  Health Services
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  New Towns
  New Towns
  Investment
  Investment
  RETEX Programme
  RETEX Programme
  Lanarkshire Economy
  Lanarkshire Economy
  Land Use
  Land Use
  Rail Network
  Rail Network
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Dunbartonshire Enterprise
  Dunbartonshire Enterprise
  New Forth Bridge
  New Forth Bridge
  Lockerbie
  Lockerbie
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Toxic Waste (Glasgow)
  Toxic Waste (Glasgow)
  Mesothelioma
  Mesothelioma
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
  "Higher Education: A New Framework"
  "Higher Education: A New Framework"
  Regional Development Assistance
  Regional Development Assistance
  Part-time Workers
  Part-time Workers
  Skye Bridge
  Skye Bridge
  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Victim Support Groups
  Victim Support Groups
  Maternity Units, Glasgow
  Maternity Units, Glasgow

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

Algeciras-Gibralter Ferry Service: Ban
Lord Boyd-Carpenterasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Spanish Government have now accepted that their ban on the renewal of the ferry service between Algeciras and Gibraltar is contrary to their obligations as a member of the European Community.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, no. We believe that the Spanish ban in preventing the renewal of the ferry service runs counter to the spirit of the new Europe that we are trying to create, but is not in breach of Spain's legal obligations in the Community.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in the light of that Answer, can my noble friend say what line the Government are proposing to take? Are they simply going to acquiesce in Spanish defiance of the spirit of the Community, or will they take some action to bring it home to the Spanish Government that they cannot get away with this kind of thing?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we continue to press the Spanish on this matter. As my noble friend will know from previous Questions, in their minds they have linked it to the question of the airport which we do not believe is correct. In our annual meetings with the Spanish—the next one is due to be held in Spain at a date as yet not agreed—we shall continue to press on this matter.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we have had a number of exchanges in the House on this subject without any apparent change in the Spanish attitude. Can the noble Earl say whether there is any prospect that the Spanish will sign the draft external frontier convention, which is necessary and is part of their duty? Can he say whether there has been yielding in the Spanish position on this matter over the past two years?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord's first question. With regard to his second question, there has been no give in the Spanish position on this matter.

EC Finances: Administration
2.38 p.m.
Lord Benson asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the deficiencies in the administration of the finances of the European
1304
Community, which were exposed in the report of the Court of Auditors for the financial year 1990 and in a long series of reports of prior years, when they expect the administration of the finances of the European Community to be conducted in a satisfactory manner and how this is going to be achieved.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Court of Auditors, in its annual and ad hoc reports, rightly highlights deficiencies in the administration of the Community's finances, The court's observations concentrate on areas that need review, playing a vital role in strengthening Community procedures. In some cases the court's observations require the preparation of long-term improvements, but more often the Commission undertakes immediate steps to modify its procedures or strengthen regulations.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer, although it does not really answer the Question. Is the noble Lord aware that by chance the answer was given in the correspondence columns of The Times this morning? It indicates that what is needed is wholesale reorganisation of the administration of the Commission and a staff of greater competence and quality.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have of course noted the correspondence to which the noble Lord refers. However, the Question which he asked concentrates on the actions of the Court of Auditors. I believe that the Court of Auditors plays a most useful role in the affairs of the Community and has a considerable influence on what goes on. And so it should.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that most of the trouble has nothing whatever to do with the Commission? It is malfeasance on the part of the member states themselves.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can only answer today on the action taken on the various reports of the Court of Auditors. For example, the Community now has a 45-point action programme on fraud against the budget which covers areas, particularly in agriculture, identified in various reports of the court. I can assure the House—I hope that I can assure the House properly—that full note is taken of the reports of the court and that action is taken where necessary.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in supporting the observations of the noble Lords, Lord Benson and Lord Cockfield, may I ask the Government when they will take the initiative in seeking a complete and thorough review of the Community's financial regulations with a view to giving the Court of Auditors far greater powers in relation to the conduct of recalcitrant member states? Will the Government consult the Comptroller and Auditor General and obtain his views on the staff available to the Court of Auditors since at the moment that staff is grossly inadequate for the tasks entrusted to it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have on fairly recent occasions set out for the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, the various improvements made through the Maastricht agreement to the financial management and accountability of the Community. For example, the European Court of Auditors is to be given enhanced status as an official Community institution. It is to be required to provide the Council and the European Parliament with a statement of assurance on the reliability of the Community's accounts and on the legality and regularity of underlying transactions. Those steps and the others taken at Maastricht are steps very much in the right direction.
The noble Lord suggests that the Court of Auditors has inadequate resources to fulfil its role. I do not believe that there is evidence to support that assertion. The Community draft budget for 1992 provides 36 million ecu for the ECA, but I agree that it will be important to keep the effectiveness of the court under review.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that this Question, and the first Question on the Order Paper, and the supplementary questions and answers to both, confirm quite clearly the lack of affinity between the member states? Would it not be stupid to make any more commitments so long as that situation is the truth of the matter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think that my noble friend goes somewhat wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Peston: My Lords, without disagreeing with the view that we should perhaps raise the status of the Court of Auditors and give it more resources, is it not the case that, even if its status was as high as it conceivably could be and it was given an infinite amount of resources, its task in dealing with fraud remains an impossible one so long as the common agricultural policy continues? As I have said before, is not the CAP simply a mechanism for fraud and a problem that no one will ever be able to solve? Surely, what is required is a change of policy.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that the status of the Court of Auditors is very clear: its role is essential in the management of the European Community budget. It is an essential part of the process. I do not disagree entirely with the remarks made by the noble Lord about the common agricultural policy; but I would not go so far as him and say that it is a fraudster's charter. It is not quite as bad as that.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, can the Minister say whether it is true that when the Court of Auditors makes recommendations the Council of Ministers has adopted the principle of explaining why, with reasons, it does not conform with the recommendations? That was one of the recommendations in the report of your Lordships' Select Committee.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, both the Council and the European Parliament consider the
1306
court's findings and the Commission's responses very carefully. In granting its discharge to the budget, the European Parliament, acting on a recommendation from the Council, indicates what further action it believes to be necessary.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that not everyone will agree with him when he says that the common agricultural policy is not a fraudster's charter? Indeed, most people believe that it is a fraudster's charter. Therefore, would not the best way of dealing with the matter be to repatriate agriculture to the individual nation states, rather than the Commission embarking upon an enormous Domesday exercise using planes and helicopters, at a cost of about £70 million, to spy on every farmer, sheep and cow in the EC?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, although that question is a little wide of the one on the Order Paper, I should point out that the Government have already made clear their view on that proposal.

Heathrow Airport: Car Park Security
2.45 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenhamasked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the high costs of parking at Heathrow airport, what obligation is there on the British Airports Authority and the parking contractors to provide security for vehicles parked.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as with public car parks generally, this is a commercial matter of the contract between the operator and the user of the car park and not something in which the Government have a locus.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Perhaps I should, at the outset, declare not so much a personal interest but more a personal loss in that I had my car broken into in the short-term car park at London Airport. Unhappily, that is not an unfamiliar event these days. However, certain facts came to my notice during the course of that incident. For example, is the Minister aware, first that the cost of parking for the ordinary traveller in the short-term car park is £3 an hour; secondly, that in the fine print of the contract the contractors disclaim all responsibility; and, thirdly, that there is no regular security control carried out in the airport?
Bearing in mind the Citizen's Charter, does the Minister agree that the latter represents rather poor service and value for money on the part of the British Airports Authority and its contractors? Perhaps the authority should forfeit its charter marks. Alternatively, should it perhaps receive a charter stripe?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that I understand that BAA has recently made considerable improvements to the parking arrangements at Heathrow Airport. For example, the price of parking is not as high as the noble Lord

1307
quoted; indeed, BAA recently introduced a new short-stay parking price in the central car parks which amounts to 75 pence per half-hour. The authority has also introduced new business parking arrangements which are slightly cheaper. Moreover, the authority has framed the new contracts with its agents in such a way as to give them an incentive to minimise the occurrence of crime. All those improvements have recently taken place.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I understand from the British Airports Authority that it insists that the car-parking agents take steps to ensure safety and that there are patrols of the car parks. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that aspect? I am informed that the actual number of thefts which occur, compared to those which take place in the streets, is very low. Moreover, I also understand that the Air Transport Users Committee is quite happy with the new reduced cost. Can the Minister say whether the compensation scheme which operates for drivers leaving their cars in the car park compares reasonably well with the arrangements which apply to local authority car parks that are operated by agents?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I certainly agree with the first part of the noble Lord's remarks. I understand that BAA has recently taken steps to improve the arrangements, including, for example, the introduction of closed-circuit television. The figures as regards crime in Heathrow Airport's car parks are not at all bad in comparison with the figures for elsewhere in the country. However, it is not really a question for me; it is a question for BAA.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sorry to bother the Minister, but did I hear him aright? Did he say that the charge for the short-term car park was 75 pence per half hour? Is my arithmetic correct when I deduce that to be £36 a day? Is that not an inordinate and expensive charge?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is not for me to say what is an expensive or an inordinate charge. All I would say is that there has been a reduction in the cost of the short-term car park for short-term parking. If the noble Lord wishes to park his car for longer, I suggest that he parks it at one of the other car parks which are more suited for longer-term parking, and cheaper as a result.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister answer my question, although it may be a matter for the Leader of the House? It arises out of interest and bewilderment. If the Minister is not responsible for the Question, how does it manage to appear on the Order Paper?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot answer that question. I too was surprised. I raised the issue and was told that it was in order.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, it is not my noble friend's fault, but to say something costs 75 pence a half hour is the same as saying that an article costs 19s 11¾d. By the time one has got out of one's car
1308
and walked to the end of the car park the half an hour has gone; so one is committed to something infinitely more than the minimum even before one starts.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, again, it is not a question for me. The minimum charge used to be £2.10 for rather longer than half an hour. There are many people who would just like to meet someone at the airport and would use only the half hour. For those people the short-term car park is useful.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we put down Questions in the House not merely for ourselves but sometimes in the interests of the entire country? In this instance, the Question is in the interests of the thousands of motorists who use that car park.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am pleased to know that the entire country is hanging on the words that I am uttering from this Dispatch Box today.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly assist the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart: the price goes up after the first hour or so to £3 an hour; so it is even more expensive than the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, thought. Travellers experience difficulties in meeting the shortest period. If the Minister believes that the matter is not one for government but is one for private industry, and is not within the Government's remit, could not the Government do more to inspire competition in parking at London Airport so that there is a choice of locations, prices and levels of service for the traveller?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is exactly what BAA has done. In the medium-term, not the short-term, car parks it has introduced competition between at least two operators, and the prices there are more competitive than have so far been quoted this afternoon. The Government have a role in so far as the MMC investigated the car parking charges at Heathrow during the quinquennial review of BAA's prices at Heathrow. The MMC found those prices to be reasonable.

Torture Equipment: Export Controls
2.53 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusbyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will prohibit the export of all instruments of torture and mechanical restraint.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, the Government have received a report on this matter from Amnesty International and will respond to it after a careful study of its contents. The Government deplore the use of any equipment knowingly exported for the use of torture and other such violations of human rights. The Government already control the export of leg irons, shackles and gangchains, and recently reconfirmed that no licences would be issued for the export of those items.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and welcome its tone. Is he aware that while the Question I put down has general import it is based upon one issue which causes some anxiety? A friend of mine, Orton Chirwa, who is well known in many parts of the House and who was a servant of Nyasaland and then Attorney-General in Tanzania, was kidnapped 10 years ago. According to the Amnesty International report, which the Minister has quoted, he was kept in prison for two days and two nights handcuffed and leg-ironed in a compulsory squatting position. According to Amnesty International, those leg irons came from Britain. That is why I asked the Question. I should be glad to receive a response from the Minister.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Amnesty International report came up with three allegations linking British firms with the overseas practice of torture. One of them concerned the manufacture and export of leg irons in 1983 by a Birmingham firm. That led in 1984 to the Government banning the export of leg irons; and last October my right honourable friend the Minister for Trade announced that he was banning the export of a certain type of large handcuff which could also be used as a leg iron. We have not been asked to add other items to the list of controlled exports.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, if it is true that instruments of torture are being made here, should not the Government consider whether their manufacture should be prohibited?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I have demonstrated, where we have been asked to put items on the list, that has been done. We have not been asked to put on the list additional items to which special considerations should apply. Most forms of torture will be carried out by instruments whose primary purpose is entirely innocuous, even if they are imported from this country, which may well not be the case. We could only be certain that we were not contributing to torture overseas if we stopped virtually all our exports.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, when suffering from lower back pain, I sometimes employ a means of mechanical constraint called a corset, which, if maladjusted, can easily become an instrument of torture. Will the Minister tell us how one could draft a statutory instrument so as to define the permissibility or impermissibility of something for export according to how it is adjusted by its future user?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not think that we will consider adding corsets to the list.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind that there is evidence of increasing torture in a number of countries, not just the cases referred to by my noble friend, and bearing in mind the work that Amnesty International has done, not merely in bringing it to the attention of Her Majesty's Government but in securing apparent support for the convention against torture, does the Minister accept that if the Government decided to take tough action against
1310
instruments that are clearly designed for torture—not for supporting parts of the body—it would receive a warm welcome?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we have taken such action. That is exactly what we have done. Amnesty International gives three instances; in themselves they provide a rather narrow foundation upon which to make broad allegations. We are considering the report, and we shall reply to it in due course.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister give an assurance what whatever measures of control are finally deemed necessary, they will be more effective than the measures of control in operation at the time that gun barrels were exported to Iraq from this country?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord raises matters that go wider than the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, while welcoming what I hope is the Government's disgust at this trade, will the Minister tell the House what procedures under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989 people have to go through to obtain a licence? No one seems clear about that point. Secondly, will he confirm or deny that instruments designed for execution, as opposed to torture, fall outside the order?
Lord Reay: My Lords, apart from the one case instanced in the Amnesty International report, we have no evidence that there has been any manufacture or export of items designed for execution. With regard to the list of countries to which special considerations apply, a list was published in December of destinations for which export licences are subject to special considerations. That is designed to give a guide to industry. There are currently 34 countries on the list.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind the perhaps crucial distinction between instruments designed to torture and instruments that can be used for torture? After all, a pen knife, a cigarette end and a car magneto can be used for torture. But instruments designed to torture surely come within the prohibited category. I am not talking about the noble Earl's corset!
Lord Reay: My Lords, in all cases where it has been brought to our attention that items specifically designed for torture were being exported, we have taken action. In other cases where items are exported which could be used for torture but are not primarily designed for it, it is difficult to see what the Government can do.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister say when the Government will have completed their study of the Amnesty International report? I am sure that the findings will be of great interest to the House.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the report has been presented to us within the past three weeks. It is a little early to say when we shall complete our consideration of it.
Lord Willams of Elvel: My Lords, may I Press the noble Lord on the Supplementaries that I asked? First, what are the procedures under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989 for obtaining a licence for something that is apparently an instrument of torture? Secondly, are instruments designed specifically for execution outside the Government's remit under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have answered the noble Lord's second question and I thought that I had dealt with the first. The procedures are well known to exporting firms which should have no difficulty in following them.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, while the noble Lord is considering the report, will he give attention to what appears to be a loophole in the banning of exports? I understand that last year in Miami leg irons were displayed at an exhibition under the name of Hiatt Thompson, the distributor for the Birmingham firm, Hiatt. It appears that because the United States has no ban, companies may display these wares in the United States and other countries although the ban applies to them in this country.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am not sure that we are in a position to control what happens within other jurisdictions. I can only repeat that the export of such items is banned in this country.

Business
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to say a word about the two debates standing in the names of my noble friend Lord St. Davids and the noble Lord, Lord Judd. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the short debate in the name of my noble friend Lord. St. Davids this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 10 minutes and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, eight minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in that debate.

The Welsh Economy
3.3 p.m.
Viscount St. Davidsrose to call attention to the economy in Wales; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Today's debate on the economy of Wales comes at a time when the economy, both within Wales and nationally, faces a great many challenges. I believe, therefore, that the timing of this debate provides an ideal opportunity to assess the measures which have so
1312
effectively revolutionised the economy of Wales and the radical changes that have been wrought at the very heart of that economy over the past decade.
At the hub of all well developed and well balanced economies must be a competitive and flourishing range of production industries which is able to provide the basic requirements for everyday life. Much has been done in Wales to ensure the growth and success of our indigenous industries, though in recent years production, and particularly manufacturing, have occupied an ever-decreasing though still important place in our economy.
Competition from abroad, especially from Japan and South-East Asia, has continued to place great emphasis on both the competitiveness and efficiency of our larger industries. It has forced us to look closely at the very fabric of the Welsh economy and the way in which in the past it has been structured and to remove the frailties which had once been so prevalent.
In Wales, this has meant the rundown of the steel and coal industries on which much of the economy was over-dependent. This process of streamlining major industries is of course continuing in a bid to make them more competitive on the international stage. But it is in Wales that the brunt of these measures has been felt most and where they have been most effectively absorbed.
During the early part of the last decade both the steel and coal industries went through a considerable period of rationalisation. In 1978 Welsh steel making employed 57,000 people. By 1981 this had fallen to 27,000 and it is around 18,000 today. Similarly, the numbers employed in the coal industry have fallen from 30,000 to around 2,500 today.
We should not, however, kid ourselves into believing that this rationalisation is a recent innovation. Far from it. At its peak in 1920, the coal industry employed over 290,000 people. This process of rationalisation began in earnest in the early part of the last decade but was long overdue and very much needed.
Cutbacks of this scale to industries which were the very heart and tradition of Wales could have been debilitating had it not been for the inherent strength which exists in the Welsh spirit. The Welsh economy, aided by strong and effective measures to enhance the employment opportunities of its workforce, has continued to flourish and diversify despite these cutbacks.
In place of an economy once overwhelmed by the colliery face and steel plants, we now have a well balanced economy, far better equipped to respond to the recessionary pressures which are at present dogging the national and world economies. Steel making and mining of course still have a role in the Welsh economy. More than that, they have a unique place in the history and traditions of the communities of Wales. This will always be so, but there is little room for sentiment. We should surely not be looking forward to economic recovery so optimistically if our economy and industrial base were shackled quite so firmly to history and tradition as hitherto.
There are many reasons why the policies of the past decade have been successful. Not least among these is

1313
the sterling work which has been carried out by the Welsh Development Agency. The main aims of that agency are to further the economic development of Wales, enhance its international competitiveness and improve the environment. The agency pursues these objectives through a wide range of activities, including the provision of modern industrial property, the promotion of inward investment and new technology, business advice and venture capital, land reclamation and environmental improvement and, increasingly, urban renewal and the economic development of rural communities.
Since 1979, the WDA has invested over £1 billion at today's prices in its activities. It has used these resources well. For example, the agency's property programme has ensured that over the past six years the amount of factory floor space rented to Welsh firms has provided the space for 36,000 jobs.
During the past five years, the agency has also raised over £80 million from the sale of its factories to individual tenants and private sector investors, reinvesting the proceeds of these sales in the Welsh economy. Increasingly, the agency's financial resources and management efforts are being directed to its role as a facilitator: to stimulate private sector investment and enterprise. To give an example, the programme known as Welsh Property Venture was launched in 1989 actively to market opportunities for joint ventures between the WDA and the private sector. More than half a million square feet of factory and office space has been secured in the first year of operation, enough to house jobs for over 1,600 people; and for every £1 the agency has invested in this way it now succeeds in generating more than £4 of private sector investment.
In addition to greater prosperity, economic progress also results in a better quality of life, which in itself will help to attract new investment. There is therefore a parallel need to enhance the environment and remove the legacy of dereliction associated with the old traditional industries. The agency has a key role to play here and has a first-class record.
Since 1979 the agency has invested some £220 million at today's prices in reclaiming derelict land. Over 9,500 acres of such land have been brought back into productive use in one of the largest and most sustained programmes of its kind in Europe. When the scheme and its existing programme are complete, some 20,000 acres of poisoned, derelict or damaged land will have been cleared and turned over to productive use to the benefit of the communities involved and Wales as a whole. Reclaiming land, particularly in the Welsh valleys, is a major asset and constitutes a marvellous opportunity for development.
Last year alone business projects worth £175 million were located on land reclaimed by the agency. At current rates of progress the agency is on target to eliminate all the remaining major industrial dereliction by the end of the 1990s. That is a major achievement for Wales. It is important to build on such success. Your Lordships will recall that a Bill was recently approved by this House which has the effect
1314
of raising the WDA's financial limit, thus providing the agency with the headroom it needs to pursue its tasks in the coming year.
The Secretary of State for Wales has been able to secure increased provision next year and to increase the WDA's gross spending power in 1992–93 to nearly £167 million. That is nearly £7 million more than the current year and is the highest sum ever both in cash and in real terms. That will allow the agency to continue to play a vital role in the revitalisation of the Welsh economy. Welsh Development International, an arm of the WDA, has been instrumental in ensuring that Wales continues to be considered as an ideal location for some of the world's major companies. Wales is now firmly on the business map.
Wales is known as the European base of Sony's TV operations in Europe, of much of Ford's engine manufacture and of Bosch's alternator business. The list could go on. The presence of such major world companies in Wales, and their evident success, give a tremendous boost to the credibility of Welsh companies when they seek to do business abroad. Wales has established an enviable record in attracting international and UK based companies to invest in the Principality. The recent decision by Sony—one of the world's most discerning companies—to carry out a £150 million expansion of its plant in South Wales represented a marvellous voice of confidence. Sony was, however, only one of the many companies to announce inward investment last year. In all, the Principality recorded its highest ever inward investment figures—183 projects from overseas and UK based companies promising over 17,000 new and safeguarded jobs. There are presently over 350 foreign owned companies that are committed to Wales. Currently those firms provide employment for around 65,000 people.
The Government are determined to maintain that momentum. I know the Secretary of State for Wales places great emphasis on the need to continue to attract those high levels of inward investment. I am sure that the shrewd marketing skills available within Wales will ensure that that fine record is maintained.
Inward investment also provides considerable benefits for indigenous industry, providing new business for component and service suppliers. New management techniques have also been introduced to the Welsh industrial scene, particularly by the 40 or so Japanese companies that have set up operations in Wales. It has one of the highest regional concentrations of such companies in Europe. As a consequence Wales has an efficient, quality conscious and wide-ranging industrial base which is able to compete effectively at the highest of international levels.
In recognising the vital importance of securing inward investment projects, it is all too easy to forget the valuable efforts of indigenous industries. The development of our own companies is something we continually strive to foster, both by offering grant assistance as an inducement to expand existing businesses and by providing the necessary economic climate and framework to enable individuals to start up on their own.

1315
Wales, aided by government policies, has maintained a strong tradition of encouraging small businesses. Indeed there are now over 67,000 more small firms in Wales than was the case in 1981. That represents an increase of some 59 per cent. The contribution that those small, widely diversified and enterprising firms have made to the successful regeneration of the Welsh economy has been invaluable.
As we begin to pull out of the period of recession, Wales continues its success in encouraging home grown companies to expand. The reason for this is quite clear. We have the skills and the infrastructure but, above all, we have a committed workforce. All those factors help to keep Wales in the vanguard when it comes to choosing a location for new and expanding businesses. In 1991 nearly 130 industrial projects, supported by the Welsh Office through regional selective assistance, were announced. They involve investment by companies of a massive £473 million. They promise over 7,100 new jobs and they also safeguard the jobs of 1,300 people already employed. Regional selective assistance of £60 million has been offered to help safeguard those job opportunities.
All of this is great news for the Welsh economy. What is particularly heartening is the extremely diverse nature of the companies involved. They represent the future and show the growing divergence of the Welsh economy. Never again will prosperity be threatened by over-reliance on a few uncompetitive industries.
One of the vital strengths of the Welsh economy and one of the keys to future prosperity lies in having a highly skilled workforce that is ready to make and take opportunities for enterprise and innovation. To achieve this both employers and employees must be committed to continuing training throughout working life.
I know that the Secretary of State for Wales was particularly pleased when, last September, the Prime Minister announced that responsibility for training in Wales would be added to his responsibilities for education and economic development. This becomes effective from April this year and presents an opportunity further to integrate co-operation across the field of training, education and enterprise. Our workforce is the most valuable of resources and we must ensure that all are able to achieve their full potential.
The restructuring of the Welsh economy, the sterling work of the Welsh Development Agency, our success in attracting foreign investment and the development of TECs are just some of the very positive steps taken which have brought Wales into the 1990s in a very competitive position. In 1989 output per employee in manufacturing in Wales was £29,478 compared to the UK figure of £27,279. Since 1985 manufacturing output has increased by 31 per cent. in Wales compared to 13 per cent. for the UK as a whole and total output in production and construction in the third quarter of 1991 was at a level 20.5 per cent. higher than in 1985 compared to an increase in the UK of only 8 per cent.
1316
Of course we do not rely entirely on the manufacturing industry in Wales. There are many more aspects to the Welsh economy to which in the short time available I have not been able to give the weight they deserve. We now have in place an economy which offers the workforce both opportunity and choice—two elements sadly lacking in past years—and which can sustain itself and respond to today's and tomorrow's challenges.
An example of this new found choice comes from the financial services initiative launched in 1988. It is geared to attract inward investment and further diversify the choice for employment within the Welsh economy. Employment in this sector has increased by some 20 per cent. in recent years. It is to be hoped that the information technology initiative which was launched last year will be equally successful in raising the profile of Wales to companies in this field and further strengthen representation of this fast growing sector.
The Welsh economy has made enormous strides in the development of a dynamic and diverse economic base. The fundamental changes which have been made in a comparatively short space of time are a credit to all those involved. Wales has reaped the benefits of the enormous amount of hard work which has been done in the way in which it has weathered the recession.
The results of that commitment are clearly visible. During the recession our industries in Wales have proved themselves to have the greater staying power which comes from efficiency, up-to-date equipment and a highly skilled workforce. Wales continues to be affected less severely than the UK as a whole and the gap between the UK and Welsh unemployment rates was reduced from 0.9 percentage points to 0.4 percentage points since March 1990. That is all the more remarkable when one considers that the gap in unemployment rates was 2.8 per cent. as recently as July 1985.
I firmly believe that we can now look forward with optimism to an upturn in the economy and to greater success and prosperity ahead. I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, one of the great pleasures of this House is that occasionally one is afforded the opportunity to congratulate a comparatively new arrival to the House on his contribution. In this case, as someone who was born and brought up in Pembrokeshire and has lived there for 65 years, it is a particular pleasure to welcome the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids—whose father was known to us all and whose grandfather used to be known at one time as "that damned old radical, Wilfred Philips"—in the generous terms of this House. However, he will not expect me to follow him entirely in the case he made although, curiously, I can underwrite some of the positive aspects.
A determined effort has been made under successive governments to re-establish the economy of Wales, despite the fact that its basic economy was virtually destroyed by the changing circumstances in which it operated. The noble Viscount referred to the

1317
past 10 years. I should like to go further back, to the basic piece of research under the general leadership of the current Leader of the Opposition, my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, which made the Wales Tourist Board, the Welsh Development Agency and the Mid Wales board possible, and resulted in a piece of literature entitled Wales—The Way Ahead. If we were to go back to that point and examine the changes that have since taken place we would set the very positive steps which have been taken in the context of the difficulties which beset the area.
The dismantling of the heavy industrial base carried out under various leaderships at considerable pain, even if historically inevitable, was not accompanied by the planning which I consider necessary. If one realises that a basic prop of a nation's economy is being removed it is essential to make positive plans for the long term. Ad hoc-ery—reacting to something which has occurred—is only a short-term solution.
It is true that positive attempts have been made, but we should look at the basis of the problem. I congratulate the noble Viscount on having secured the debate at so difficult a time. In preparation for the debate I searched through earlier documents and up-to-date newspaper reports. I found that the figures which have been researched suggest that because of the dismantling of the coal and steel industries the areas in which mining and steel production took place have suffered a greater loss in earnings than any other area. One might think that that speaks for itself. In fact, John Rigg, who is the director of the regional futures unit of the Henley Centre has produced some relevant figures. Having studied 322 travel-to-work areas throughout Britain he found that the four Welsh travel-to-work areas came bottom of the league in disposable incomes. That is the case now and that situation has existed for some time. Therefore, in terms of the capacity of the people to spend and therefore to help to refuel the economy, which is so vital at this time, Wales is worse placed than any other area in the United Kingdom.
The 1991 figures show that on average in Aberdare disposable income is £105 a week per head; in Merthyr and Rhymney it is £105.60 per week per head; in Pontypridd and the Rhondda it is £106 a week per head; and in Bridgend it is £106.30 a week per head. That compares with £123 a week per head in Cardiff, £122 per head in Aberystwyth and £121 per head in Wrexham. At the top of the league of Britain's travel-to-work areas are Guildford and Aldershot in England, with averages of £168 a week per head. Therefore, despite the progress made under two sets of governments and several Secretaries of State, in Wales today the people are more impoverished in terms of disposable income than those in any other part of Great Britain.
The House will know, because I have said so often enough, that I have the pleasure to be the chairman of the Wales Tourist Board. I believe that I accepted a mandate from two Secretaries of State for Wales—one of whom, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is present today—to help to promote the tourist trade in
1318
order to assist the future expansion of the economy in Wales. I have worked as best I know in that capacity in order to achieve that objective. Therefore, this afternoon I should like to speak about the tourism industry.
The tourism industry is firmly related to and embedded in the agricultural industry. I know that my noble friends Lord Morris of Castle Morris and Lord Prys-Davies, and others, will speak about agriculture but I should like to make this point in the context of what I have already said. The hard times on the farms in Wales have been reflected in the local newspapers during this past week. A very graphic set of figures was published in the WALES on Sunday newspaper showing that the net farm income for dairy farming in Wales has fallen by 21 per cent. Net farm income on hill and upland livestock farms has fallen by 25.5 per cent. and the net farm income in dairy and livestock has fallen by 19.9 per cent.
There should be no doubt in this House that the agricultural industry in Wales is perturbed about its potential to contribute to the earning capacity of Wales, and therefore to the earning capacity of Great Britain, as we "come out of the recession". And when will that be? We have received several forecasts each suggesting that it would be in six months' time but we are still in recession. The general expectation, at least across the Atlantic, is that it will continue for at least another year with the economies of the West moving along the bottom rather than rising. Therefore, let us consider what the leaders in Wales are saying now about the contribution of agriculture to that improvement.
In his New Year message Trevor Davies, the chairman of the NFU in Wales, said:
"Undoubtedly of major concern is the impact that the CAP (MacSharry) changes will bring".
I shall not talk about those proposals although others may well do so. He went on to say:
"The current proposals are an improvement but, make no mistake, they will hit right at the heart of Welsh agriculture which depends so heavily upon the livestock sector and yet is comprised of true family farms. There will be limited compensation, but Welsh agriculture will not benefit from the lower feeding stuff prices that are centred to the MacSharry proposals".
Wales will again be handicapped.
I turn immediately to someone with whom my friends opposite—and I call them that in my defence of Wales—might find some more fellow feeling: Anthony Bosanquet, the chairman of the Country Landowners' Association Welsh committee. In his New Year's message he said that two contrasting examples will affect agriculture in Wales:
"Interest rates have fallen significantly over the past year, which must be good news for those with high borrowings".
I am not a dismal Jimmy. I am not only giving the good news, I am giving the other side of the picture. But there is still at the time of writing no settlement in either the GATT or the CAP reform discussions.
He adds, with some optimism on the one hand and realism on the other:
"There are, however, encouraging signs that the government is beginning to realise that the countryside of Wales can only be properly managed and cared for by farmers"—
he adds "and landowners"—

1319
"and that market forces alone will not allow them to survive to do so.
The reason that the Welsh Development Agency and the other agencies are in being is that they also temper the natural forces of the market with planned policy.
I am rapidly running out of time and I cannot go into detail, but in addition the leader of the Welsh farmers' union—Mr. Parry, who is no relation of mine so I do not have to apologise—said that,
"the grinding unrelenting struggle to survive would continue to permeate all sectors of the industry".
Tourism is worth over £1.5 billion for the economy of Wales and, ultimately, for the economy of Great Britain. It is estimated that it supports 95,000 jobs. When analysed and built into the economic factors its effect is quite astonishing.
I have with me a copy of the Western Telegraph published today. It is the newspaper of West Wales. Whatever the difficulties and constraints that I have mentioned, this edition of the Western Telegraph is the saddest that I have known in my history. The closure of Brawdy air base and the closure of Trecwn mining depot have added to some of those problems.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Viscount for initiating the debate. It is appropriate for reasons additional to those which he and the noble Lord, Lord Parry, have put forward. At a time when there is a great tendency towards centralisation in our lives, especially in the context of the European Community, it is right that we should underline the importance of what I might call cultural nationalism: the importance of small countries cherishing their language, customs, national traditions and even their national prosperity. In the somewhat Anglo-centric kingdom in which we live, not much attention is lavished on what is sometimes called the Celtic fringe, where much of what is richest and best in our cultural heritage was born and still survives.
Wales is especially rich in history and tradition. It is a country which has nurtured such men as Caradog—in fact he was not a Welshman but was born outside Wales, spoke the Brythonic language and became one of the great Welsh heroes—Taliesin, Owain Glyndwr, Llwewllyn ap Gruffydd and even, I suppose, although it may offend some people, the Red Bandits of Mawddwy. People who can look back on such a history can scarcely be without a sense of national pride. More recently, we can look upon such people as Robert Graves and R.S. Thomas, not to mention Gareth Edwards and Barry John, if I may mention them in this context.
It would be impossible for a country like ours to be without a sense of history. The late Gwynfor Evans in his wonderful book Aros Mae—translated into English as Land of my Fathers—quoted from a Frenchman, Jacques Chevalier, as follows:
"Wales was the only nation in Europe in the tenth and eleventh centuries which had a national literature apart from an imperial one in Latin. The people of Wales were the most civilised and intelligent of the age".
That is, of course, still so.
1320
I should like to say a few words on the subject on which the noble Lord, Lord Parry, embarked, because we are talking about the economy. I want to speak of the tourist industry, to which the noble Lord has given such distinguished and invaluable service. As he said, the tourist industry provides employment for about 100,000 people representing 9 per cent. of all the employment in the Principality of Wales, a much higher share of total employment than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. There were 8.5 million tourist trips from the rest of the United Kingdom to Wales in 1990 and 680,000 visitors came from overseas. As the noble Lord said, that represents altogether an expenditure of well over £1 billion on tourism.
For a Welshman at any rate, that is not surprising. By anybody's standards, Wales is scenically one of the most beautiful places on earth. Whether one is in the Gower peninsula in the south, the Brecon Beacons, the gently undulating country of Gwent on the west bank of the River Wye where I was born, or further north in the Mawddach estuary which runs from Dolgellau to Barmouth with Cadair Idris to the south and the hills of Meirionydd to the north, one finds some of the most beautiful scenery in the world. Further north, one comes to Snowdon and the Lleyn peninsula, the great sweep of Cardigan Bay and the great castle of Harlech, which has played such an enormous part in the history of our country. I should not forget, lest I incur the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, the Vale of Llangollen, one of the most smiling and beautiful valleys in Wales or any other country where for many years I was president of the international eisteddfod—a role that is now filled by the noble Lord with greater distinction than I could ever bring to it.
Yet, despite all that incredible and unique physical beauty, the tourist industry in Wales, flourishing as it is, is a relatively recent phenomenon. Its growth and success have been mainly due to the efforts of the Wales Tourist Board, with which I have had much to do in my years as president in Llangollen. I have learned to admire enormously the impact that it has made on the tourist industry in Wales. Until comparatively recently I suppose it was possible to say —indeed many Englishmen and other foreigners did so—that Wales was gastronomically a desert. Apparently, in Wales, all that they ever ate was lamb, laver bread and toasted cheese. That was not entirely true. Perhaps, in parenthesis, I might say that toasted cheese came to be called by the English "Welsh rabbit" because they believed that the Welsh were too poor to eat rabbit and therefore ate toasted cheese instead. Perhaps I may also warn Englishmen against the terrible mistake of calling it "Welsh rarebit", an appalling Essex-type aberration which has passed into the English language. If it is anything, it is "Welsh rabbit" and is in fact toasted cheese.
Today, Wales is liberally endowed with country house hotels, inns and farmhouses where the standard of food, comfort and croeso (welcome) is as high as anywhere in the smaller countries of the world. More recently, there have been even greater improvements. In June 1988, the Wales Tourist Board initiated its five-year plan, part of which inaugurated an annual

1321
inspection of all types of accommodation in Wales to ensure that they were up to standard. The Wales Tourist Board is now assisted by having the ability, as Scotland has, to offer grant aid for capital improvements.
However, there were—I say "were" because only recently has the situation changed—two great difficulties. One was an inadequate budget to promote Welsh tourism. The other was the fact that the Wales Tourist Board was forbidden to market Wales overseas because it was alleged to be in some kind of competition with the British Tourist Authority. I am glad to say that the Government have moved on both those issues in recent months and have announced a £2.5 million increase in planning expenditure. They have said also that they will support a Private Member's Bill in the House of Commons to give the Wales Tourist Board overseas marketing powers.
There are still some problems. However, I am sure that the Wales Tourist Board, together with the Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency, local authorities and private enterprise will solve them. The future of the Welsh economy lies in partnership and all those bodies operating together and in harmony. Already, considerable efforts are being made. For example, Newport Borough Council—one of two local authorities in the United Kingdom named by the Audit Commission as being in the forefront of effective economic development strategy—is a model for the type of thing that can be done to promote the economy and development of Wales as a whole. I do not refer solely to the tourist industry.
I would not be as gloomy as the noble Lord, Lord Parry, about the economy of Wales. The Welsh Office is to be congratulated on the role that it has played, together with the other elements in Wales that I have named as being important. I encourage the Government to continue in that vein. Perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, that the Welsh are a remarkable, unique and unpredictable people. I remind her of the time when the England rugby team, in preparation for the coming season, decided that it would have 15 cardboard cut-outs of rugby players in scarlet Welsh jerseys and white shorts set up on the pitch at Twickenham to prepare them for the game ahead. After their first practice, someone asked the English coach, "How did it go?" He said, "Not very well. Wales won by 14 points to six." A country that is capable of that is capable of almost anything.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord St. Davids upon initiating the debate. If I do not exactly thank him, it is because I have taken part in too many debates on the Welsh economy to want to add to the total.
When I took over in 1979 as Secretary of State for Wales, Wales was in a state of deep depression. That was as much psychological as it was economic or social. There was widespread pessimism and that self-defeating lack of confidence revealed itself in the begging bowl approach that was based on the
1322
expectation that the Government or the English taxpayer had a duty to come to the rescue. All that was the not surprising consequence of the fact that for the greater part of the century, the old industries on which Wales had depended had been in decline. That formidable basic handicap was magnified by the same industrial inefficiency and union attitudes as then bedevilled the British economy as a whole. The great steelworks at Llanwern and Port Talbot were grossly overmanned and uncompetitive.
The most striking feature of the Welsh scene today is not the diversity and growing strength of the economic base, remarkable though that is, so much as the transformation in attitude and the pride and confidence now evident in Wales. The Welsh workforce now looks the world in the face and says that it can compete with the very best—indigenous just as much as foreign. Llanwern and Port Talbot are now among the most competitive steel plants anywhere. The continued volume of overseas investment is evidence of the reputation that Wales has established in Japan, the United States and Europe.
I believe that I am entitled to say that an important factor has been the firm and consistent policies pursued by this Government and its three Secretaries of State. During my first few years, the going was very rough, but for most of my time in office I, like Mr. Peter Walker, was able to boast that Wales with 5 per cent. of the population was attracting a quite disproportionate share of inward investment into the United Kingdom. It was a great satisfaction to me to see unemployment falling sharply before I left.
The firm foundations which we laid in those difficult years in the early 1980s were built on and developed with energy and flair by Peter Walker, who did so much to expand the first Valleys Initiative and to encourage the widening of economic activity. Now, under David Hunt's leadership, the investment has continued to take place and even during a period of world recession—my noble friend Lord St. Davids reminded us of this—the inward investment performance in 1991 was particularly remarkable. Almost equally remarkable has been the contribution throughout all those years, under three Secretaries of State, of Sir Wyn Roberts.
Unemployment is certainly still too high but the rise has been much less severe than in the last recession despite the rapid closure of coal mines. The figure was 121,600 in January compared with 170,000 in January 1986. The number of long-term unemployed is less than half that figure.
The nature of the fundamental change in the past dozen years is perhaps not sufficiently understood. I have spoken of the change of attitude. However, there is now a quite different economy. While steel remains important, coal has virtually gone and there is now a widely diversified manufacturing base which includes over 300 overseas controlled companies. As important, there has been a reversal of the drain of professional and financial firms out of Wales about which I spoke with concern in a speech to the Cardiff Business Club a few years ago.

1323
Of course some serious problems remain with us. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, spoke of the difficulties confronting agriculture and, understandably too, the consequences of the closure of military establishments as a result of the remarkable changes in the world affect my former constituency and his home area of Pembrokeshire.
The transformation of the Welsh economy has been underpinned by a transformation and vast improvement in the infrastructure and by equally significant improvements to the environment. The opening of the Conwy Tunnel in the autumn put us on the final lap towards the completion of the A.55 dual carriageway that links North Wales with the industrial heart of Britain. Similarly, the last gap in the M.4 is being filled near Swansea, and the second Severn crossing will in about five years provide the transport security that the South Wales economy requires.
Noble Lords from outside Wales may not fully appreciate another feature of that South Wales economy, or the scale of another crucial transformation that has occurred in recent years. Cardiff is hardly recognisable as the city it was two decades ago. For long blessed with an exceptionally beautiful civic centre it now presents a thriving and successful face in its shopping centre, its extensive redevelopment programme, culturally in theatre, music and the arts, and the vast reconstruction taking place in the old dock and steelworks areas of south Cardiff. I do not overlook equally striking improvements that have been taking place in Swansea and Newport, but Cardiff has a particular significance for the wider economy. The capital city, with a population of about 300,000, is linked to the valley communities, with a population of perhaps 1.5 million, by a network of trains, and now roads, which have vastly improved access. All that means that there is an integrated economic area in which communities are no longer isolated and wholly dependent on local firms or the local pit. That is why the regeneration of South Cardiff and Cardiff Bay is almost as significant for the valleys as it is for the city itself.
I referred earlier in a single sentence to the improvement of both the infrastructure and the environment. It is appropriate that they should go together. The improvement in the environment reflects the economic improvement and it is a crucial instrument in its achievement. The environmental change is visible; for instance, in the success of the derelict land programme, since the events at Aberfan, in improvements in the housing stock in places such as the Rhondda Valley and, perhaps most strikingly, in Ebbw Vale, where the National Garden Festival will open in May.
All that, the removal of urban industrial squalor and the excellence and adaptability of the labour force are the reasons why Wales is proving to be such an attractive location for overseas investors. The Welsh economy is doing well because Wales is becoming an increasingly attractive place to live, work and play, not only for those of us fortunate to live in its beautiful countryside.
I was once criticised by the Daily Mirror for saying that if you want to attract industry to an area one of
1324
the first things you must do is to build a golf course. I shall say that again—but it is not only golf courses that are necessary. My predecessor was absolutely right in providing the funds to help to build the St. David's Hall, one of the best concert halls in the country. I believe that, for artistic and economic reasons, I was right to find the funds to build the major extension now under way at the National Museum of Wales. The local authorities which are doing so are right to provide new homes for music and large-scale theatre in North Wales. I hope that in due course we shall have the opera house which Welsh National Opera and other companies deserve. That is as important for the economy as it is for those who love opera.
The arts are important in themselves, but if we seek to create economic health we must also create a cultural and social environment that is attractive. I believe that the 1980s and 1990s will be seen as a period of historic change when the long agony of depression and decline ended and when Wales, with an increasingly strong and diverse economy, entered a new period of prosperity and cultural richness. Dare I be so optimistic as to suggest that from time to time it might also hope to enjoy success on the rugby field?
3.52 p.m.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, we are grateful to my noble friend Lord St. Davids not only for initiating the debate but for his excellent speech and the many statistics that he gave. Anyone who has spent most of his life in Wales will be aware of the economic change that has been referred to. It has happened in many countries—nothing stands still.
Before the war the Welsh coal industry was huge and one cannot believe that now not a single colliery is open in the Rhondda Valley. There have been traumatic changes in employment in the steel and coal industries. Successive governments have attempted to tackle the problems and to make the changes as easy as possible for the Welsh people. We must not underestimate their task.
I remember well my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir, who I see in his place, attracting a great deal of industry to Wales, as other Secretaries of State have done. I remember opening one of the first Japanese factories on his behalf when I served under him at the Welsh Office.
It is invidious to argue which of the various Secretaries of State has done best in the various fields that we are discussing. I pay tribute to the three incumbents since 1979 for attracting industry to Wales, for their various initiatives and for their strong support of the Welsh Development Agency and the Rural Development Board. I must not forget the Cardiff Bay development which my noble friend Lord Crickhowell initiated and which his two successors have pursued. While waiting for my train this morning on Newport station I saw a hoarding which read, "Cardiff Bay Development. It will produce 30,000 jobs". All such developments take a long time but those figures could be important to the people of South Wales.

1325
In one of the recent debates in the Welsh Grand Committee on 11 th December the Secretary of State referred to an additional £29 million spent on the rural initiative and to a total extra spending for 1992 of more than £½ billion. The figures speak for themselves.
One of the important bodies is the Holyhead Joint Venture Board, with a budget of £5.6 million. That is a good example of the co-ordination that exists in Wales among the WDA, Gwynedd county council, the Ynys Moôn borough council, the Holyhead town council, the Sealink Stena line (which has unfortunately announced many job losses) and the Holyhead Opportunities Trust. That is typical of the co-ordination that exists between central and local government.
Not all the small firms supported by the WDA and RDB have survived. In a world recession an economic problem in the United States or Japan acts like a pebble dropped into a pool; the ripples spread everywhere, even to the smaller struggling firm in Wales. In areas with little industry the loss of one firm considerably increases the rate of unemployment. The RDB and WDA exist to help solve those problems.
I wish to underline the problems of the Welsh farmers. As chairman of the Council of the Rural Welsh Agricultural Society I am acutely aware of what is happening. The continuing decline in the agricultural workforce and the amalgamation of small firms are sad facts. For most of us who live on the land the future is at best pretty obscure. At present the cattle and sheep sectors are supported by grants under the CAP. The result of the GATT negotiations are bound to affect what happens to farmers all over Britain and Europe. This morning's newspapers make it clear that there is a great deal more to come from that direction.
I say to the Government that somehow or other farmers must be kept on the land. One may ask why farmers are different to any other industrial workers. They are no more important but they carry out a specific job over and above looking after their sheep and cattle. Many people come to take holidays in Wales under the aegis of the tourist board. They come to a fine countryside. If there were no sheep and cattle the land would revert to scrub and gorse and broom. If that happened decades of good husbandry would be lost; we should depend on other countries for our meat and the countryside which is so much enjoyed would become a wilderness.
No one is more aware of that than the Secretary of State, the Minister of Agriculture and my noble friend Lady Trumpington, who has been so assiduous in her visits to and interest in Wales. I make no apology for underlining the importance of family farming to all Ministers concerned, whether it applies to Wales or areas this side of Offa's Dike.
I wish to refer to one matter which is perhaps more contentious than other matters dealt with this afternoon. It could in itself in the long term affect the Welsh economy if it ever came about; that is, the idea of a Welsh assembly. I understand that that policy is supported by Plaid Cymru and by the Liberal Democrats. It would be expensive to run and could be
1326
a source of friction for the Welsh Office. It could well damage the present economic set-up. Only 12 years ago in a referendum the Welsh people turned down an assembly by three-and-two-thirds to one. In my view they would do so today because the same arguments still apply.
Whatever the result of the arguments on local government reform—and there will be many such arguments in the future—it will be far less damaging to the Welsh economy than an assembly would be. As regards local government reform, I hope that Ministers have not overlooked the expense and disruption that that causes. We had all that in 1972.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids for giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject. I begin by congratulating Her Majesty's Government on the unquestionable success, over a number of years, of their inward investment policy in Wales. Without venturing into the contentious territory of which Secretary of State can claim credit for which achievement, perhaps I may say that each of them has contributed to a remarkable regeneration of industry in Wales. However, we need a decision on the proposed oil and gas terminal at the Point of Ayr. I hope that the Government appreciate the urgency of that matter and that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, will be able to bring us good news.
However, it is an inevitable consequence of geography that the majority of that new prosperity is concentrated in two places; namely, North East Wales and the so called "M.4 corridor". Between those two areas there is very little new industry. Indeed, there is very little industry. Between Clwyd and Carmarthen we grow a great deal of grass and, as I hope to show, herbage brings headaches. The economy of rural Wales—Gwynedd, Dyfed, Powys and parts of Clwyd —is overwhelmingly agricultural and particularly dependent on sheep, beef and milk so that flexibility is difficult and diversification is almost impossible.
In those areas there are immediate fears and problems. Restrictions on sales into intervention of beef create difficulties for livestock farmers particularly in Wales because diversification is so difficult. The tourist market for jolly farmhouse holidays is almost saturated and not many golf courses can be built on Plynlimon or in the Great Bog of Tregaron. Welsh dairy farmers are equally apprehensive. The milk quota system, troublesome though it is, has not been vastly unfair to the Welsh farmer but he cannot expand in any way and he has difficulties in selling his quota. Even if he succeeds, what does he do with his land?
Welsh dairy farmers have a great interest in the future of the Milk Marketing Board and the sooner that matter is resolved the better. Some seem ready to welcome the voluntary co-operative society for England and Wales; others, especially those with small herds, are conscious of the protection afforded by the statutory body and suspect that they may be forced into that new voluntary society which will soon be controlled by, and serve the interests of, the very

1327
large producers, very few of whom live in or care about Wales. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to clarify the position as regards the Milk Marketing Board when she replies.
However, the most quantifiable, remarkable, measurable suffering in Welsh agriculture must be that of the hill and upland sheep farmers. Not only has the market price of lamb been inordinately low for the past two years and more but the farmers are now faced with the abolition of the variable premium system and are forced to recalculate on the basis of a limited number of breeding ewes. According to the recent Farm Business Survey the average income of Welsh hill and upland less favoured area livestock farmers in the year ending February 1991 was £7,561, or £144 per week; that is £4 per week higher than the Child Poverty Action Group's definition of poverty. The picture would be far worse without the large rise in support payments. To those farmers in the hill areas, one thing seems certain: next year will be better than the year after.
The future looks grim unless something is done. Peter Midmore of the agricultural economics department at the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, reporting on the prospect for farmers in Dyfed in the next 10 years, said:
"Reduced market returns will force many farmers off the land unless they can diversify their businesses or find off-farm work. The scope for the former is limited, and, in the context of general decline in agricultural output, fewer jobs in industries allied to, or dependent upon agriculture, will be available. Without policies to minimise these effects, 11,000 jobs and income worth £31 million in the rural economy will be lost".
I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give us news of such policies, although she will find the sheep farmers of the Cambrian mountains hard to convince.
Poverty and depression in agriculture is a chronic problem in Wales. The sudden, spectacular and acute damage to the economy in West Wales has been caused by the recent defence cuts. I have been privileged to discuss them with the chief executive of the Preseli/Pembrokeshire District Council. If we accept in every case the lowest estimate for unemployment figures, the closure of RNAD Milford Haven, RNAD Trecwn and the downgrading of RAF Brawdy mean that losses of 735 jobs will have been announced in the past nine months in the defence industry alone. Add to that the consequential loss to the local economy, variously estimated as anything from £20 million to £30 million, and the devastating impact on local education services, where more than 250 children of service personnel at RAF Brawdy alone are in local schools, and your Lordships can begin to see the price of the peace dividend to the people of Pembrokeshire.
The Government have responded by announcing the setting up of a task force with £2.2 million—£1 million of which will come from the Welsh Development Agency—to alleviate local distress. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could tell the House how much of that is new money. For example, is the £1 million from the WDA free money or is it money already committed through existing rural initiatives? Will the task force members be working full time or are they people already in government
1328
employment seconded to that project for a limited period as part of their other work? For a long time Pembrokeshire has been heavily dependent on the defence industry. Those cuts imposed disproportionate distress. I assure your Lordships that in West Wales the remembrance of them is grievous unto us, the burden of them is intolerable.
As in agriculture, diversification is virtually impossible. The trained workforce cannot be redeployed into tourism, fishing or the ferry terminal. Job vacancies simply do not exist. Of course, we welcome the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Defence of the 600 new jobs at RAF St. Athan. That is good news for South Glamorgan but cold comfort in Fishguard—120 miles away. The unemployed at Trecwn will find it impossible to commute to St. Athan, even if they were all prepared to "get on their bikes". We must know what plans the Government have for the rapid retraining of those who will soon find themselves without employment.
The weakness of the infrastructure in rural Wales contributes to so many of its problems. When we debated the Welsh economy in your Lordships' House last year, I drew attention to shortcomings in rail services, road conditions and bus services. Research at St. David's University College, Lampeter, has demonstrated that deregulation has not improved bus services one iota. More recent research there, under Professor Paul Cloke, on the implications of information technology for North Dyfed has highlighted the importance of infrastructure in rural Wales. Cloke says that,
"public and private agencies in North Dyfed must foster a degree of technological advance in the local economy. This process of 'fostering' must be deliberate and selective, because modern technology will not develop 'naturally' in a 'remote' rural area like north Dyfed".
We still await the provision of a decent road between Carmarthen and Aberystwyth. Year after year the Dyfed County Council, the WDA and the DBRW call for it. Year after year the Welsh Office refuses it for lack of money. Soon they will be able to pray in aid the lack of demand fallacy—demand will dwindle because everyone will have given up hope and gone home.
If rural Wales is not to rot there must be opportunities for diversification in agriculture, the defence industry and in the provision of infrastructure. It is the responsibility of government to create those opportunities. The workforce, as we have all said, is ready and eager for change. As St. Paul put it, "there are diversities of gifts". There must also be diversities of opportunity.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, this has been a good and positive debate and we are all indebted to my noble friend Lord St. Davids for giving us the opportunity to discuss the economic position in Wales. I should perhaps ask the indulgence of the House for I am the first speaker who does not actually have his home in Wales. However, I bear a Welsh name which has been traced back several centuries to North Wales, where it is said that my family lost a battle and had to get out quick.

1329
I am a frequent visitor to Wales and in various roles have taken a close interest in the Welsh economy, not least in the process of inward investment. As a number of noble Lords have already said, Wales has a remarkable record in that regard. It is a story that needs to go on being told, because of what it represents in terms of the rest of the world's confidence in Wales. The noble Lords, Lord Parry and Lord Morris of Castle Morris, are entitled to draw attention to some of the drawbacks affecting the economy in Wales and some of the areas of difficulty. However, my noble friend Lord Crickhowell put his finger on the point when he said that there has been a major transformation of morale in Wales. I believe that to be correct.
Lord Parry: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way for a moment; I realise the time constraints. Nothing from this side of the House denied what he says and in fact we specifically underlined it.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, indeed. I was about to say that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, started his speech with words which we could all endorse. However, it is worth looking a little deeper. There have been criticisms about screwdriver operations and suchlike, which it is right to answer. I have had connections with Japan over the past few years and shall say something about that.
We start from the proposition that the United Kingdom, unlike some of our Continental neighbours, has always extended an open welcome to inward investment. It brings jobs, technology, new systems of management, investment and exports and can often save imports. Wales has certainly benefited from that. My noble friend Lord St. Davids gave a number of figures. It is worth putting on record that since April 1983 up to October last year over 800 overseas projects were secured for Wales, bringing £4 billion capital investment and around 90,000 jobs created or secured in the Principality. By any standards that is a remarkable achievement.
Some of the existing employment by overseas companies has been the result of acquisition. But much of it has been new activity, businesses and factories. My noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord St. Davids pointed to the astonishing success of the process last year with 183 projects and 17,000 jobs either safeguarded or created. Today there are some 300 foreign owned companies in Wales. Wales has rather less than 5 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom. It has secured between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. of the total inward overseas investment. That is a remarkable tribute to the Welsh Office and to Welsh Development International, which played such a major part in it.
The biggest single group are the United States and Canadian companies, of which there are over 130; a similar number comes from Europe including big ones like Bosch, which has been referred to. Another is UP News, the big paper mill at Shotton, which has been a major shot in the arm for that part of Wales. There are now around 40 Japanese companies and it is about that I wish to say a few words.
1330
Wales has the highest concentration of Japanese firms in Europe. But one is entitled to ask two questions. Why, and what is the effect? "Why" is well established. I was pleased to read in the Liverpool Daily Post last year an article by the managing director of Sharp UK, which is located at Wrexham. He said, talking of his Wrexham factory:
"The workforce now stands at 1,150 and we are convinced that their willingness and adaptability is a major factor in the company's success".
He continued further down, which was music to all Welshmen:
"I can strongly recommend North Wales to any industrialist contemplating new opportunities".
That is the first point. It is the people who have attracted the investment. Secondly, to the Japanese, English is their second language in schools and many of the younger Japanese speak it extremely well. Perhaps the biggest intangible—I echo the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont —is the welcome which the people of Wales give to overseas investors, not just to the tourists but to those who settle there. There are also the more tangible benefits of access to the European market, various systems of grants that are available and, as my noble friends pointed out, excellent transport links to the ports and airports. Perhaps I can make one point to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I hope that the Government will support those who are putting forward the Severn-side airport near Newport as a major international airport. The plans are now being brought forward, finance is being sought and it has considerable potential to relieve some of the pressure on Heathrow.
The Government have also made great efforts to bridge the cultural divide between the indigenous population and the Japanese. The Welsh Office has given significant support to Japanese studies in Welsh schools. My right honourable friend Peter Walker was successful in securing a significant part of what has been called the "Parker" money for foreign studies by increasing the resources for Cardiff University. The recent Japan Festival had a lively, active and innovative committee in Wales. It brought Japanese culture to a large number of Welsh people which was much welcomed. All that creates a climate which makes Wales, for the Japanese companies seeking a European location, an attractive country in which to locate.
What about the charge of screwdriver jobs? I should like to quote what the former chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency said in a conference last year. He said:
"I think this is unfair. It is, I believe, almost inevitable that when one establishes a manufacturing presence in a distant continent you are going to start with fairly mundane assembly and work up, as confidence gains, to more sophisticated activities. This is exactly what is happening—perhaps not as quickly as we would like. Sony have been established at Bridgend for some 17 years and have gone from very plain assembly through manufacture of increasingly sophisticated components and now in a small way to the development of research".
He went on to quote the example of Race Electronics,
"which is a smallish components producer based in South Wales. They first broke into selling to the Japanese through selling circuit boards to Matsushita and Sharp. Now they

1331
have been able to make a link with the major trading company C. Itoh and are developing the business of selling components back to Japan".
Could there possibly be a better commendation than that?
I am indebted to Dr. Max Munday of the Japanese Management Research Unit, Cardiff Business School. His research has thrown much light on the impact on supplier firms of the arrival of the Japanese companies. Time does not allow me to mention more than a couple. One can take the case of Otford EPS in Newbridge. It is a large expanded polystyrene packaging company and began to sell to the Japanese companies. It was eventually able to build a new factory at Crumlyn near Newport, supplying Sony with high quality plastics mouldings using a novel process. It is now not only supplying Sony, but Hitachi at Hirwaun. Radon Controls was also a small company in Caerphilly with the number of employees in single figures. Following a management change it embarked on a project to supply remote control units for TV sets to Sony. That small company discovered a very steep learning curve in order to be able to supply the Japanese companies, with their "just-in-time philosophy" and wanting everything bang on time. Some of the comments that were made by the managing director bear repetition, particularly when he said:
"The system is geared up, and eventually you get used to being in the 400 mph lane, and you get used to contingencies".
These developments have been of enormous benefit to Wales and are continuing to be so. The Welsh people deserve every possible congratulation on the way in which they have made the most of these economic opportunities. They are immensely valuable and they have brought hope and confidence.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jenkin is absolutely right. This has been a very positive debate. We are grateful to my noble friend Lord St. Davids for having not only initiated it but also for the admirable speech that he made. I am also delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, here. It is very good of him to attend because he is summing up for the Opposition in the two debates that follow. I am delighted to see him. I am reminded that it is just over 40 years since he and I became Members of Parliament. We had adjoining constituencies. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, did slightly better than I did. I had a majority of 583 votes and, if I remember rightly, he had a majority of 595.
Subsequently, both of us became Secretaries of State for Wales. I wish to pay tribute to the part that he played during that time. My noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt was right: it is invidious to try to select different Secretaries of State for the efforts that they put in. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, mentioned how each government had made a determined effort to try to come to terms with the problems and difficulties in Wales.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will agree that since we became Members of Parliament 40 years ago, an enormous and welcome transformation has taken place in Wales. A great deal of praise can be
1332
given to many people for the way in which that transformation has been effected. Sometimes change has been slower than it should have been; at other times progress was affected by the question of resources. Nevertheless, there was a determination on everybody's part, not only Ministers but also Members of Parliament for Wales, that something had to be done.
The picture given by my noble friend Lord St. Davids is a very true one. It has been a remarkable story. It is important in Wales that the Government should be active. Some people believe that one should diminish government activity. However, in Wales it is absolutely essential, in the restructuring of the economy, for the Government to play their full part. That is precisely what has been happening for some time. My noble friend Lord St. Davids mentioned the agencies of government and in particular the Welsh Development Agency. That agency was brought into being by a Labour Government. At that time one had a certain degree of concern as to whether it was what was needed.
The Secretaries of State who followed, such as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and his two successors, made full use of that agency and of all the other associated agencies. They have played an enormous part in the great transformation and restructuring that has taken place in the Welsh economy. I know that we are all very proud of that. The major contribution which governments have made over the years is in roads and communications. When the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and I first became Members of Parliament, North Wales was practically cut off from England. One could travel only down a narrow road, almost a lane, with traffic being held up all the time. There was a suspension bridge over the Conwy which only took single-line traffic. There was one road bridge to Anglesey. Now one sees the tremendous transformation brought about by the A.55. A wonderful expressway runs through North Wales. There is a new tunnel under the Conwy. It is an excellent road running all the way from Chester to Bangor which will be of enormous importance to North Wales.
When the noble Lord and I first became Members of Parliament there was no motorway in South Wales and no bridge over the Severn. Now we are to have two bridges. The M.4 motorway has been of enormous importance to South Wales. Those of us here who have been Secretary of State for Wales had a part to play in the creation of that road. What happens of course is that one does all the hard work, eventually decides where the motorway is to go, meets all the deputations for and against, and then, about five years to 10 years later, a successor opens up the motorway that one first thought of. But that is how it is in government. In a similar manner, when I became Secretary of State, I inherited the derelict land unit which was started by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. That unit has now been improved. My noble friend Lord St. Davids was speaking about derelict land clearance. Enormous activity has taken place over the past few years which has transformed so many parts of Wales and its economy.

1333
I have spoken for seven minutes. I wish to follow up something which my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt said. I have enormous respect for the Welsh Office and for the office of Secretary of State for Wales. Their contribution to Wales is of enormous importance. The Welsh Office is different from any other department. Those who work there are closely in touch with people in Wales. The Secretary of State holds very many responsibilities. He is approachable. It is very important that one should appreciate what an effective institution that office is. The Secretary of State is the legitimate executive authority for government policy in Wales. When he goes abroad he is thought of in those terms. He speaks with authority for Wales. That office has brought enormous benefits over the past few years.
What concerns me is that the policies of the Opposition parties are likely to diminish that authority. I believe that may well be to the detriment of the economy of Wales. I am talking about the proposed constitutional changes. Each of the Opposition parties is proposing an elected Welsh assembly. The Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru propose an assembly which is tenable because it would have tax-raising powers and a measure of legislative and executive independence from Westminster. However, what concerns me is the Labour Party policy. The only information I can find is from a document called The Future of Local Government in Wales. I am delighted therefore that the noble Lord, Lords Prys-Davies, is to wind up the debate. The House would appreciate an explanation of what is intended. The Labour Party is the biggest political party in Wales. What does its policy mean?
I am sorry; I see that my 10 minutes is up. All I can ask is: is the Labour Party suggesting that there should be an executive talking shop unable to raise a penny in revenue and under the financial bondage of the Welsh Secretary? Or is it suggested that Wales should be relegated to being just a region of England? Is that what is intended? It is a recipe for conflict, for deadlock and for economic disaster. I know that the House would appreciate the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, explaining exactly what is intended.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, my noble friend's Motion this afternoon has made me try to think about the problems confronting Wales. As all noble Lords know, thinking is a dangerous form of pastime. Rather like marriage, it should not be undertaken lightly or unadvisedly, which of course is exactly what I intend to avoid this afternoon because I plan to concentrate my remarks on the problems facing North Wales, and in particular agriculture and Holyhead. I think that all noble Lords know that they pose possibly the most intractable problems in the Principality.
Over the years, governments—and I must go back further than any other noble Lord—and particularly the Liberal governments in the last century, have done a lot for Wales. The Labour ones, under the influence of my neighbour the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn,
1334
contributed a great deal of encouragement to Wales too. In the last century the Liberal Party brought the railway and the ferry to Holyhead. The Labour Government brought industry to Anglesey—Anglesey Aluminium being an example. Recently, as has been mentioned by my noble friends, the Government have vastly improved the infrastructure with the A.55 and the two bridges crossing the Menai Strait. I agree with my noble friend Lord Thomas that all governments have done their bit. Being a farmer, of course I have to say that I hate having to admit that.
However, despite all this, the area remains economically depressed. Holyhead and Amlwch are in a desperate state. Morale is sadly low, which, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, does not help matters. I ask myself, why is this so? So far as Holyhead is concerned it is not helped by a stagnant Irish economy affecting the port, aided and abetted, I am sorry to say, by restrictive union practices on the boats. It is not helped by being at the end of the line and with too many tiers of government. I am delighted to hear of my right honourable friend's suggestion that the county council should be abolished and an advisory, as opposed to an elected, council for Wales set up. As a North Walian, I have to say that, if there was an elected council, heaven help North Wales because it would be entirely dominated by those people in South Wales.
The more change and tiers of government the worse for places such as Holyhead which are far from the centre. Help is needed for Holyhead, and the Government are certainly giving that. My former company commander, the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, pointed out what they are doing there. But I am sorry that the report on the town commissioned by the Welsh Development Agency never saw the light of day. I know that bits of it were controversial, but surely that is the whole point of having such reports. I wish my noble friend would try to find where it is, dig it out of the cupboard and have it published.
What must be said of Holyhead is that although it may be short of entrepreneurs it has a really good workforce—ask the people who employ them—provided they are properly led and are not burdened by well-meaning but misguided bureaucrats turning down every suggestion, as it seems to me. Riskily, I mention the last proposal, which was for a marina and which, I am sorry to say, I believe was turned down by the NRA.
A word about agriculture, which in the area has been and still is the major industry, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, pointed out. It is in deep depression, but, again, this is a world-wide problem. I believe all the Government can do to help is to provide firm direction. The two most important decisions that farmers need today are, first, as has been mentioned by other noble Lords, resolution of the GATT talks, and quickly; secondly, resolution of the idiotic—I repeat, totally idiotic—MacSharry proposals.
Whatever decisions come out of those talks, there is a need for better direction in agricultural marketing. We have the quantity and the quality in Wales, but we

1335
market our livestock in particular archaically, mainly through 19th century-style live auctions. We need strong, disciplined co-operatives led not by incompetent farmer directors such as myself but by properly rewarded professionals. If I may say so, my son's grain co-operative in Oxfordshire offers an example of employing professionals that should be copied in Wales.
I come to the conclusion that it is up to us who live in this difficult but, to me and to most people, beautiful area to solve our own economic problems. The first thing we have to decide is whether we really want to. We all say that we do, but do we want to pay the price? Do we really want to push half our workforce off the land? I look at my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt; do we really want to become more closely involved and integrated with outsiders, be they from Chester or Tokyo, and let them run our businesses? Do we really want less government and less local government and more commercially-led direction? Do we really want more jobs and development if they affect our culture and our countryside?
These are hard decisions to take. They could, and in fact they will, affect the Welsh culture and language. I believe that there is a compromise way forward, but both sides—the materialists and the culturists, if I may call them that —will have to sacrifice some of their sacred cows. With sadness I believe that the bias should be in favour of materialism. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, would be biased the other way, but if we do not take that view we shall continue to lose our young and progressive sons and daughters and the area will degenerate into a disruptive peasant economy.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, there should be an advantage in speaking towards the end of a debate, in that one has an opportunity to comment on much of what has been said. It has proved a disadvantage to me this afternoon because, despite having, and being proud of having, a Welsh name, I have to admit to possessing a very limited knowledge of Welsh affairs. Most of the points that I wish to make have already been covered in a far more eloquent manner than I could achieve. If I repeat some points, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will regard them as particularly important.
In fact, in speaking on the economy in Wales, I am distinctly nervous, which I think must stem from a distant recollection of trips to Wales, as a second row forward with Cheltenham Rugby Club in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Those were the days when Cheltenham had a first-class fixture list, and I remember long journeys by bus into the Welsh valleys to play against such teams as Ebbw Vale, Pontypridd, Aberavon, Maesteg and Bridgend—the list was impressive and very intimidating.
It was the practice in those days to prefix the names of the players in the programme according to their status—an "i" for international and a "c" for county. Despite making a couple of appearances for Gloucestershire in some of their minor county
1336
matches, my name was invariably prefixed by a small coronet. It did not take me long to realise that it was fair game and attracted a certain kudos to be able to lay out an English Peer and I spent many Saturday afternoons lying on the grass being revived with the famous sponge and cold water. I think that being in place to catch a drop-out with eight massive Welsh forwards bearing down on me is still one of the most frightening experiences that I have ever had to endure. However, I am going to resist the temptation to speak about Welsh rugby and instead make a few brief comments on the subject of the debate.
The severe decline in the traditional heavy industries in the 1970s and early 1980s—coal, steel and textiles—hit North Wales particularly hard. The recession of the early 1980s affected the area more than most—to the extent that there is now only one coalmine in the region. Over the past decade a wide range of modern industries have given the economy a much broader base. The average annual inflow of new investment has been around £500 million in recent years and this total is likely to be exceeded in 1991–92. The highly favourable impact of this investment on confidence and the shallowness of the recession probably accounts for much of the recent improvement in performance. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, this has been particularly evident by the strong Japanese investment in north-east Wales. Sharp, Brother and Tsuda are all now operating successfully and Toyota's engine plant is currently being built on Deeside. Since 1985, engineering output has increased by more than 40 per cent. compared with less than 25 per cent. in the United Kingdom. Within engineering, output in electrical engineering has increased by nearly 65 per cent. in Wales, but by only 30 per cent. nationally. This, combined with the greater importance of manufacturing in Wales, bodes well for a less painful recovery from recession than once experienced in Wales.
Perhaps I may now stress a point made by my noble friend Lord Thomas. Success in attracting new investment has been dependent on the location and the improved road links, particularly the M.56/A.55 Expressway. The A.55 is now virtually complete to Bangor and the Conwy tunnel was opened very recently. This new road is being promoted by the Secretary of State for Wales as the "Road to Opportunity" and it is hoped that this will encourage investment in western Clwyd and Gwynedd.
This investment in roads is unfortunately not matched by rail investment. Improved rolling stock was introduced recently, but for some reason the frequency of service from Euston to Holyhead was reduced. I think I am correct in saying that all North Wales local authorities take the view that the line should be electrified to provide high speed links from Holyhead—and the Irish Republic—to the Channel tunnel if opportunities for European trade are not to be missed. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to say something on this point.
I am grateful to Bill Breeze, Chief Executive and Town Clerk in Colwyn Bay, who has told me that tourism is still an important part of the economy in resorts such as Rhyl, Colwyn Bay and Llandudno,

1337
which continue to market fiercely in an increasingly competitive field. In Colwyn Bay particularly, tourism is being supported by increased efforts and some success in developing the resort for commercial purposes.
Wales is fortunate to have its own specialist economic promotion agency—the Welsh Development Agency—which has succeeded in attracting much overseas investment as well as investing its own money in new programmes. The Welsh Tourist Board has also been useful, but has much smaller funds available. The local authorities, especially Clwyd County Council, have led the way with very active promotion and marketing campaigns.
I should like to thank my noble friend Lord St. Davids for giving me an opportunity to renew contact with the area of Wales with which I am associated by name. I have enjoyed the speeches of all those who have taken part in the debate. I look forward to hearing from the Front Bench speakers and shall detain your Lordships no longer.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the first thing I should do is congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, on his fine intact shape. Considering that he played in the second row not only against Ebbw Vale but also against Pontypool, it is a remarkable achievement. I should also like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, on initiating this debate and on his eloquent speech. It was perhaps a panegyric on the activities of the Secretary of State and his agencies at the present time. Did I perhaps sense a whiff of a general election in the air? I wonder.
In the short time available to me, I want to make a few comments on certain aspects of the Welsh economy. I do not share the completely optimistic view expressed from the Benches opposite. There has been a remarkable transformation of the Welsh economy from a home resources based economy of coal, steel, slate, shipping, and so on, to the very much more mixed economy that we have today. Noble Lords have traced the transformation over the past 45 years. No doubt many people and institutions have contributed to that transformation. Nevertheless, Wales today has an extremely vulnerable economy. Every one of us is aware of that. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in perhaps the most poetic contribution to our debate, rightly reminded us that Wales is a home to a unique culture and has a special and distinctive way of looking at social life. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, said that he had made a choice in his mind of which, as it were, priority to select in an agricultural context. We must remember that in whatever way the economy is, or is not developed, it affects the social and culture life of Wales. That is why we want a healthy economy in the first place—in order to safeguard that social and cultural life.
I wish to make a general observation. Last night, in the news on both radio and television, I heard the various suggestions being made about President Bush's State of the Union address. It was said that he was cutting down greatly on armaments in order to
1338
channel some of the money available into other investment in the American economy. It is right for us to reflect that the countries which have spent most on armaments—Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom—have suffered economically as a result. The two most successful economies in the world—those of Japan and West Germany—did not spent that kind of money on armaments. It is surely not too much to ask as a peace dividend that our Government, whatever their political complexion, should spend a good deal of the money saved on defence expenditure on developing our economy generally.
Whatever the reasons for spending money on armaments—and it is perfectly understandable that we should do so; we spend it for our own security because it is a necessity, not a pleasure, and has to be done—it seems to me that there is no end product, or bonus; it is simply for self-protection. If any society can afford to do that, it can certainly afford to spend equivalent money, so to speak, to improve the general economy and the social and cultural life of the country.
Having said that, I should like to pose three questions. First, what is the Government's long-term overall economic policy for Wales? There has been a great deal of self-congratulation on the inward flow of investment into Wales. I believe it has been stated that there are 300 foreign-owned companies in Wales at present. They make a remarkably good contribution to the Welsh economy, but it is a very vulnerable one. Companies do not invest in Wales for the sake of Wales; they do so for their own sake. We must understand that. It naturally imposes a certain vulnerability. While I would encourage such investment in all possible ways—and I congratulate the successive Secretaries of State who have brought it about—it is no substitute for an overall economic policy for the development of Wales.
I happen to be a non-executive director of one of the few companies in this country which has developed in Japan. However, we were not allowed simply to develop in that country. The Japanese insisted on having a 50 per cent. equity in the company in Japan. I do not blame them for that. Such things have to be put in a proper perspective. What is greatly lacking in Wales is the promotion of indigenous companies and indigenous industry. There is a lack of business training and, indeed, a lack of ordinary technical training.
I believe it was the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, who pointed out that the Secretary of State will be taking over responsibility for training in Wales from April. There was an article in yesterday's edition of the Western Mail, on page 12, which referred to a leaked report from the Department of Employment dealing with complaints from Japanese employers in Wales about the lack of skills, especially as regards their developments in South Wales. It appears that the report was to be published or made available in July, but it has obviously been leaked. If those complaints are correct, surely it is for the Secretary of State who will now take over responsibility for training to ensure that the Welsh workforce, and especially the young people, are trained up to the required standard.

1339
I should like to hear a statement from the Government on the matter. The Motion before the House calls for Papers. One paper that we could well do with would be one setting out the Government's long-term overall economic policy for Wales and stating whether Welsh agencies would be used to provide much more equity capital for developments in Wales. I entirely agree with some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. We could have done with much more forward looking leadership in the agricultural industry among farmers' co-operatives on the marketing side. A good deal of government leadership and support could be provided for the purpose.
Secondly, what is the programme for the next decade for communications in Wales? I live in mid-Wales. The rail communications in that part of Wales are absolutely awful. I have travelled from mid-Wales to London for the past 30 years virtually every week-end. It is less predictable now that one will arrive on time than it ever was. The reliability of the service is awful. Towards the end of last year I travelled with an English businessman, although I did not know then that he was a businessman. He was in the same compartment as myself and was returning to London. He complained bitterly to the ticket collector and said that he would never go to Newtown in mid-Wales again—where he had thought of opening a factory—because of the dreadful railway communications.
The road communications are still pretty bad in some places; for example, the Aberystwyth to Shrewsbury road. The north-south Wales road is still a very difficult road. It is certainly much better than it was 40 years ago; but so it should be. However, it is still a pretty poor road for what it is supposed to achieve—good communication between north and south Wales.
Air communications are also poor. The Laura Ashley company undoubtedly moved its headquarters from Wales to Maidenhead because of the difficulty of communications. Indeed, it is difficult to run an international company from a location in mid-Wales. That will continue to be so unless there is a great improvement in communications, especially air communications.
Thirdly, what is the Government's reaction to the agricultural problem of Wales. Agriculture is the staple of Welsh rural life and is in a very difficult situation. I think that the Government should make a much greater effort to secure co-operation with Mr. MacSharry, the Agriculture Commissioner for the EC, to ensure that we have more flexibility nationally in dealing with the agricultural problem in Wales. We must endeavour to co-operate more with him rather than simply attacking him and the Commission on everything.
I fail to understand what is the Government's agricultural policy. They are always attacking Mr. MacSharry's proposals. But, what are the Government's proposals? How would they deal with the problem? I believe that there is much to be said for a 10-year plan for Welsh agriculture, and perhaps for the United Kingdom. However, at present, I am
1340
talking in the Welsh context. I think that there should be an individual management plan for every farm, bearing in mind both the environment and productivity. In that way, we could bring some certainty for the future into Welsh agriculture.
In summary, I should like to add one final point. Everyone has congratulated the Welsh Office, as indeed I do. A great transformation took place in Wales when Cardiff was made its capital; when a Secretary of State was appointed—and many people objected to that appointment. We also had the development of the Welsh Office and of Cardiff as an administrative, commercial and cultural centre in Wales. I think that those developments were of the greatest possible benefit. I should like to see that transformation matched in the future by an elected assembly to which the Secretary of State would be responsible.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should also like to begin by thanking the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, for introducing this important debate. I am sure that his was a well-designed speech to which the Government will often turn for comfort. But, on the other hand, I venture to express the hope that they will take careful note of the concerns that have been expressed by noble Lords, including those expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Gibson-Watt and Lord Hooson. I also hope that the Government will take note of the characteristically fair and balanced assessment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir. I am sure that those speakers are indicating the road along which we should travel.
The Welsh economy has undergone profound changes since 1979, which has been the experience of most of the communities in Western Europe. The coal industry in Wales has virtually disappeared and we have seen the substantial growth of the service industries. Moreover, with the guidance and full support of the WDA, in alliance with the Welsh Office and the Welsh local authorities, inward investment from beyond the United Kingdom has made a positive contribution in north-east Wales and along the spine of the M.4 in south-east Wales. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was absolutely right to express a few words of caution. One reason why foreign companies have invested in Wales is that, on the whole, it has also been a low wage economy.
However, Wales is not, as yet, sweeping to prosperity along the M.4 motorway. Alongside the advances, we must open our eyes to the fact that there are blemishes. According to the Department of Employment, overall unemployment is 82 per cent. higher than it was 13 years ago and the number of employees in employment has fallen by 6.8 per cent. Those are the facts and they are worth repeating. According to the accountants Peat Marwick, 4,112 businesses in Wales went into receivership last year. It is its judgment that we shall see the same number of receiverships in 1992. About 2,000 people went bankrupt last year—an increase of 92 per cent.

1341
We have heard of the need to encourage indigenous industry, but receiverships, liquidations and bankruptcies always sadden me. They sadden me because they signify so much destruction, loss of family assets, the loss of a good employer-employee relationship and often the loss of an organisation which has been a part of the social structure of a local community. When government policies, by design or misjudgment, lead to a record number of receiverships, liquidations and bankruptcies that is damaging to the community itself. There has even been a slight decline in the GDP per head relative to the UK average. In our view, no government can be content with such a record after 13 years of untrammelled power.
Although South Wales was built on a vast bed of coal, I am not altogether sorry that South Wales is no longer the prisoner of that industry. It was a hazardous and dangerous industry for miners and their families; on the other hand, I am full of admiration for the institutions and the way of life which that industry created for itself in South Wales. It is therefore worrying—I shall be fair—that successive governments, notwithstanding the benefits of the forces of technology and science, have as yet failed to provide the jobs required to replace those lost in the wake of colliery closures. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, referred to the Welsh Valleys initiative. It was an excessively trumpeted initiative, and it is the general impression in the Valleys—I live near the Valleys—that it was no more than a repackaged version of many existing schemes.
Unemployment in the Valleys remains entrenched. On 15th January, Dr. Winkler of the Economic Policy and Research Unit of Mid-Glamorgan County Council, addressing a conference at Aberdare, concluded that the present high levels of unemployment will continue and that only a new initiative could change that sombre assessment. That leads me to ask the Minister whether the Secretary of State is considering issuing new guidelines to the WDA as to how it should best tackle the long term underlying problems, as was suggested by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn on the Second Reading of the Welsh Development Agency Bill. May I also ask the Minister whether the Secretary of State intends to ask British Coal Enterprise Ltd. (a subsidiary of British Coal) to reconsider the scope and conditions of eligibility of its initiatives in South Wales, because notwithstanding the sombre conclusions that I have recently read in Planet, to which my noble friend Lady White drew my attention, I am reluctant to accept that British Coal Enterprise Ltd. is promoting a lost cause?
We accept that Cardiff in the 1980s created flourishing service industries, including financial services, for itself; but, nevertheless, its manufacturing and construction industries have been savaged. Service industries do not provide employment for redundant factory workers, construction workers and dockers, although they may help their children. Three of the Cardiff parliamentary constituencies are at the top of the unemployment list of the Welsh constituencies. Unemployment in Cardiff is roughly the same as the rate for the Rhondda, Merthyr and
1342
Cynon Valleys and Gwynedd. That is not to say that the position in the Valleys has improved. It means, significantly, that Cardiff has now reached the unemployment levels characteristic of the Valleys and Gwynedd.
I accept that South Wales and rugby are not the whole of Wales. Many of the speakers who have taken part in the debate have drawn attention to the critical difficulties facing the rural communities of Wales. I agree with much of what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Gibson-Watt, Lord Stanley of Alderley and Lord Hooson, as well as by my noble friends.
It is widely predicted that agriculture will shrink significantly between now and the end of the decade. The Council for the Protection of Rural Wales published in 1990 a report on the changing rural scene prepared by a working group chaired by Professor Michael Haines. That report contained 15 to 20 proposals. They seemed to point in the direction in which solutions might be found. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister that the Welsh Office will respond favourably to the report without much further delay. Will the Minister also assure the House that it is not the Government's intention that the Development Board for Rural Wales should eventually become just an agency of the WDA?
In many parts of rural Wales the economy is threadbare. Against that background, the effects of the closure of a single major source of employment in the local community can be dramatic and devastating. The House has been reminded this afternoon—not that it needed reminding—that the trauma is being felt today in Dyfed with the impending closure of the naval ammunition stores at Trecwn. One is conscious that similar trauma can arise in other situations in Wales where a rural community depends upon a single source of employment. One case that immediately comes to mind is the nuclear generating station at Trawsfynydd in Gwynedd. Others may think of similar circumstances. Hence my question: has the Welsh Office set up a task force to undertake the preliminary work necessary to prepare for such an event where such an event is predictable?
I now wish to touch briefly on an issue which is of common concern to Welsh people, whether they live in rural, industrial or urban Wales. It is worrying that about a third of the unemployed in Wales are aged between 18 and 25 years. I am confident that noble Lords will agree that most of those young people should have access to further education and training. Quite apart from the requirements of modern industry —there are skill shortages in Wales—I believe that young people have a moral right to be well educated, well trained and skilled so that they too have access to wider economic and social opportunities. So I welcome the setting up of the seven locally based TECs, but we must consider how they can be brought into closer partnership with the WDA, the local authorities and the higher education institutions. That was a matter touched upon by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn when the point arose during the Second Reading of the Welsh Development Agency Bill. The question remains valid.

1343
I have taken up the time allotted to me. I shall not accept the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, to explain the role and significance of a Welsh assembly. That deserves another debate.
5.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I share your Lordships' gratitude to my noble friend Lord St. Davids for initiating an extremely timely and interesting debate. It has attracted contributions from, on the Conservative side, two past Secretaries of State and one former Minister of State for Wales; on the Opposition side, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was a special adviser to the then Secretary of State for Wales and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is a former president of the Welsh Liberal Party. For good measure, we have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Parry, a past chairman of the Welsh Tourist Board, and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, principal of St. David's University College. Among this galaxy of stars, my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, from the Cross-Benches and my noble friends Lord Stanley of Alderley and Lord Colwyn have added their words of wisdom. If I do not have time to answer all their questions, at least I have given all their names. They have also asked questions which I shall endeavour to answer but perhaps I may make a few points of my own as I do so.
Incidentally, my noble friends Lord Gibson-Watt and Lord Thomas of Gwydir rightly drew attention to certain consequences of a Welsh assembly. The Government are clear that Wales would lose much more than it might gain, particularly through the likely consequential loss of a Cabinet Minister solely responsible for Wales.
A successful economy is dependent on infrastructure. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales and his predecessors have planned and are carrying out several vital road links and improvement schemes on a whole variety of roads. My noble friends Lord Thomas of Gwydir and Lord Crickhowell touched on this aspect in their powerful speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, made so many complaints about transport that I wonder why he has not moved, perhaps with Laura Ashley.
Since 1979 about £1.4 billion has been spent improving the motorway and trunk road network in Wales. Fifty-five of the 60 miles between Chester and Bangor are completed to dual carriageway standard. The £190 million Conwy crossing scheme was opened recently and the £99 million Pen-y-Clip scheme and £12 million Rhuallt Hill improvement are in progress. Only one scheme—the Aber improvement, costing £9 million at November 1989 prices—remains in the forward programme. Improvement of the whole of the A.55 is on course for completion within the next two to three years at a total cost of £620 million.
The Government's first priority remains the completion of the M.4 and the upgrading of the A.55. However, resources are also being devoted to selective improvements on other routes, including the important A.470 and A.483 north-south routes.
1344
The new motorway approach road to the second Severn crossing is planned to start early in 1993, subject to the completion of parliamentary procedures and to be completed for the opening of the bridge early in 1996. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding asked me the latest position on the Severnside airport. The Government are aware of proposals to develop a new airport on Severnside and are monitoring the progress of developments.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, asked me what the current position was on the gas terminal at Point of Ayr and what the Government intend to do. The application regarding this matter has now been called in. The Government are currently considering the procedures to be adopted for the determination of this application. The Welsh Office is well aware of the problem and will deal with the matter as expeditiously as possible. A decision will he made as soon as possible.
I am pleased to remind your Lordships that the Programme for the Valleys has now been under way for three-and-a-half years. During that time the achievements of the programme have included the biggest land reclamation programme in Europe, with 1,551 acres reclaimed in the first three years and a target of a further 400 this year. Also carried out by the WDA has been a factory building programme which has seen 1.6 million square feet built in the first three years of the programme, with a target of a further 500,000 square feet in 1991–92. In addition to the original target of 7,000 homes to be included in developing and block repair schemes over the first three years of the programme, the target for a further 2,850 homes to be included in area renewal schemes during the following two years is expected to be achieved.
Forty-five health projects from 1989–90 have received central funding of £25.5 million. Just one of these was the post-graduate dental suite at the Prince Charles Hospital, Merthyr Tydfil, opened in November 1991. Road links also form an important part of the programme: the A.4060 Pentrebach-Dowlaid scheme to improve linkage between the A.470 and the A.465 will soon be completed.
When my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales set out his objectives for the two-year extension of the programme in December 1990 he suggested a new theme for the Valleys: "Partnership with the People". It is right then that I should mention his special initiatives to encourage community involvement in social and economic regeneration. The five communities to benefit under the Community Revival Strategy initiative are making progress in implementing their own very local schemes for regeneration. The Valleys Live '92 festival, a celebration of the life and culture of the Valleys, will also involve local people in generating activities of their choosing. It is this partnership with the people which will mark the success of the Programme for the Valleys.
I was most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for giving me advance warning of his question concerning the Programme for the Valleys. This has proved to be an excellent example of the

1345
effectiveness of a co-ordinated approach to facing the problems of urban and industrial dereliction. It has demonstrated how urban regeneration can be encouraged by a wide variety of measures in a particular defined area. As the Programme for the Valleys enters its final year, the Secretary of State for Wales will consider what lessons from the programme can be applied for the future.
I am delighted that European structural fund assistance is so widely available in Wales and share the eagerness of programme partners to see funds flowing to good quality projects. I hope that the excellent progress made so far will continue in the future.
In particular, I am delighted that the LEADER Programme for Rural Wales has been approved and pleased that the European Commission was so impressed with the standard of the Welsh bid that it is providing over 40 per cent. more funding than originally anticipated. This will be of great value in continuing the development of the area and in complementing the other EC and government programmes such as the Rural Initiative.
It would be surprising if I did not mention the key element of the rural economy, which of course is agriculture. It is a pity that I cannot spend longer discussing it. I presume that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was expressing his party's official line concerning the future of agriculture. If so, frankly my mind boggles and I am appalled at the lack of knowledge which he displayed. I should be delighted to explain to him why my right honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for agriculture cannot give this country's programme. It is only the Commission that can propose a programme.
We recognise that these are difficult days for farmers. As evidence of our continuing commitment we are investing about £150 million in the industry this year and have already announced that expenditure on domestic agriculture in Wales in 1992–93 is planned to rise by 14 per cent. The four agriculture Ministers jointly launched the publication Our Farming Future last November which outlined the changes that are required to enable the agriculture and food industries to make a continued contribution to the nation's economy and rural way of life.
I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley on the importance of a successful, speedy conclusion to the GATT round, plus of course reform of the CAP. We all agree that reform is necessary but that reform must be fair. The Government have made it clear to Commissioner MacSharry that we do not regard his present proposals, especially for sheepmeat, as fair, and that is a message we shall continue to press home.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt that it is important to continue to farm the land. However, the rural economy cannot look solely to agriculture to sustain it. Other enterprises must play a part. Some of these will be derived from agriculture through the development of on-farm diversification. Others will be derived through the generation of new employment opportunities off the farm. The Government's long-term policy objective is the
1346
creation of a self-supporting market economy. Substantial resources of around £1 million a day are devoted to rural areas in the Principality by the Government and the various agencies. The changing circumstances of the rural economy and the emergence of new institutions require a fresh approach.
In 1991–92 a £15 million increase in the provision for rural programmes, together with £5 million set aside for local authority capital projects, are likely to be of most benefit to the development of rural communities. Ministers undertook extensive consultations with local authorities, agencies and other representative bodies to seek their views on a way forward for rural Wales in the 1990s. They were heartened by the unanimity of support for the Rural Initiative.
As a result of these consultations the Secretary of State published on 9th December 1991 a document setting out his objectives for rural Wales. As a further stage of the Rural Initiative the Secretary of State also announced a fresh series of measures to strengthen and carry forward rural programmes across the economic, social and environmental fields.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was concerned at the reduction in employment since 1979. One of the most important planks of government policy is to stimulate enterprise and enable more people to create their own employment. If the noble Lord takes into account the increase in the number of self-employed people, he will find that the workforce in employment has increased since 1979.
The two reactors at Trawsfynydd were shut down by Nuclear Electric at the beginning of February last year to make adjustments to operate them at a lower coolant pressure. The reactors will not be permitted to return to power until the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is completely satisfied with Nuclear Electric's safety case for a resumption of operation. As NII's eventual decision is still awaited, it would be premature to consider what measures are appropriate to deal with any possible closure. Ministers would not wish to prejudge the decision of the NII.
As regards issuing new guidelines to the WDA, departmental guidelines to non-departmental public bodies are regularly reviewed under the five-yearly cycle of financial management and policy reviews of individual bodies. Such a review of the WDA is currently under way. The Institute of Welsh Affairs is a totally independent body which sets its own objectives and programme of activities. There is no doubt that within a relatively short time it has gone a good way towards establishing its credibility. Its reports are usually of considerable value in stimulating informed discussion. I am sure this will be true of the Project Wales 2010 on which it is now working. The National Audit Unit's report on creating and safeguarding jobs in Wales is to be considered in another place by the Public Accounts Committee on Wednesday, 19th February. I do not wish to comment on the report in advance of that consideration.
My noble friends Lord Gibson-Watt and Lord Stanley of Alderley asked about the WDA sponsored

1347
report on Holyhead. I am aware of the report prepared by W.S. Atkins. That report has, however, been overtaken by events. It was used in drawing up proposals for publicising the joint venture agreement. That matter will be discussed at a meeting of the Joint Venture Board to be chaired by the Minister of State for Wales this coming Friday.
I welcomed the reference made by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell to the developments at Cardiff Bay. The most recent economic appraisal suggests that up to 25,000 new jobs could be created as a result of the developments. Private sector investment could reach a figure well over £1 billion.
On the matter of inward investment, I very much agree with the remarks made by my noble friends Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Crickhowell when they commented on the large investment by foreign companies in Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, mentioned the West Wales taskforce. The Secretary of State for Wales last week announced funding for that taskforce. Funds have been set aside for that area. They are not being switched from elsewhere. The director of the taskforce will be engaged full-time on that work. He has been engaged on other work until last week.
I regret that there are many points I have not answered. I greatly enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in which he extolled the beauties of the Welsh countryside. However, the noble Lord did not refer to the Welsh cob stallions running out of the main ring of the Royal Agricultural Show after the judging. That was a superb sight. There is no doubt about the success of tourism in Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, must take credit for a lot of the good work that has been done in that area.
I believe everyone is entitled to have one small dream. I have endeavoured to give an accurate picture of the Principality of Wales progressing and prospering at the end of this century and into the 21st century. As a keen but bad golfer I should like to see the Open Golf Championship played at least once every five years on an existing Welsh links course. Wales has a star in Ian Woosnam, and other stars will emerge. We should think of the benefits such a championship would confer on hotels, tourism and prestige if my dream became a reality. I hope it does. But turning away from my dream, I must add that through various means this Conservative Government have actively encouraged Wales to meet its future head on and with confidence.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I must mention the fact that she was good enough to ask me why I did not move out of Wales in view of the transport difficulties there. I do not wish to do so simply because I am Welsh and I love to live in Wales. Therefore, in common with many other people who share those characteristics, I put up with those difficulties.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, when I took my seat in your Lordships' House in the summer a noble Lord from the Opposition Benches told me I could not consider myself to be a Welshman and a supporter of a Conservative government. I can assure your
1348
Lordships that noble Lord has not spoken in today's debate. The relative accord with which today's debate has been conducted in this House proves the total lack of veracity in his observation. Today's debate has been important. I thank all speakers for their contributions. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Prison Security Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

The United Nations: Challenges
5.29 p.m.
Lord Juddrose to call attention to the case for a review of the economic, social and political challenges facing the newly appointed Secretary-General of the United Nations; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this, the first full month of the new Secretary-General's tenure, marks the first anniversary of the Gulf War which threw the importance of the United Nations into such sharp relief. It is UN investigators who discovered just how close Iraq then was to nuclear capability. Only three years ago, when the world was rocked by the Lockerbie disaster, it would have been hard to imagine the UN politically free enough by now to take its strong stand on international terrorism and censure Libya.
The year 1992 is to see the launching of the UN's unprecedented initiative on the environment and development. It is the first new year of Russia and the republics, heralding a major change in the make-up of the Security Council. In the case of Yugoslavia we all pray for an effective contribution by the UN. Less well known, but no less important, have been the recent significant UN initiatives in El Salvador and Cambodia.
I have been re-reading the report of the perceptive debate in this House in October 1985 which was made possible by the then Archbishop of Canterbury. The unquestioned relevance and resurgence of the United Nations in the 1990s bears testimony to the wisdom, sense of history and farsightedness of those who participated in that debate. Our debate tonight is especially timely because it comes just before the Prime Minister travels to New York to attend the Security Council summit which Britain has convened.
It is clear that the need for a sophisticated, well managed, responsive and streamlined system of international governance is more necessary than ever. Our world has changed almost beyond recognition in the decades since the UN's inception. It is more interdependent, more populous, more complex, more lethally armed, more environmentally vulnerable and more sharply divided between rich and poor. However, against that there is at last an exciting realisation that the UN must develop in response to those challenges.

1349
What has become especially evident is the massive increase in human vulnerability to disaster. That is primarily due to the lethal cocktail of conflict, poverty and rapid population growth in the poor world—something which can only get worse unless all the interlinked causes are addressed in an integrated manner. It is not convincing to attempt to tackle rapid population growth without also tackling the structurally uneven pattern of consumption and access to resources which is, after all, the North-South divide. Literacy and education levels, good health services, good survival prospects, parity for women and security are all factors which critically influence family size. Sadly, however, the naive notion still persists in some quarters that sanctimonious condom handouts from the West will of themselves solve the problem. Such ignorance is perhaps best corrected by a careful look at the social history of our own country over the last 100 years.
"Security" remains a much-used term but it no longer applies only to politico-military concerns. We now know that lasting peace requires the observance of human rights, the exercise of genuine self-determination within a democratic framework, consistent observance of the rules of national and international law, effective population policies and social justice with an economic stake for all. The imperatives of equity and justice become still more pressing as we face up to what could prove a terminal environmental crisis for the human species and as we face up to the squandering of finite resources and the absolute necessity of sustainable economic and social policies.
Even though we are daily reminded of our world's interdependence there is still an extraordinary Eurocentricity in the way we in Britain talk about war. It is too frequently said that we have preserved the peace since 1945. That is a mighty odd way to describe 135 often cruel wars which have ravaged communities since the Second World War, mostly in the third world. Conflict makes the poor poorer, as even a cursory glance at Africa's war-ravaged countries demonstrates. A particularly shocking fact is that it is ordinary civilians, usually peasant farming people, who are frequently the main targets in modern conflicts. During the Second World War, 52 per cent. of the recorded war-related deaths were civilians. Today, the UN estimates the percentage to be nearly 90.
Another appalling consequence of modern conflict is that of mass human displacement. There are 17 million refugees around the world and a further 24 million people displaced within the borders of their home countries without even the status of refugees. That must rank as one of humanity's biggest failures. An urgent, long overdue task for the new Secretary-General is to define clearly the locus of responsibility within the UN system for the internally displaced. It is totally unacceptable that while refugees fall within a UN agency mandate, the internally displaced do not. We should demand that the rights of the internally displaced are given equal priority.
1350
Another inescapable challenge for the world's political leadership is not only to build and share a common understanding about genuine security and how to enhance it, arguably with new perceptions of the role and responsibilities of the Security Council —pre-emptive rather than reactive, and building on Article 43—but more generally to see it through by modernising the way in which key international organisations operate and co-operate.
If we believe that sound economic performance at national level demands accountable democratic governance, then why should that not apply equally at international level? The major international economic institutions and groupings—the Bretton Woods institutions, GATT, the London and Paris clubs and the enormously powerful trans-national companies, are not internationally democratic institutions. In effect they answer only to their leading members, the rich man's club. It is a nonsense to see the rich world insensitively and dogmatically applying text-book market economy reforms to fragile economies and then to witness the UN desperately mopping up the human casualties. That form of politically expedient separation undermines the world's security. The international financial institutions, not least G7 and the IMF, must work in harmony with the strategies of the UN system and a reinvigorated Security Council if real and lasting progress is to be secured.
I suggest that what I have argued is today grimly illustrated in at least two interlocking regions of the world. Let us consider the highly volatile Commonwealth of Independent States. We have witnessed the crumbling of a nuclear empire. Now we have Russia and the republics facing every sort of crisis imaginable. I single out just one. Nuclear weapons abound, as do some 2,000 specialist scientists and more technicians with recent hands-on experience of designing nuclear weapons. Those people face a very insecure economic future at home. Next door is another powder keg, the Middle East, where oil riches combine with unbridled, undemocratic militarism. It is hardly necessary to spell out the possibly disastrous consequences.
The point is that the West is not even serving its own interests, let alone anyone else's, when its own protectionist trading policies potentially undermine the very economic future on which the Commonwealth of Independent States and world security will depend. Food aid and help with internal economic liberalisation alone are not enough to avert disaster in the longterm. Likewise, in the Middle East, history is unveiling contradictions of frightening proportions. Deliberately or by default, the big powers armed Iraq in full knowledge of the nature of the regime. They then went to war with Iraq and in order to do so had to bolster up some highly undemocratic and militarised regimes in the region. Once again, the arms trade to the same region is immense.
It is the same members of the rich man's club governing both the Security Council and G7, who control, or fail to control, what happens. Surely, the new drive for disarmament and arms control by the United States is an inescapable challenge to us all.

1351
This is not the time obstinately to insist on our own narrow national preoccupations. It is the time to throw all our weight into a concerted international drive which, if successful, will without doubt prove the greatest possible contribution to security for our children and their children. It is the time too, once and for all, to get the irresponsible arms trade under control.
However, let me make two things clear. First, real security will be undermined if the world's most powerful states use the United Nations simply as their fief. The UN will lose the credibility on which it must depend if it is to address these vast challenges. The essential principles of political justice and international co-operation will be shot to ribbons.
Secondly, and equally important, the corrupt, undemocratic dictators of this world must not expect to seek refuge behind a shield of national sovereignty. Those who abuse power and whose behaviour, to use the words of Terry Waite when he described his terrorist captors,
"falls well below the norms of civilised society",
should not expect protection under international law. To name just three cases in point: Iraq, Burma and the activities of Indonesia in East Timor currently deserve the searching spotlight of international censure.
There is a key weakness to our accustomed way of life. The United Nations is founded on the principle of the sovereignty of nation states. Yet that principle is proving increasingly inadequate. International human rights legislation, economic and political conditionality policies, the way in which the world's economy works with national borders dissolving and the growth of regional economic groupings, the unprecedented movement of people, goods, services and information, and the ripple effect of the "safe havens" initiative in Iraq which redefined the scope and potential of humanitarian action—all are evidence of a new de facto international reality.
As regards the immediate agenda, clearly the UN must enlarge its peacekeeping and arms control activities. Equally clearly, that will need more top-rate staff and resources. I cannot overstress the basic point that peacekeeping and peacemaking must be done thoroughly if they are to work. In many countries, the very peace which has recently been made is threatened because the detailed follow-through was inadequate. Take Ethiopia for example: an estimated 100,000 ex-combatants are still armed and at large. In a country of such poverty, a gun yields a living. The result is random banditry and terror instead of politically formalised conflict. Is that security? Had there been a thorough demobilisation process, with the supervised destruction of weapons and an orderly reintegration of soldiers into society, the long-suffering Ethiopian people could have had a lasting peace.
It is well known that the basic housekeeping cash is hard to raise, that some countries are badly in arrears and that others feel they are expected to give too much. We read dry articles about the pros and cons of voluntary and assessed contributions by governments and of the "ability to pay" principle. As a former director of Oxfam, I know only too well that so-called
1352
voluntary contributions by governments, on which vital agencies such as the High Commission for Refugees depend, are too often taken by governments as an opt-out clause. One result is that voluntary non-governmental agencies relying on the public's generosity often have to bail out official programmes at the expense of their work elsewhere. Another result is that vital, life-saving work is not done as thoroughly as the professional UN humanitarian staff would like.
Britain's contributions to the UN should surely be directed by a far-sighted, preventive approach. We should be investing in peace and the quality of life. We should contribute resources which would otherwise be burned up by expensive military, humanitarian and environmental rescue operations. The military costs of the Gulf War, added to the continuing humanitarian and environmental costs, dwarf the additional 500 million US dollars a year needed for UN peacekeeping.
Britain has a lot more than cash to offer. The Foreign Secretary's sustained and constructive work on international arms control and the Foreign Office's work on the recently agreed UN humanitarian response structure are good examples. Our place within G7, the Commonwealth, the European Community, NATO, CSCE, the Western European Union, the World Bank, IMF, GATT and the creditor clubs, as well as our seat on the Security Council, means that Britain is particularly well positioned to add quality as well as quantity to the UN's progressive development.
However, as I said, we cannot afford hypocrisy and double dealing. Our Government must work towards a United Nations which is enhanced, not emasculated and sidelined by the world's big powers and economic centres of gravity. The new Secretary-General must, above all, have the resources for building a United Nations which is equal to the challenges of today's world: the challenges of the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, Asia, Central America and the Horn, and of the huge needs ahead in building a strong, post-apartheid southern Africa.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, in reviewing the powers of the Secretary-General we have first to look at the UN. Sir Brian Urquhart, once the Under-Secretary-General at the UN who, with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, played his part in founding the organisation over 45 years ago, said:
"For better or for worse, the UN is nothing like a government. It has no sovereignty or power of sovereign decision-making. It is an association of independent sovereign states which depends for its effectiveness on the capacity of its members to agree and to co-operate, and on the ingenuity and dedication with which the Secretariat interprets and carries out their wishes. The capacity of governments to agree and co-operate has proved to be quite limited".
Sir Brian Urquhart also said:
"The effort to build a brave new world in some cases degenerated into fixed and parochial bureaucracies, repeating year by year in excruciatingly tedious inter-governmental meetings, ideas which had become almost meaningless clichés".

1353
We have all seen examples of elephantine bureaucracy and the waste of money and resources which is endemic in some UN agencies.
At this moment, when the former Soviet Union and the whole Eastern bloc appear to wish to abandon confrontation with the West in favour of collaboration, we have a chance to begin again in the UN. The automatic adversarial confrontation between the two super-powers and the power games which accompanied it need no longer dominate the UN's proceedings. Yet the signs are that the world remains a very unstable place, where there will be local emergencies which may well call for a UN presence and UN action.
The UN is only as strong as its parts and thus it is quite vital to ensure that we in particular retain a capacity to provide well-trained, well-equipped forces of men and women who are available to back up the political decisions taken in and by the UN. I do not think only of major operations, such as the Gulf War. The back-up may take the form of a trained group, able to manage a disaster (as in Armenia or the Kurdish crisis on Iraq's borders) or the establishment of order after disorder (as in Cambodia and Yugoslavia) or simply to hold the ring as in Cyprus. A second bad winter of chaos and volatile public order in the former USSR might well call for a task force working with the Russians, Ukrainians and others to create a proper flow of goods.
I dare to hope, turning to the growing problems of Africa, that we and the former Soviet bloc could work together there also to provide a sophisticated temporary infrastructure of trained international—UN—servants to build up through on-the-ground training the kind of executive experience without which a country like Zaire, even under a different regime, cannot hope to implement the requirements of the IMF and the World Bank, even if they were appropriate to its needs.
But for those things to be possible, some things must change in the UN. The bureaucracy there, like the nomenklatura in the former Soviet Union, will not easily abandon some of its shibboleths, nor perhaps respond well to demands for greater efficiency. I believe that the quota system which sometimes brings about less than good appointments because it is the turn of, say, Haiti or Namibia, must be revised. It inevitably means that there will be more of us—more Australians, more Americans, more Europeans—since many of the other countries still need their more limited numbers of highly qualified people at home. So be it. The UN must choose the best, whoever they are.
Equally, we must not endanger the peace dividend by leaving the UN with no teeth. We must retain sufficient disposable force to back up whatever the UN as a whole decides to do. It is quite wrong that for years now the UN, in the refugee camps on the Thai-Cambodian border, should have had to tolerate the Khmer Rouge carrying out a reign of terror against the inmates and murdering those who tried to run free. It is quite wrong that the UN inspection team in Iraq should be imprisoned for days, earlier last year, and jostled and threatened now as they go about their
1354
work of monitoring the nuclear and chemical weapons of a UN member already in breach of international law and a threat to other members.
I believe, therefore, that there must be a total review of the principle of non-interference in the affairs of member states. We must not do it lightly but there must be occasions when it is the considered view of the Security Council that such action is necessary; given such situations in, for instance, Burma where observers should be given really adequate protection, and refugees at risk should be given effective protection, if the political will is there. However, that will not be enough unless there is a task force to implement that will.
Of course, we must be wary of short-term actions which turn into long-term commitments. Cyprus is an example and Yugoslavia could be another, but we should have the power to act as necessary. That has implications for our defence strategy and must be faced now rather than later.
I believe, too, that we should review the way in which our aid is channelled through UN agencies and require to be satisfied that it is being at least as well spent as direct aid would be. We have all had experience of such idiocies as the UN commission sent to Zambia just before independence which was, I seem to remember, composed of a Haitian, a Yemeni, and a Venezuelan with no experience of Africa, whose task was to advise on the economic strategy of the country. That required some knowledge of the African system of land tenure. A local anthropologist had to explain it through a series of stickmen drawings. I doubt whether their economic advice was much use.
In the past there has been thoroughly wasteful spending on badly conceived projects with very high administrative overheads and plenty of danger money, where the same money applied to modest local enterprises such as wells and generators in cooperation with local people would have involved a much better use of resources. We need to take a long, hard look at the agencies—a scrutiny from which some will, of course, emerge with honour. There have been some great men in the UN. Sir Brian Urquhart was one. Robert Gardiner, the head of the Economic Commission for Africa and, before that, the only effective and respected head of the UN operation in what was the Congo, was another. If there were more of them the UN could be a potent force for good.
We now have an opportunity to help the new Secretary-General to streamline the bureaucracy, use the resources better and review the powers of the UN and the support needed. Our problem will, of course, be priorities of resources. I well recognise that that is a problem.
There will still be many explosive issues to resolve. I refer to those of the Arab world, both the Palestinian problem and the growing militant fundamentalism. Dangerous movements to threaten world peace, such as the resurgence of Fascism in Europe, could easily spread to a disaffected former Soviet Union. There will also be major problems of reconstruction in many African countries, not least Zaire where I was witness to some of the worst ineffectiveness as well as some of the best intentions of the UN when I served there in

1355
the year before and the year after independence. I was in Stanleyville on the day that the Gizenga regime dragged all Europeans out of their houses at dawn to stand in the sun all day, beaten and harassed, for a "document check". That was the day that the UN, present in strength as a peacekeeping force, did not intervene or attempt to intercede but sent a routine telegram to headquarters saying, "Nothing to report".
We have come a long way from that day to the concentrated and concerted efforts of the Gulf War and the steady presence of the blue helmets in Cyprus and, I hope, in Cambodia. However, there is a long way to go and we are about to play with a large number of new members of the team. One of our most important objectives must be to integrate them well and, equally important, to keep the UN fully committed. The Americans, despite their long love-hate and sometimes hate-hate relationship with the UN, are essential to it.
I conclude, again with Sir Brian Urquhart's words:
"The effort continues. It must be intensified".
5.55 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, the debate is conveniently sandwiched between a rather good programme on television last night and a summit meeting of the Security Council next week from which we all hope to hear new ideas which reflect the new situation in the world.
When the United Nations' role is debated, it is always wise to have a visionary at hand. On an occasion such as this, we sadly miss Lord Caradon. However, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is a more than adequate successor and of course in the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, we have in reserve one of the founding fathers.
At the successful conclusion of the Gulf War most or us felt that there was at last an opportunity to make the United Nations Organisation fulfil more adequately the role for which it was originally designed. At the time of Saddam's aggression the Security Council was fully effective and for the first time the permanent members acted in harmony. The opportunity still exists to make the organisation work. But it will have to be able and willing to accept new responsibilities and to meet new challenges which are extending daily to every corner of the world. There is no need to enumerate them. They stare us in the face from newspapers every morning.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has made proposals which have a wide emotional appeal and must be addressed. I find myself very much in agreement with what he said. It is tempting to think that only a giant overhaul of the organisation can match the present situation. Is that in fact possible? I am reminded of a conversation in the 1960s between the late Lord Stewart and Mr. Gromyko at which I was present. Lord Stewart had suggested that a reform of the organisation was desirable. Gromyko smiled wearily and replied, "If you knew how hard it was to reach agreement in 1945 you would not be making such a suggestion now".
Many of the original difficulties remain and others have multiplied with the widening membership. It is
1356
true that the confrontation between the great powers has subsided. But who can be sure that the problems will not return in many new and dangerous guises? We must make the best of the organisation that we have inherited from the past. No fundamental redesign is practical in the short term. However, it is perfectly possible for important parts to be subject to redesign. Such redesign is likely to be best done from the outside and not from within. Some noble Lords may remember the attempt of the late Sir Robert Jackson to work from within. He was thwarted at every turn by the United Nations establishment clinging to its positions. One way forward towards reform would be for the Secretary-General, with the encouragement of powerful members, to set up small groups of independent outsiders who would propose ways in which improvements could be made in certain areas of the organisation. The United Kingdom could offer experienced people such as Sir Anthony Parsons and the veteran Sir Brian Urquhart. For example, as a priority they could examine conflict resolution and peace-keeping problems in the light of recent events. The Economist last week had several other useful suggestions for reform.
Many noble Lords, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, can, I am sure, think of other areas for scrutiny by such independent groups. Nor should the specialised agencies escape critical examination. Such independent groups could free the Secretary-General and his staff from current business. But the first and most important requirement is to put the organisation on a solid financial footing. Without adequate funding no secretary-general and no security council can play the role that we call upon them to fill.
The figures speak for themselves. In November of last year the organisation was owed 800 million dollars of unpaid subscriptions. United Nations' peace-keeping operations between 1948 and 1990 cost 4 billion dollars. But that is peanuts compared, for example, with the annual UK defence budget of £35 billion and worldwide expenditure on defence.
Countries will have to learn to pay more and to pay regularly. The UN has a strong and logical claim to a large share of the defence dividend arising from reduced military budgets. I hope that the Prime Minister will seek agreement on that at the summit Security Council this week.
This is a short debate but I wish to raise an important point which the Minister may wish to clarify. In my view we should give primacy to the United Nations Organisation in moving towards a safer world. Others should not be permitted to usurp its power. That means, for example, that the role of the CSCE of the Helsinki powers should be closely defined. As it is at present it is being built into a regional security council which could, for good or for evil, act as a local United Nations. Is that what the Government would like? We have the recent experience of Yugoslavia to guide us. It can be argued that an earlier involvement of the UN rather than of the European Community could have accelerated a settlement of that dispute. I hope that the Minister will have some observations to make on that matter.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I have calculated that during the two-and-a-half hours of this debate some 3,750 children have died in some part of the world simply as a result of poverty. No one with any compassion or any concept of equity can rest content with that situation.
That situation, however, creates one even more desperately dangerous. I imagine we are all agreed that sustainable development must be promoted so that that death toll can be drastically reduced and eventually wiped out. How do we do that? There is the nub. How can sustainable development throughout the world be produced without at the same time risking a set of environmental disasters? It is no exaggeration to say that that is the major issue facing our generation in relation to the next 50 years.
We cannot expect developing countries to finance their development in an environmentally benign manner, in particular after the bad example that we have set them during the past 150 years. Furthermore, according to the latest recorded figures the developing world was paying in interest £34.3 billion whereas it was receiving in aid only £28.3 billion. In other words, the developing world was financing our standard of living.
It is obvious that in order to face that massive task we require above all international co-operation. The only institution that we have which can even glimpse the possibility of that co-operation is the United Nations. We are preparing for the United Nations summit conference on the environment in Rio next June. In preparation an inter-governmental negotiating committee has been set up and has met three times. At its second meeting in Nairobi last September I welcomed the initiative of the EC which called for specific commitments from industrialised countries to stabilise their CO2 emissions by the year 2000 in general at 1990 levels. Even that will be insufficient to stabilise greenhouse gases at a level which can be absorbed by the ecological state of the planet. At that conference the call came from the European Community.
British policy, I understand, still rests on conditionality. I hope that the Minister will address himself to that point. We are prepared to set targets only if everyone else does so too. Is that still the Government's position? If so it hardly gives a lead. At the same time we know that the United States is totally opposed to making commitments and setting targets, which appears to bring into question any value that the Rio conference may have.
I now wish to ask the Minister a question of which I have given him notice. Will he tell the House what was the state of play at the third meeting of the inter-governmental negotiating committee in Geneva last December? We can welcome the action and the initiative that were taken in setting up the global environment facility. I welcome the fact that the British Government have supported that facility. It is a three-year experiment. However, it is already suspect in many parts of the developing world because it has been grafted on to the World Bank, with its notorious
1358
reputation for so-called readjustment, which has distorted the economies of so many developing countries.
Within the United Nations there is obviously a desperate need for greater co-ordination between its various bodies. For example, surely it is essential that the United Nations development programme and environmental programme address themselves jointly to that task and work together. However, the United Nations' environmental programme is not even an implementing agency for the facility. It will not even be responsible for the distribution of the finances of that facility. A new approach and possibly a new institution is needed. Above all we need an approach that is answerable and in which there is the participation of the developing countries.
There is a danger—it is seen in particular in the United States and to some extent in this country—that the situation will be used as an excuse for us to continue, perhaps paying out to assist the developing countries to develop without risk to the environment. However, that is no excuse for us to continue to pollute the atmosphere. It is our task to reduce the wasteful use of energy in the developed world as an example and a lead to the developing world.
We need a stronger, more accountable and more co-ordinated United Nations effort if the task is ever to be approached with any seriousness. To those who have suggested that there should be a re-examination of the United Nations I, together with many of my colleagues who have worked within the United Nations framework, say that we can look at the work of Brian Urquhart and Erskine Childers. We can learn from that. I hope that, in learning from it, we shall devise a policy which will face with seriousness the grimmest of challenges to the international community.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Judd for initiating this debate, which is, as has been pointed out, extremely timely.
Those of us who have spent our adult lives under the shadow of the coldwar probably did not think enough about what any post-cold war situation would be like. The intractable problem which we seemed to face was so great that we probably thought that, if the cold war ended, we should be entering elysian fields and a life of bliss thereafter. In fact, of course, we have only just begun to realise the existence of some of the problems now confronting the world. We shall solve those problems only through international action and an effective international United Nations presence.
I was interested in an article in the Daily Telegraph—I hope that my noble friends will forgive me for mentioning that publication—on 27th January describing a United Nations conference which was taking place in Dublin and which was concerned with the whole problem of water supply. One hundred and fifty-six countries and 24 United Nations agencies were taking part, trying to draw up a drinking water strategy for the world. It is ironic that in this developed country and a number of others, there is a great boom in the sale of bottled water. I am told that

1359
some of that bottled water is tap water. However, the business has now become so lucrative that we have reached that stage of what some might call "civilisation". Something like one third of the world's population lacks decent water supplies and sanitation. The director of the WHO told the conference that cases of cholera have risen to an unprecedented level. Your Lordships will know that cholera is a water-borne disease.
The world is faced with mass starvation and the environmental hazards of carbon dioxide emissions, as my noble friend Lord Hatch has just pointed out. Yet a country like China has an enormous coal consumption approaching 1,000 billion tonnes per year and reserves which will run for another 800 to 1,000 years at that rate of consumption. Therefore, we are not in any position to deal with those problems unless we do so through an international agency. If we try to act as individual nations, we shall be told, "You have developed a decent standard of living by causing all that pollution but you are telling us that we cannot approach the same levels because of the dangers".
The importance of adequate living conditions and environmental protection is so great that the United Nations must give a lead in that sphere. In the past the United Nations has been dominated to some extent by the permanent members of the Security Council. However, that circle must be widened now so that everybody believes that the organisation provides a reasonable forum for solving their problems.
Since I came to your Lordships' House I have taken a particular interest in the continent of Africa. There, in some sense, is the encapsulation of the worldwide problems which we now face. Conflicts are breaking out. We now have the European Community and any fighting between member states is unthinkable. However, when one looks back at the history of Western Europe over the past few hundred years, conflicts have swept across the Low Countries. There has been the Great War and the last war. Therefore, it is not surprising that, elsewhere, difficulties break out as they do. I believe that the EC can now be a great force in helping the United Nations. I hope that when we are faced with a situation such as the Gulf there will be cohesion and unity among the EC partners in their approach.
We in Western Europe must also realise that we are rather more responsible for Africa than some other parts of the world not simply because of the initial depredations of the slave trade which wrought such havoc among the indigenous communities which had their ablest and fittest members shipped ruthlessly and in abominable conditions to the Americas. We take responsibility also because of the record of the colonial powers in Western Europe in carving up Africa in the last century, imposing artificial frontiers and laying the foundations for some of the problems which the continent now faces.
My sphere of interest has been the Horn of Africa and East Africa. I have tried to draw your Lordships' attention to the problems of countries like the Sudan, which is racked by civil war. Potentially it is one of the most prosperous countries of Africa. It has large areas which could be cultivated to produce crops. There is
1360
great commercial potential. Sudan has indigenous raw materials, minerals and fuel resources. However, progress is being impeded by the civil war and we must find ways to stretch out the hand of partnership to solve the country's problems.
The Sudan has been independent for some 36 years and 25 of those years have been racked by the civil war. The persecution of peoples in the south—Christians or animists—has been particularly severe. The people resisting that do not ask for an imposition of their own beliefs on the rest of the country. On the contrary, they believe that there should be a free and democratic non-secular society for the whole country. At present they are faced with the threat of the imposition of Sharia law. It is to that sort of situation that the world community must bend its attention.
I welcome my noble friend's debate. I hope that we can move towards international solutions to these problems. As my noble friend said, we must look carefully at the question of sovereignty and how far that can be used as an excuse to prevent questioning or intervention in some of the appalling practices which are going on. However, the United Nations now takes on a role which some of us had hoped for over the years but which we can now envisage as becoming a reality if it is supported by people of goodwill on all sides.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, we must all have listened with attention and admiration to the masterly survey which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, gave us of the problems at present afflicting mankind and his conclusion that, in a better and more internationally conscious world, they could be solved.
I listened to that speech with particular pleasure because it was also an occasion for nostalgia. I remember exactly those speeches made in my youth by Robert Cecil, Gilbert Murray and Philip Noel-Baker, all of them proclaiming that if the League of Nations, as it was then, was given due authority the problems of the world would look less menacing.
I had hoped that the noble Lord would address himself, as some noble Lords have, to the more precise point of what the new Secretary General can hope to do about that. To prepare myself, I went this morning to see the Mantegna exhibition at the Royal Academy, which has a wall covered with the engravings of that favourite Renaissance theme—the Labours of Hercules. That seemed to me most appropriate to Mr. Boutros Boutros Ghali. We might identify the problems he raises differently. Which is the hydra? Which is Antaeus? However, fundamentally, he confronts a series of particular problems most of which have been alluded to. Surely his first task must be to see which of them to tackle first.
The difficulty is that the more one discusses the great world problems the more one realises that neither the will to solve them internationally nor the resources are freely given for that purpose. One must face the disagreeable thought that, so far from international consciousness being a rising factor, at the moment it is diminishing. Above all, there is less

1361
internationalism in the United States and that is part of the problem, which has been referred to, of the finances of the United Nations.
When the United Nations headquarters were placed in New York—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, agrees—one of the reasons for the choice was that it was thought that the presence of that institution in the United States would mean a greater devotion to it on the part of the American people and consequently of their government, than had been the unfortunate experience with the League of Nations set up in Europe. For a time, intermittently, that has been true. But it is clear that that devotion, even in the ordinary sense of prompt payment of subscriptions, is lacking. There is no pressure on the American administration to pay its bills. Therefore, when we look at any of these problems, we must ask what can be done with the resources available.
As was suggested by my noble friend Lady Park and the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, we can try to tighten up the administration and to get away from the assumption that jobs in the United Nations should be dealt with, as in some societies, on the basis of quotas for everyone rather than of the search for merit and capacity. However, part of the effort must surely be in the regulation of the number of tasks that are undertaken; that is, cultivating a sense of priorities. An enormous effort has been made and we see, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, reminded us, that it is insufficient to deal with one immediate menace—the prospect of Iraq retaining weapons of mass destruction.
Another immediate menace also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is one of the many consequences that may arise from the break up of the Soviet empire: that is, the threat of the distribution around the world not only of nuclear weapons but also of nuclear scientists. I believe that to be a relatively manageable affair financially; that is to say, it could be done as was suggested to me by (since it was a private occasion) "an eminent European statesman", by assisting in the setting up in the Soviet Union of a research institution, paid for by Western funds, in those fields of science. That would give employment to people who yesterday were among the best paid in the country and today earn the lowest possible incomes, something which places a heavy temptation on them to respond to offers from abroad.
At the same time, it is becoming increasingly clear that, if the accidental explosion of the weapons in question is to be avoided, there will be a requirement for technical help from those scientists and their Western compeers in disposing of them with the minimum danger.
Those are at least two of the immediate priorities. A third is again one which raises all the questions of principle mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and others—Yugoslavia. Is it really conceivable that we can now abandon, as has been suggested, the core of the United Nations charter; that is, nonintervention in internal affairs? Yugoslavia is the most conspicuous example; there are many others around the world. It increasingly looks as though the conflicts
1362
of the future and the wars to which reference has been made which make nonsense of the idea that we have enjoyed 40 or 50 years of peace are nearly all the product of tensions within rather than between states.
We shall not see many more Saddam Husseins conquering a small neighbouring country. What we fear, and rightly, is the external explosion of internal conflict. Under the United Nations charter we do not have the power to intervene: that has been one of the problems of peace-making and peace-keeping. Until we have that power, the best hope of a new Secretary-General is that he should look carefully at what can be done with the limited resources in manpower and money at his disposal rather than attempting, much as the idealists among us would like, to solve all the problems of the world.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, we all thank my noble friend Lord Judd for introducing the debate on the United Nations at a time when a new world order has been declared. I want to touch on that specific aspect. I feel that the United Nations as the harbinger of a new world order is faced with instability.
The United Nations represent an embryonic world government. I say "embryonic" because it is in the early stages. Perhaps I can describe it like this. It is at the same stage that this country's government was at in 1831–32; that is to say, it is 160 years behind the times. As an aside, it is interesting that over the past year or so we have seen the fracturing of the agreement of Yalta, a product of the last war. There may be historical parallels in the changes in the government of the United Kingdom in the early 19th Century following the, effectively, period of stability after the Napoleonic wars, when the victors of those wars held sway.
Why do I raise the matter? The United Nations is 160 years behind the times and is unfair in representing people. Around 160 years ago Members of the House of Commons represented various sizes of constituency. We have the example of Old Sarum, about which we all learned in our school history lessons. It returned a Member of Parliament with only a handful of constituents, whereas whole towns and cities like Plymouth were without representation. I am proud that one of my ancestors was one of the first Members of Parliament for Plymouth, returned in 1832.
For 160 years or so we have had a United Kingdom House of Commons comprised of MPs representing roughly equal numbers of people. That has given us unprecedented internal peace and prosperity. If we look at the make-up of the United Nations we can see that there are two problems with representation—democracy and effective government. The first is that the General Assembly represents people unfairly. Countries with populations of less than 1 million people have a seat on the General Assembly; other seats in the United Nations represent over 1,000 million people. We must seek a reform of the United Nations General Assembly in such a way that it represents people fairly.

1363
My constituencies of about 50 million people would, interestingly, give the United Kingdom a seat in the United Nations, as they would other interesting groupings such as the state of California which would have at least one seat. The specific number is not important, but the principle is that every member of the United Nations General Assembly—I believe that we will have to change the name slightly because it would not necessarily be the United Nations as such, but a world assembly—should, broadly speaking, represent the same number of people.
The other problem is the make-up of the Security Council, which is effectively the executive of the United Nations. To have a membership which is determined really by who won a war 47 years ago is surely an anachronism. The executive of this world assembly should be democratically representative of people in the same way as the General Assembly would be. So far I have spoken about fairness. That would be reason enough for the changes in the United Nations that I have suggested, including the idea that every human being has equal value and rights at the ballot box. That is a very powerful argument and one which everyone in the United Kingdom, Europe and North America, and virtually around the world, would agree with.
However, an assembly of the kind I am speaking about would have tremendous potential for building a much better world for all of us. We should learn not just from our own experience, but from that of Europe and North America. The development of equality of representation in this country over the past 160 years has enabled our forefathers and ourselves to devise a set of laws which are accepted by all. There is a fair taxation regime, the blip of the poll tax excepted. We have a society where people work together to provide a comparatively high level of public services. It also provides a ready market for private producers of goods and services to sell their wares.
Effectively, it is people working together for the common good. I have put in my notes the words "our green and pleasant land". I believe that the greening of our political establishment is something that we all welcome. Let us use our experience to help not only ourselves but our fellow citizens around the world to make the whole world a better place for all of us to live in.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the world we face now is bewildering. Lift a great weight, and what had been under it will heave and shudder. However, if we think of what has happened as a return to normal, we may find our way. In an abnormal half century, Europe and the world were divided into two petrified camps. It is normal that the world should be multiple, disordered, shifting, opaque. We should prefer it that way. Anything is better than the waste and rigidity of the cold war. It is the waste of those years that we must now recoup. And if to draw on the experience of 100 years ago rather than that of our own youth is the price, it is not a high one.
What we did not have a hundred years ago was the United Nations, and that is the key from now on. I
1364
shall speak first about the political aspect of Mr. Boutros Boutros Ghali's new job: first, about the embers. I was doubtful about our Government's instant offer to Mr. Yeltsin to take up the Soviet Security Council seat. But, given the slowness of the West to realise the full implications of the disaster in what used to be the Soviet Union, I expect the Government were right to do so. At least it provides the new grouping with a public, high-level channel of communication with the outer world.
But Mr. Yeltsin cannot stop the ex-Soviet armed forces selling off their equipment, or the nuclear weapon specialists emigrating and taking service elsewhere. They must be paid to do otherwise. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, spoke wisely about that. Who will pay them? They should not all go to the United States: they should go to the International Atomic Energy Authority. And so indeed should the quite large number of American nuclear specialists who are also losing their jobs. The United States is now making no nuclear weapons. If the United States wants to admit more people from the ex-Soviet Union, let them admit those Jews who do not want to go to Israel where settling them is causing the world so much trouble.
Perhaps I may amplify a suggestion I made recently. The Security Council should now make it possible for the IAEA to carry out its long-standing task to the full everywhere in the world by giving it enough money to hire all the nuclear weapons people as inspectors and get them where they are needed at once for nuclear weapon destruction, for nuclear weapon prevention and perhaps for improving the safety of the world's nuclear power stations as part of their function of promoting civil nuclear power.
Where is the money to come from? Some of it of course will come from the United States, which is already prepared to find large sums for a programme of unilateral action to buy these people away from employment in Iran and so on. The rest has to come from UN members in general. The need is not difficult to understand; nor is it difficult to present to domestic opinion. This is true defence expenditure.
I turn now to problems which were always there but which were covered over by the late cold war. The new Secretary-General can do nothing without minimum agreement among his members, and that we must strive for. They must agree that whatever their differences in economic strength and internal organisation, they are, as members of the UN, equals. They have equal rights to pursue their own interests in the United Nations and an equal duty not to seek to try to put it to new and unjustified usage.
The new world order, about which Mr. Bush enthused before "America first" hit the election campaign, was to be a world of law, with the United Nations at its centre. That means that the world court of justice must also be at its centre. Security Council resolutions have come to be divided into two kinds—those that are to be obeyed on pain of military coercion by forces approved by the Security Council, and those that may or may not be obeyed, according

1365
to choice. Iraq is indeed being forced into observance of Security Council resolutions; Israel is left free to make its own choice.
State terrorism also comes in two kinds; that committed by the governments we like and that committed by governments we do not like. To say that is not to suggest that we should like the governments that we do not like, only that in a world of law it is for the international court to decide who is in the wrong, not for the individual members of the UN, nor for the Security Council.
Security Council resolutions are now being devised against Libya because of the Lockerbie crime. But as they point out in Libya and in Iran, there were no resolutions against the United States when that Security Council member shot down an Iranian civil airliner, on its announced route, with loss of equally innocent life. Back home, the naval officer who was guilty of that attack was actually decorated by President Reagan.
One could go on noting the bias which perceived power is able to bring to the advantage of one or another UN member: the United States attack on Panama, the mining of Nicaraguan harbours which the international court of justice declared unlawful—a judgment which that Security Council member had declared in advance it would ignore.
The United States has in fact been seeking, rather successfully, to turn the Security Council into instant legislator, judge, jury, policeman, gaoler and executioner. For a new world order that will not do. It may be legislator, policeman and executioner, but it may not be judge and jury.
Today, we see an attempt being made not only by the United States but also by our own Government to reinterpret the Montreal Convention of 1971 for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation and to claim a right of extradition over the two suspects now in Libya. In international law, that right doe not exist. Mr. Douglas Hogg says that it ought to exist because Libya is a tyranny. Libya is indeed a tyranny, but that does not change international law and create the right.
There will always be tyrannies. We have to live with them under the law, as we have to live with others. Article 14 of the convention clearly states that its interpretation is not for individual governments; it is first for arbitration, and then, if that fails, for the international court of justice. Do the British Government intend to go to the international court about Lockerbie? If not, why not? Gadaffi now seems to be trying to return to the international community, and his recent attitude to the Lockerbie affair has not been incorrect.
If we want the United Nations system to work, if we want a more law-abiding world, it is essential not only that he and his like recognise the law and abide by it, but that we do too. I have tried to discover if the Government have stated that they will not allow American forces in Britain to be used against Libya without a full Security Council mandate, and I have not yet had an answer. Is another such situation brewing in Iraq? I have in mind the recent stories that
1366
Saudi Arabia invited the Americans to arm the Kurds at Saudi Arabian expense. That does not really carry conviction. What is the Government's opinion? In conclusion, this country ought to impart some precision to the windbag catchphrase, "A new world order". Let us refine it to, "World order under world law".
6.42 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Judd has already admirably summed up the many challenges that the new Secretary-General of the United Nations will face. Let me supplement his remarks by concentrating more on the economic challenges that face the United Nations. There are opportunities created by the fact that not only has the cold war ended but another significant development has taken place in the last 10 years, and that is the globalisation of the world economy.
Trade has grown at a tremendous pace in the world, as have financial transactions. Indeed one would calculate that if one were to put no more than a 1 per cent. tax on the world's imports or exports it would yield something in the region of £40 billion, five times as much as the budget of the current United Nations system as a whole. If one were to tax financial transactions, a one-hundredth of 1 per cent. tax would yield an equal amount of money. That much money is sloshing around the world now thanks to the growth of deregulated financial markets and freer trade. On the opposite side of this great gain is the trade in drugs and armaments and of course the global effects of any environmental disaster that we may have to face.
The globalisation of the world economy creates opportunities and it creates costs. Thus far the United Nations has been only reluctantly and in a piecemeal fashion taking an interest in regulating, or intervening in, or reforming the economic side of world affairs. We have the various agencies in NEDO, FAO, UNCTAD, UNDP and so on, but what we need at this juncture of the world's development is some sort of a unified view on what it would take to construct a system of global governance created with the co-operation of the many nation states of the United Nations—a system of global governance which will protect the world against the adverse effects of the rampant trade in drugs and armaments and the many effects not only of environmental pollution but the likely effects of the global spread of diseases such as AIDS or the effects of terrorism.
We have other worldwide problems such as famine. We need some sort of structure in the United Nations, some sort of reformed, expanded or rethought Security Council that would not only take upon itself the settlement of political quarrels and political problems but take a unified and co-ordinated view of the economic and environmental problems facing the world. Not so long ago the Prime Minister was suggesting that emergency relief should become a special concern of the United Nations Security Council. It is not only emergency relief but other questions that I have mentioned that need now to be put into a basket and made the responsibility of perhaps an expanded Security Council whose

1367
structure can be rethought. That should be the responsibility of the new Secretary-General, who arrives in his post at a crucial and important juncture.
If we could encourage the Secretary-General to think of the economics of global governance in an imaginative way, with expert advice from the many nations of the world which possess such expertise, then we would indeed have made a major contribution to perpetuating the United Nations as a strong and effective body.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I was struck by something that the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, said about how we are going to view in retrospect the coming down of the Berlin wall. I wonder whether we shall see it as ushering in a period of great peace and prosperity or whether we shall see the world once again facing the uncertainties and dangers of the 1930s. The prime function of the United Nations is peace-keeping. This means that its main role is political rather than economic, social or environmental.
In many ways those issues are best left to separate bodies such as the GATT, the World Bank—which was referred to in rather an unfriendly way a few moments ago—or the IMF. The aspirations of world government to which the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has just referred are noble indeed, but I doubt whether even the latest potential arrival to your Lordships' House will see it in his lifetime.
I myself am a bit cynical about some of the United Nations agencies, or at any rate sceptical of them. Some years ago I had a certain amount to do with the FAO. While I had great esteem for the diligence, dedication and skill of the extension officers who worked in the field on the problems, a week at FAO headquarters in Rome drove me to the conclusion that many there are rather second-rate bureaucrats whose chief interest is in the duty frees.
That may be unkind, but what I want to do this evening for a few minutes is to focus on the United Nations' political role, and especially on the Security Council. I have no doubt that while the General Assembly is a talking shop—and it is none the worse for that— the heart of the United Nations is in fact the Security Council. Of course the most crucial component of the Security Council is the membership of five, with their power of veto. It is no accident that Britain is one of those five. After all, we were one of the five victors in a war against Fascism; a war that the old League of Nations had failed to prevent.
I suppose it had failed to prevent it for two reasons: first, the United States, which in those days was going through one of its isolationist phases—one hopes that it is not doing so again—was never a member of the league, and, secondly, the league had no teeth. It was to remedy that defect that the Security Council was created.
I realise that there are those who will increasingly question Britain's right to a permanent seat on the Security Council. We have just heard the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, do so. The same question will probably be asked about France. People will say,
1368
"Why not far bigger countries such as India, Nigeria or Brazil, or far wealthier countries such as Japan or Germany; or why not a single seat for the European Community, with a veto in the hand of M. Delors or his successor?" The question answers itself. One cannot have them all so let us hold fast to the present admittedly arbitrary selection.
There is of course no way under the Charter of the United Nations in which Britain, France or any of the other five can be involuntarily removed. Under Article 23, our own permanent seat, with its veto, enables us to remain there for as long as we wish, for the United Nations constitution, rather like the Treaty of Rome, can be amended, under Article 108, only with the agreement of all the permanent members.
There are perhaps three conditions for the best use of the Security Council. The first is that the five permanent members should agree on more than they disagree. During the cold war that was not so. At that time the almost Pavlovian use of the veto by the Soviet Union meant that many opportunities for world peace-keeping were missed. Indeed, I believe—I recognise that some noble Lords on the other side of the House will not agree with me—that had the nuclear weapons of NATO and the Warsaw Pact not enforced a sterile peace through bitter confrontation—we all remember Mr. Kruschev taking off his shoe in the General Assembly—there could have been a really large-scale disaster.
Secondly, the existence of the veto means that the Security Council is taken seriously. It matters that the permanent members have to agree before the formidable sanctions of international law can be invoked. This imposes a real responsibility for the careful use of the veto so as to reflect rather than defy world opinion. Britain has little to reproach itself with over the years on the use of the veto.
Thirdly, it is crucial that the permanent representatives of the permanent members have great diplomatic skills. This means that there should be professional diplomats and not politicians in the job, something which America has only recently begun to learn. Britain has had some outstanding representatives who have served British and world interests very well. I would single out three. One has already been mentioned. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. As a schoolboy my earliest recollection of the United Nations is Sir Gladwyn Jebb taking the odious Vyshinski, the tool of Stalin, to task. Another outstanding representative was Sir Anthony Parsons, whose skill obtained the Security Council mandate for us to liberate the Falklands from the Argentine invaders and, as a by-product, and much more important, to liberate the Argentine from an unpleasant military dictatorship. My third example would be Sir Crispin Tickell, who did so much behind the scenes to get the five permanent members to work rapidly together to get the United Nations into action in the Gulf. The Gulf War should be a model for how the UN can maintain peace.
The maintenance of peace has three components: making peace—UN diplomacy; keeping peace—the Blue Berets; enforcing peace—military action, when necessary, within international law against aggressors.

1369
I believe that in peace enforcement it is far better that the military operation is delegated by the UN to those countries that have the military capability rather than to have a rag-bag United Nations force. Britain has in this respect a considerable contribution to make. That will be one of the justifications for the maintenance of our Armed Forces at a high state of efficiency.
Our permanent seat on the Security Council, like our nuclear capability, gives Britain a disproportionate influence in the world. I am not ashamed of that. I wish to maximise my country's influence in world affairs because I believe that our historical, cultural, ethical and political traditions make it a benign influence.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in only one respect. When he said that he was perhaps a little unfair to some of those who have served in the United Nations I agreed with him. In many of the agencies, and in the United Nations itself, I have met some fine people. It is not fair to pick out one or two who may have been duff characters. One finds them in any situation.
I should like to start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Judd. I do not think he will mind if I am slightly personal. He had a great father who made an important contribution to the work of both the League of Nations Union and the United Nations Association. I was proud to have been appointed some 47 years ago to serve under him when my noble friend was a little boy. At that stage I doubt whether either of us thought that he would ever open a debate in your Lordships' House, let alone that I would have the opportunity of being one of the last speakers in that debate.
My noble friend has already made a great contribution to the United Nations through his work in government and through his work for Voluntary Service Overseas and Oxfam. I am sure that he will continue to do so in your Lordships' House. If we are going to look at others who have nobly served the United Nations over the years, perhaps I may pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Richard on the Front Bench. He was a remarkably able representative of Her Majesty's Government during the period of a Labour Government and I had the privilege then of working with him.
We are welcoming Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali as the new Secretary-General of the United Nations. In doing so we should also pay tribute to Dr. Javier Perez de Cuellar who served the United Nations in a remarkable way during a difficult period of 10 years. I am sure that the House would want to send him a message of goodwill saying "You deserve the best, but come back, as Sir Brian Urquhart has come back, to give us some of your wisdom".
What a remarkable change has taken place in the United Nations since the time 10 years ago when Dr. Perez de Cuellar became Secretary-General. Like my noble friend Lord Judd, I looked up the debate in your Lordships' House in 1985 initiated by the then Archbishop of Canterbury. Except for my noble
1370
friend Lord Cledwyn I am the only other noble Lord present today who spoke in that debate. We heard remarkable speeches from the Archbishop, from the late Lord Caradon, from the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, from the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, and many others. I appreciate the point made by my noble friend when, quoting Conor Cruise O'Brien, he said, "Hardly anyone has much time for the UN". That was the case just seven years ago.
Reading through that debate many of us sounded as though we were thinking up excuses for the limited successes of the United Nations. What a difference there is today when we see Blue Berets being asked to deal with situations in El Salvador, the Argentine, Lebanon, Namibia, West Sahara, Cambodia and now in Yugoslavia.
I wish to follow up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. With the likelihood of United Nations involvement in Yugoslavia, we may be seeing, as my noble friend Lord Judd said, the beginning of a breakdown of the mythical boundary between internal and international affairs. That has been a great block to the service that the United Nations might have been able to perform. I am glad to see that this blurring of the edges may give to the UN an opportunity to help to deal with situations in many parts of the world.
I also welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has taken advantage of Britain's presidency of the Security Council to attend and preside over a Security Council summit which is to take place in just a few days' time. Years ago, on behalf of UNA, I remember on many occasions seeking to persuade Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries to do just that. But the UN was not popular at that time. I believe that the fact that the Prime Minister has decided that it is a jolly good time to appear on the world stage, presiding at a meeting of the Security Council, shows how popular the United Nations has become.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill. It is important that some reference should be made to the funding problems at this particular Security Council meeting. We must judge countries by the way in which they fulfil their obligations to the UN. I say that in a number of other respects. The people of the world are not just influenced by speeches; they are influenced by actions. The speech that the Prime Minister will give at the Security Council will be of great importance. We shall hear what he has to say about global security, peace-keeping, the arms trade, the problem of the Kurds, the Middle East talks, Eastern Europe, the old Soviet Union and many other issues.
In reality, actions speak louder than words. Many of us will be watching government action on issues which are very relevant to the United Nations. Perhaps I may give your Lordships one or two examples. I refer, first, to the size of our aid programme. In 1979 the United Kingdom gave more of its GDP—0.52 per cent.—than any of the other G7 countries. However, the figure has now slipped to less than 0.3 per cent. and we are now in sixth place. That is not good enough.
Secondly, there is the Government's performance on green issues. My noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby referred to the UNCED conference, and I shall return

1371
to that subject if there is sufficient time. In terms of our performance at home, we are lagging behind many of our European partners. There is not much point in thinking that by making speeches on international platforms we can give a great lead and then not fulfil our obligations in the home situation. Indeed, we are again before the European Parliament for being in breech of our obligations.
Thirdly, I turn to the question of arms supplies. We talk a great deal about disarmament, but we seem to be grubbing around for arms sales. We have a recent example of that in the case of Indonesia, with its oppressive measures against East Timor. Fourthly, I turn to to the question of refugees. In my view, the Asylum Bill which is now before the House conflicts with the commitments made in the 1951 refugee convention. I should also add that our support for the right of self-determination in international law needs to be looked at again. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister saw the Dalai Lama on his recent visit to London; but there is, as yet, no sign of Britain arguing the Tibetan case for self-determination with the Chinese.
I believe that enormous problems lie before the United Nations. The UNCED conference is perhaps the most important conference which will be held during the year. It will deal with issues of poverty, the environment, global warming and, by diversity, with the problems of debt, forestry and trade. All those issues are absolutely fundamental to the future of the world in which we live. Ultimately, however, the success of the United Nations depends upon the commitment of nations and that, in turn, depends upon the commitment of individuals. As we move towards the 50th anniversary of the United Nations, I hope that Peers on all sides of the House will use their influence and power to strengthen the United Nations and, in this country, the United Nations Association of which my noble friend Lord Richard has for some years been a very distinguished chairman.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I shall be the fifth speaker this evening to mention the name of Sir Brian Urquhart, who probably knows more about the United Nations than any other noble Lord present in the Chamber. However, perhaps I should except the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, from that observation. Sir Brian was interviewed in the Observer last week. In that interview he compared the United Nations to his mother's refrigerator. He said that he and his brother gave the fridge to his mother, who until then had relied on bowls of water to keep things cold. After a while he asked his mother how she liked it. "It's useless", she said, "It doesn't work". He then found that it had not been plugged in.
As well as comparing the United Nations to a fridge, Sir Brian also compared it to a sheriff's posse,
"which gets together when the horse has already left the stable, to go charging off into the night to try to do something".
He feels that the United Nations should change its stance from being reactive to being preventive. Here I fully endorse the words of my noble friend Lord Judd, who emphasised the same need. I think that that also
1372
applies to the disasters to which my noble friend Lord Desai referred; in other words, there is a need to anticipate them.
Even now, as noble Lords are aware, there are long-standing Security Council resolutions which were passed in the 1960s and 1970s requiring nations that have illegally and forcibly occupied the territory of other nations to withdraw. I am thinking especially of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. In both places the resident population is being flooded with settlers and human rights abuses are a constant occurrence. But we have to ask whether the Security Council, even now when there is no automatic veto, has the courage to act. As my noble friend has pointed out, there are powerful vested interests which are preventing the proper functioning of the Security Council.
But apart from peace-keeping, the United Nations has many other roles in a very imperfect world. It has many associated and specialised agencies, as other noble Lords pointed out. They could be playing a more effective role in decreasing poverty and assisting development than they are at present. Of course the best financed of them is the IMF and its associated World Bank. While they exist to help set up sustainable and profitable development which should assist developing countries and enable them to climb out of poverty, all too often, as my noble friend Lord Hatch said, the reverse is the effect as readjustment of economies results in decreased expenditure on education, health and food subsidies. The increased export of cash crops may require land that has formerly been used for food production, thus resulting in an increased need for food imports as we have seen in Africa.
Too often the exports which the IMF programmes encourage result in little or no gain, as debt service swallows up export earnings; for example, in the 1980s Latin America exported more than ever before and had a very favourable trade balance which should have led to increased wealth and economic prosperity. But it did not generate enough income to service even the foreign debt. In fact, as noble Lords may be aware, the debt increased during that decade.
I hope that Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali—I shall refer to him as BBG and I think that he will be referred to in that way in the future just as was the case with JFK in the 1960s-will be able to take enough time off from peace-keeping to look seriously at all these issues. I refer especially to debt and the alleviation of poverty. Ways of dealing with debt must be devised so that debt service does not cancel out the ability of developing countries to buy non-military industrial and technical goods—I use the phrase "non-military" advisedly—from the factories of the North which need to sell them.
I hope that BBG will look seriously at the suggestions put forward by Susan George in her book entitled A Fate Worse than Debt. Her ideas were backed up by my noble friend Lord Judd in a Fabian Society article published a few months ago. Her idea is that developing countries should be required to pay external debts in local currency into a development fund, to be used inside the country concerned so as to

1373
develop local agriculture and industry for the benefit of its population. In that way politicians and others in those countries who squandered loans in the 1970s and 1980s, while building vast personal fortunes, would not be able to get clean away with it as they would if the debts were simply cancelled.
Last but not least, I hope that the new Secretary-General will not forget WHO, UNICEF and the United Nations Population Fund, all of which play a small but vital part in reducing infant and child malnutrition and mortality and encouraging a lower birthrate.
During the debate I briefly attended a reception in the Cholmondeley Room for the launch of the Little Foundation, which will fund research into the causes of cerebral palsy and brain damage in children. One of the main points at which it will look is the effect of nutrition on the mother while the child is in utero and the nutrition of the child in early childhood. It is now thought that the malnutrition affecting many mothers and children in the developing world is having a permanent effect on the ability of those children to develop their full intellectual potential. It is a vast problem. It is a human tragedy that many of the world's children will never be able to develop their full intellectual capacity.
Later this week the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population and Development is hosting a conference, with government support, on "A European Agenda for Action on World Population" to be addressed by speakers from the UNPF and the IPPF which will underline the urgency of the problem.
From conflict control, through poverty control, to conception control, the new Secretary-General will have his work cut out. I hope that the Minister will be able to ensure that the United Kingdom gives him full diplomatic and, as other noble Lords have suggested, increasingly generous financial support to enable him to carry out his tasks.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for having given us an opportunity, no matter how brief, to discuss the huge, manifold and various problems that face the new Secretary-General in his new, daunting and important task. There has been, with the marginal exception of some scepticism on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, general agreement that after 45 years of confrontation between two nuclear super powers, the prospects today for international co-operation are probably brighter than they have been at any time during those past 45 years when my noble friend Lord Gladwyn laid the foundations of the United Nations.
The chief instrument for encouraging that co-operation and for enabling it to happen and flourish is the United Nations. I suppose that its ability to do that will depend, above all, on its leadership—the new Secretary-General—on the effectiveness of its organisation, and, perhaps more than anything else, on the support and political will of the international community. Some of your Lordships
1374
have ascribed the outbreak of the Second World War to the deficiencies of the League of Nations. It seems to me that most of those deficiencies can be ascribed to the lack of will of the great powers who had the responsibility to support it.
The absence of the United States was a misfortune. The lack of will displayed by successive leaders of this country at that time in the case of Abyssinia, the Rhineland and Czechoslovakia is something the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, might care to remember. The United Nations' vast responsibilities are such that, as has also been widely agreed, if it is to carry out those responsibilities, it must be reformed. Although some have expressed scepticism as to the possibility of effective reform taking place, anyone who read the words of the much-quoted Sir Brian Urquhart would learn some of the steps which could be taken to improve its effectiveness.
For one thing, some of your Lordships have criticised the way appointments are made within the United Nations. There is one appointment—the way in which it is made could well be improved—which has nothing to do with the internal politics of the United Nations, but has a great deal to do with the great powers. That is the way in which the Secretary-General is appointed. Sir Brian, together with Erskine Childers, makes constructive proposals as to how that might be improved.
It is also suggested that the Secretary-General's relationships with the agencies, which have been criticised by some of your Lordships, could also be put on a stronger and direct footing, and that he should be provided with deputies, which he requires, and some kind of cabinet for consultation. Last but not least, there is no reason, it is suggested, why we should not look at the composition of the Security Council, much as it would horrify the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, who takes an attitude towards it that some Conservatives took to rotten boroughs in 1832. It is my view that we need to look at the composition of the Security Council. We need to ask, incidentally, why the British Government so precipitately recognised Russia as a member of the Security Council the other day. I should like an explanation of that action. The Minister may be able to give us good reasons. It may have been prudent; it may have been for reasons about which we do not know. It seemed strange that such a country, which was hardly established and which was in an extremely unstable condition, should immediately be put on the Security Council and given the veto. I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation.
We must ask ourselves whether the Security Council is strengthened by the absence of Japan. We must ask ourselves, if that is so, whether Germany is not in the same position. And, if the European Community is developing a common security and common foreign policy, we must ask ourselves whether it would not be better that it was represented on the Security Council rather than Britain, France or Germany. Those are questions which we should address.
A number of other issues have arisen during the debate, not least that of the proper financing of the operations of the United Nations, in particular of its

1375
peacekeeping operations in which the behaviour of the great powers, many of them members of the Security Council, is nothing short of disgraceful. One of the first tests of the new Secretary-General will be whether he forces the United States to pay up the subscription which it owes the United Nations' regular budget and its peacekeeping operations.
There is one topic I should like to raise which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and that is our attitude towards interference in the internal affairs of other nations. We must ask ourselves whether we any longer believe that it is wrong to interfere in the internal affairs of so-called sovereign states. I should have thought that it is now widely accepted that respect for human rights and the way in which minorities are treated are matters of international concern. They were brought into the international arena, not necessarily for the first time, but publicly, at Helsinki in Basket 3. They are matters in which the Council of Europe interests itself daily and monthly. They are a condition of becoming a member of the European Community.
Thus, in all those ways, essentially internal matters have become matters in which we are prepared to interfere. But we have gone far beyond that; for example, in our attitude to Serbia and Croatia recently. Compare our attitude to those countries with our attitude in the case of the Nigerian civil war some years ago. It is also true that the treatment of minorities and respect for human rights have international implications. As has been said, we are debating the Asylum Bill next week which concerns refugees. It is clear that the refugee problem, which has escalated in the past few years, cannot be solved individually, country by country. It is an international problem with international implications in which, in my view, the United Nations must be involved.
If we believe that we should interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, we must decide what the rules of interference are. I believe that Europe is a good place in which to examine the problem—possibly through the CSCE, in conjunction with the United Nations—and to work out how, when and by what means, interference in the affairs of other nations is a legitimate and constructive role for the international community to play in the cause of better international relations.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Judd for his powerful speech and for the Motion, which enables us to look at the United Nations and its prospects at a moment when it has reached a watershed in its short history. I join my noble friend Lord Ennals in paying a warm tribute to Senor Perez de Cuellar for his work during his tenure as Secretary-General. He served through a remarkable period in history which included the Gulf War. While it is too soon to make judgments about him, we can say he was a Secretary-General of integrity who was a patient, assiduous negotiator who never sought the limelight.
1376
The new Secretary-General, Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali, is highly respected in his own country. He played a major role in achieving the Camp David agreement. He is well versed in international law and is an experienced administrator. I believe that Dr. Ghali must be given the opportunity to settle down and he must be supported by those who appointed him. We wish him well.
One of his major tasks will be, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, suggested, to propose much needed reforms of the United Nations organisation to meet the needs of the post-cold war era. It implies reforming his own secretariat, which is said by many to be too cumbersome. It means trying to make the General Assembly more effective. One senior member of the secretariat has said that there were too many agenda items, a large proportion of which are stupid, trivial and self-serving.
Then there is the question of the Security Council itself. Can it continue indefinitely with the Permanent Five in charge? Who are the largest contributors to the United Nations after the United States? I leave Russia out of the reckoning for the moment. They are Germany and Japan. One doubts that they can be excluded indefinitely from the council. These are matters for the future, although they will obviously have important implications for this country.
As the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, reminded us, the Security Council meets next week in what could and should be an important meeting not least for the new Secretary-General. Sir Brian Urquhart, a senior member of the UN Secretariat for over 40 years, argued last week that a more reliable international system is needed. He said:
"If you are looking for a calmer world, you have to make the international system not so much reactive—as it has been up to now—as preventative of unnecessary and unexpected crises".
He makes a reasonable point and one which Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali will note—namely, that the time has at last come to consider operating Article 43 of the United Nations Charter. This article provides that the United Nations can make armed forces and other assistance available to the Security Council for maintaining peace and security. I think this is a point with which the noble Baroness, Lady Park, would agree. It would give the Security Council the authority to deploy an international force quickly in a situation where the cycle of violence could not be broken except by firm intervention. It could save hundreds of thousands of lives in certain situations.
Sir Brian argues that the military staff committee of the United Nations is under-used, and that seems to me to make sense. But his main theme is that new initiatives are at last possible now that the cold war is over. In my opinion, no one is better qualified to give advice than Sir Brian Urquhart and his words should be heeded.
Another problem which has been mentioned by noble Lords during the debate is the shortage of money. We are told that there is a constant shortfall and, if the United Nations is to send peace-keeping forces to Yugoslavia and elsewhere, the money must be found to pay for them. Perhaps the noble Earl will inform us of the current financial position. My noble

1377
friend referred to the break up of the Soviet Union, which again will inevitably create new financial and political problems for the world.
To return to finance, the United Nations is virtually bankrupt and one of the main debtors at the moment is the United States of America, whose arrears were £344 million last November. This puzzles me, as a friend and supporter of the United States, because that country is the moving force behind the organisation. The United Nations depends upon the United States especially at the moment. Eighty-four other countries are so far behind in their contributions that the United Nations is currently owed 1.8 billion dollars. We are informed that Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali has set himself the task of reforming the organisation in the next 60 days. That is ambitious and I hope he succeeds. The first action he might take is to summon the debtors to appear in a Welsh county court. That would create problems! He will certainly need the cash if the peace-keeping forces and other obligations are to be met.
My noble friend Lord Judd speaks with acknowledged authority on the problems of the third world and I know that the noble Earl will take note of what he has said. The end of the cold war, the Gulf War and the dismantling of the Soviet Union have completely changed the balance of influences in the United Nations. Third world countries exercised more influence when the Soviet Union and the West confronted each other in a power struggle in the United Nations. They sought support from both sides, they played one side against the other. It has been said that the non-aligned movement has had its day. I should like to ponder that for some time.
This scene needs careful analysis and I am sure that the noble Earl's department is carrying that out at present. Third world countries are very sensibly abandoning the shibboleths of Soviet socialism and seeking to put their houses in order. For doing this, they hope to receive more aid and new loans. The question is: will they? That is something upon which the noble Earl can perhaps enlighten the House this evening. But the urgent problems will not be resolved by well-meaning long-term reorganisation.
The United Nations needs to deal with starvation in the Horn of Africa, Albania and elsewhere. In the debate on arms sales in this House last June I quoted Mr. James Grant, the director of UNICEF. He stated:
"The Governments of the developing world as a whole now devote half of their total annual expenditure to the maintenance of the military and the servicing of debt … or more than 400 dollars a year for each family in the developing world".
That is indefensible. My noble friend Lord Judd dealt with it and these are some of the problems with which the new Secretary-General will have to grapple. But he can only do so if countries like our own support and sustain him.
Like my noble friend, while I recognise the significance of the political role of the United Nations, I believe that the infrastructure is of equal importance. Economic collapse, starvation and disease and the desperation of refugees—17 million of them, as my
1378
noble friend said in his speech—can all lead to civil unrest and to war. One distinguished reformer summed it up when he said:
"The strength of the United Nations lies in the areas where interdependence matters— Countries have to understand that there are some problems that cannot be resolved without a global mechanism".
That point was made by my noble friends Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe and Lord Hatch.
The new Secretary-General will need to look at this infrastructure whose activities span the world. He and his colleagues will need to satisfy themselves that the machinery is working and that the resources are adequate. I am, of course, talking about UNESCO, UNICEF, the World Health Organisation, the International Labour Office, FAO, UNHCR, all of which have been mentioned by noble Lords during the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in his most interesting and thoughtful speech, expressed doubts about those agencies. They may have their flaws but they are of crucial importance nevertheless. Some flaws do not justify dismantling organisations which, in my view, are absolutely essential to humanity now and in the future.
We note, of course, that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund do not come under the aegis of the United Nations although they are an essential part of the scene at this time. We wish the new Secretary-General, Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali, every success in his crucial tasks. Britain has a good record as a supporter of the League of Nations and, since its founding, the United Nations. Let us do all we can to sustain the United Nations at this historic moment.
7.31 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for initiating this debate about the United Nations. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate which comes two days before the high level meeting of the UN Security Council convened at the personal initiative of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
One of our aims in convening this meeting has been to reaffirm at the highest level our commitment to the United Nations and to the principles of its Charter. It has been gratifying to hear that commitment echoed throughout the House this evening. We hope that the meeting will help generate a debate and fresh thinking about the central role of the UN. It will, in short, help to initiate the kind of wide-ranging review called for in this evening's Motion and endorsed by many speakers in this debate.
It might be helpful if I refer in outline to the hopes we have of that occasion which will be the first meeting in the history of the council at the level of heads of state and government. We wish to see it mark the arrival of Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali in his post of Secretary-General and assure him of the council's support. Further, we wish the council to reaffirm its commitment to the principle of collective security as embodied in the UN Charter. We also hope to stimulate discussion of new and better ways of

1379
preserving international peace and security. Finally, we hope the meeting will seek to build on the progress made in the control and reduction of armaments and on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Those are just the kind of areas that noble Lords have referred to this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, stressed the importance of those areas.
We are confident that Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali will fill his important post with distinction. We are glad to have had the chance to talk to him in his new capacity already when he visited London on 13th January. We look forward to continuing the close co-operation with him which characterised the relations between the five permanent members of the Security Council and his distinguished predecessor.
At this point I wish to join with the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and Lord Ennals, in thanking Senor Perez de Cuellar for the work he did when he was Secretary-General. As noble Lords have said, there are many problems facing the Secretary-General. Reform of the organisation as a whole will be one of his many responsibilities. If the Secretary-General is to succeed in this, he must have the necessary tools. He will have our support and I believe the support of the entire international community in taking steps to rationalise the sprawling structure of the UN Secretariat and in developing priorities. As my noble friends Lord Beloff and Lady Park of Monmouth have said, the UN needs to put its own house in order if it is to be fully effective. Dr Boutros Boutros Ghali has stated his commitment to secretariat reform. We wish him every success, but it was the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, who reminded us of the difficulties of such action. I noted the noble Lord's remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, mentioned a wide range of issues which cause all of us concern. He mentioned the nub of the problem, and this was referred to by many other speakers. None of the UN's work and no reform will be effective without the resources needed by the UN to perform its tasks. It is a regrettable fact that a great number of member states fail to pay their assessed contributions in full or on time. I am glad to say that the United Kingdom does not fall in that category. Our record of prompt and full payment is second to none. That applies as much to our share of the regular budget as to the costs of peace-keeping. It also applies to humanitarian relief and development assistance.
In the matter of voluntary contributions, here, too, we are proud of our record. One can always do more, but it is equally important that our funds are used effectively by the UN and its agencies. We as member states have a duty and responsibility to ensure the success of the UN. We take seriously the need to support its efforts by ensuring that it has the necessary resources to do the job. We look to other member states, and in particular those whose wealth gives no excuse for non-payment, to do the same.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, reminded us of the dismal state of financial affairs that exists throughout the UN system, including the main UN regular budget. The financial crisis, as it has come
1380
to be known, will be discussed at the forthcoming resumed session of the General Assembly. We shall take an active part in that to try to ensure that the outcome of the discussions results in a more workable financial situation for the UN.
I wish to comment on the peace-keeping role of the UN. That role is at the centre of the popular concept of what the UN does and what it should be doing. Indeed my noble friend Lord Marlesford said it was the raison d'être of the UN. The success and value of its peace-keeping operations have been widely acknowledged, not least by the award of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988. The success of UN peace-keeping is proven by the huge increase in the number of operations since the end of the cold war. It is salutary to pause and think about that. Whereas only 13 operations were established in its first 40 years, since 1988, 10 new operations have begun. For the first time all five permanent members were asked to contribute to UNIKOM in 1991, thereby breaking an old taboo.
It is important to remember that UN peace-keeping is not a panacea for all ills. To keep a peace, there must be a peace to keep. The usefulness and success of UN peace-keepers depend heavily upon the willingness of parties to enter into dialogue and compromise. A viable cease-fire and full co-operation of the parties involved are necessary prerequisites for the deployment of any force. Nor is deployment the end of the story. We have no wish to see any UN peace-keeping operation become a permanent fixture. That is not a solution to a problem but the artificial extension of one. Alongside such operations we must also make every effort to bring the different parties together and help them work out a relationship that will ensure a lasting and unsupervised peace. That leads me naturally to comment upon a matter raised by the noble Lords, Lord Judd, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe and Lord Bonham-Carter, and by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth which concerns Article 2.7 of the charter and the right of intervention.
Much attention is being given to the question of intervention, and in particular humanitarian intervention. It is difficult and probably undesirable to lay down rules concerning a right to intervene. Each case has its peculiar characteristics. The way Article 2.7 of the UN Charter is interpreted will continue to evolve. However, this is more likely to happen in the light of experience gained in tackling individual crises than by the formulation of a general right of intervention.
Many noble Lords tonight, including the noble Lord, Lord Judd, have focused on the development challenges facing the UN. I welcome that. I agree with the noble Lord that in an increasingly interdependent world, more and more issues facing developing countries need to be resolved within the framework of multilateral co-operation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that nowhere is this more critical than in the economic and social activities of the United Nations and its agencies.
The UN's development system, despite many of its successes, has considerable weaknesses. If we were starting from scratch today we should more than probably design the system differently so that it became a more coherent and co-ordinated vehicle for

1381
development assistance. Our starting point would be that the UN should focus primarily on economic and social issues that are global, urgent and vital—poverty alleviation, the environment and good government are just three obvious examples—and on issues which it has the resources and instruments to address.
In the agencies themselves we want to see more effective administration and governance, a better prioritisation of resources and stricter adherence to areas of specialisation and competence. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, will agree that we want no overlap, no competition, but each agency doing what it does best. We are pressing for such reforms.
In no area has the UN faced greater challenges over the past year than in the delivery of emergency humanitarian relief. The catastrophe facing the Kurds was unfortunately only one of many. We thus greatly welcome the approval by the General Assembly on 18th December of a resolution to create the post of a senior UN disaster relief co-ordinator or "supremo" as part of a package to strengthen the UN's disaster relief systems. I was very surprised that none of your Lordships mentioned that in view of the debate we had not so long ago in which it was a common theme.
That post was originally an Anglo-German initiative arising from the clear lesson of the Iraqi crisis that the international community must be able to respond quickly and effectively to emergencies. Where better to start than with improving the UN's ability to co-ordinate both its own agencies and the international response.
But more than co-ordination, our proposal also envisaged a package including a standing committee on which all the representatives of humanitarian agencies should be represented to provide a central revolving fund of 50 million dollars. We were pleased that our proposals were welcomed by the NGOs and indeed that our full package was reflected in the UN resolution. It is important now to ensure that the Secretary-General receives the necessary funds to appoint someone to do the job.
We have already pledged 5 million dollars to the 50 million dollar revolving fund he will control. We were the first donor to make such a pledge. I am glad to note that some others have begun to follow suit and hope others will also soon follow. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has himself consistently called for such a co-ordinator.
The successful climax to our efforts only underlines—particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals—what we are already doing in practical terms to support humanitarian aid through the UN and similar bodies such as the International Red Cross movement. In this financial year we have provided them with £61 million for humanitarian aid—some 44 per cent. of our total humanitarian aid of nearly £40 million. As long as the agencies continue to prove their effectiveness in delivering that aid, as we can expect with the co-ordinator's guidance, we shall continue to support them financially in their vital work. But we cannot do that alone. Other countries must also play their part.
I have mentioned that we see one purpose of the Security Council meeting in two days' time as
1382
reaffirming the UN's role in arms control and non-proliferation, another subject which was of great concern to the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Without arms control, international peace and security cannot be assured.
Britain actively supports the UN in its roles in that field. At this year's General Assembly, the highlight of the first committee's work was the adoption, by a massive majority, of a resolution tabled by the EC countries and Japan aimed at establishing a register of conventional arms transfers at the UN. That was a direct result of an initiative of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and implemented one of the main conclusions of a UN study, chaired by a British expert, on promoting transparency in conventional arms transfers.
We attach the highest importance to an effective role for the UN in promoting respect for human rights. We shall be playing a full and active part in the work of the Commission on Human Rights, which begins its annual session this week. Our expectations, however, go far beyond the traditional functions of the commission. We look to the UN as a whole to set human rights, including the right to free and fair elections, at the centre of its aims and activities.
Environmental issues will be high on the UN's agenda this year. The 1992 UN Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED) is to take place in Rio de Janeiro from 1st to 12th June. It is intended to address the complex relationship between environmental degradation and development and to draw up a comprehensive action programme for international activity into the next century. The UK is firmly committed to a successful UNCED and will be working to achieve that goal throughout the preparatory process.
The Geneva meeting mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is but one step on the road. I have nothing new to tell the noble Lord, but we took forward the commitment made by the Commonwealth heads of government in Harare and G7 leaders at the London summit to make a success of the final meeting in Rio de Janeiro.
The noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, mentioned water supplies in the world. With the world's present population, that in itself is a problem, but when one considers the growth in population which the world faces it is even more of a problem. I sometimes think that we take for granted how lucky we are to have a potable water supply from our taps here. After travelling in the Far East it is a pleasure to return to what we take for granted here but those in the Far East do not take for granted.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, besides riding his usual hobby-horse of USA-bashing, mentioned Libya, and in particular the relevance of the Montreal Convention in relation to the Libyan bombing of Pan Am flight 103. We are studying with great care a letter we have just received from the Libyans. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that it is important that we ensure that those responsible are brought to justice and that such tragedies do not happen again.
I should like to spend a little time dealing with a point raised by many noble Lords, including the noble

1383
Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, concerning the reform of the Security Council. The Security Council is performing more effectively than it ever has. Reforming the council would inevitably mean making it bigger since there are a number of countries which would wish to press their case for joining if the opportunity arose. The result would be an expanded, and, in our view, more cumbersome and inefficient council, less able to meet the demands placed on it than the present arrangement. We have discussed just how many demands there are.
Moreover, reform of the council would entail reform of the charter itself, and that would be extraordinarily difficult. Many proposals have been made since 1945 to revise the charter but the only changes made have been those introduced in the early 1960s to give the newly independent countries of Africa and Asia more voting power. At that time four new non-permanent seats were created in the Security Council, increasing its membership from 11 to 15, and nine extra seats were created on the Economic and Social Council. The expansion of ECOSOC took, moreover, seven years to negotiate —an indication of how lengthy and divisive the question of reform can be.
Generally, the commitment of UN members to the principles of the charter as originally drafted has kept changes to a minimum. We believe that that is right. Under Article 109 of the charter a two-thirds majority of all United Nations members is required for charter amendment. Any alternation of the charter must also be ratified in accordance with the respective constitutional processes by two-thirds of the members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council. That is clearly very difficult. Our view, as stated by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, is that reform of the charter is neither necessary nor desirable.
Also on the subject of the Security Council, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, raised the question of Russia taking over the seat of the former USSR. Russia has been unanimously accepted by the members of the Security Council as the continuing state of the former Soviet Union. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that to have done otherwise would have left a grave and irresponsible legal vacuum in terms of the Soviet Union's existing responsibilities. As Russia has taken over those responsibilities, as was mentioned earlier, I believe that we have done the right thing.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, raised the subject of aid to the former Soviet Union. Perhaps he will allow me to deal with the subject more fully next week in his very important debate on the issue.
The collapse of the cold war order has presented the United Nations with a host of unfamiliar challenges. But it has also given it the power to achieve results in dealing with them. The arrival of a new Secretary-General is a good moment to take stock and to look at ways in which the energies of the organisation can best be channelled in the future. We are determined not to let that moment slip. When the Members of the Security Council meet in New York in two days' time at the invitation of my right honourable friend the
1384
Prime Minister, they will have the chance to set a course for the council and the organisation as a whole for the coming years. The contributions to this evening's debate have furnished ample evidence why it is worth our every effort to give the organisation the support and commitment it needs.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I should first like to thank all those who participated in the debate. It has been a very constructive and serious debate which has illustrated very well the wealth of talent and experience that exist in this House among people who have grappled with these problems from different angles over many years. I am sure we should all like to underline how good it has been, in the sense of continuity and the contribution that has been made over the years, to have had the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, present during the debate. It was sad that he was not able to participate in the discussion but his presence added importance and poignance to the occasion. It was good too to have my noble friend Lord Richard on these Benches for much of the debate. When I was a Minister of State at the Foreign Office I was able to see at close quarters the important and effective contribution that he made at a difficult time in the organisation's history.
I should also like to thank the noble Earl for the courteous, full and thoughtful way in which he responded to the debate. That augurs well for Britain's foreign policy. I should like to pick out one point which struck me as particularly significant. He dwelt on the issue of peace-keeping compared with conflict resolution. He was right to make that point. Obviously, the strength of the UN is measured in its effectiveness in peace-keeping; but that will never solve the underlying issues. There has to be a will and commitment to conflict resolution. I am sure that the previous Secretary-General worked very hard in that respect. We wish his successor well in all that lies before him. Indeed, I am glad that tonight we have sent that message of good will to Perez de Cuellar in that his has been a distinguished and effective contribution. It is a big pair of shoes for his successor to fill. We wish him well in taking up his post.
It came across more clearly than anything else in this debate—I found it very reassuring—that in this House there is a recognition that the first reality of existence is the knowledge that we live inseparably in an interdependent world. That is true strategically and environmentally and it is true on the issues of migration which preoccupy us at the moment. Therefore, the test of government—it is perhaps good to remember this as we come up to a general election —is not simply what they say that they will do within the geographical area which for historical reasons happens to be called the United Kingdom; the test is what they contribute to the viability and effectiveness of managing our interdependent—inseparably interdependent —world. The debate tonight has shown that there is a great deal of good will toward that objective as a priority in government.
I note that the Prime Minister is about to go to the United Nations. It has struck me in my political life

1385
that will is always central to results. If we want to get the Argentinians out of the Falklands, however extraordinary and daunting that task may seem, and if we are determined to do it, we do it. If we want to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait, however difficult, expensive and complicated it may be, if we establish the will and want to do it, we do it.
I should like to encourage the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, to cheer up. If there is the same degree of will brought to bear on this task about which there is so much agreement on the strategy, I am sure that we can bring about amazing results there too. Whatever our political differences, I am sure that we wish the Prime Minister well in his important mission to the UN.
I conclude by quoting one of the greatest international servants. He was controversial. Some may have approved of his approach and some may not. But there can be no doubt of his commitment to turning into effective government ideas about international co-operation. After all, he died in the front line in service to that cause. I quote Dag Hammarskjold:
"Never look down to test the ground before taking your next step: only he who keeps his eye fixed on the far horizon will find the right road. Life yields only to the conqueror. Never accept what can be gained by giving in. You will be living off stolen goods, and your muscles will atrophy".
I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers. Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Hong Kong: Democracy After 1997
7.55 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weefordrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the arrangements made for the maintenance of democratic freedom and the administration of justice in Hong Kong after 1997.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are several problems which must be resolved if we are to do our best to ensure democratic freedoms and the proper administration of justice in Hong Kong after July 1997. I shall start with the composition of the Court of Final Appeal which will replace the Privy Council.
No one disputes that the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal shall be a Chinese citizen, permanently resident in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. But the Joint Declaration of 1984 provides that the Court of Final Appeal,
"may as required invite judges from other common law jurisdictions to sit on the Court of Final Appeal".
Those words are repeated in the Basic Law, which emerged from the Joint Declaration.
But now the Government have agreed to Beijing's demand that there can be only one overseas judge in the Court of Final Appeal. The Legislative Council in Hong Kong strongly believes—I agree with it—that that is utterly wrong. It is insistent that the number of overseas judges should be at the discretion of the Court of Final Appeal itself, as was always intended. LEGCO passed a resolution to that effect by an overwhelming majority of over three to one. The court might not want to co-opt any overseas judges or it might wish to co-opt more than one; but insisting on
1386
the power of discretion of the Court of Final Appeal is not a trivial issue. It is a vital safeguard against the court being packed by judges who might be inclined to a more Beijing interpretation of justice than to the British approach, which has rooted itself in Hong Kong.
Her Majesty's Government must press for that. It is not in conflict with either the Joint Declaration or the Basic Law. Giving the Court of Final Appeal greater flexibility would in fact be helpful to Beijing. It would increase Hong Kong's confidence in Beijing's fair mindedness, making its relations with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region smoother from the start. So would an agreement about the number of the People's Liberation Army to be stationed in the middle of Hong Kong. Beijing has hinted that there may be only about 3,000 troops, though that might well be too many.
The nature of soldiers everywhere is to drink occasionally and then have rows with members of the local population. Are PLA soldiers to be above the law if they start a fracas? There is a fear of unhappy incidents which could lead Beijing to impose some kind of martial law. That point must be clarified to protect Hong Kong citizens and allay their fears. The fewer PLA troops that there are in the middle of Hong Kong, the better. They can always be sent for instantly in an emergency. It must be in Beijing's interests to keep good relations with the local population.
The naval base is in the middle of the business district of Hong Kong. There are many suitable places, such as Stonecutters Island, to which the naval base could be removed without any loss of efficiency but with a gain in Hong Kong confidence that Beijing will not apply a heavy hand.
My next point concerns the functioning of the democratic parliamentary process. The Legislative Council contains 60 members; 18 were appointed by the governor and 24 were indirectly elected by a tiny number of voters in sections allocated to various professions and occupations. For the first time last September 18 members were elected by universal suffrage of the whole population. The United Democrats, led by Mr. Martin Lee, swept the board. Seventeen of those democratically elected seats are now held by those of liberal persuasion. They are not of the liberal democratic kind represented in your Lordships' House, but are staunch believers in capitalism and low taxation; though like all parties in the United Kingdom they claim to be concerned with improving social services.
The governor refused to put Mr. Lee on the Executive Council. In Mr. Lee's view he and his supporters are the only truly democratic representatives and should have formed a majority of the Executive Council, which is the equivalent of the Cabinet in this country. Now OMELCO, which represents members of the Executive and Legislative Councils, wants more universal suffrage in the 1995 election. It requests that half the members should be directly elected and only half elected by the indirect election method. That would differ from the Basic Law, but not by much. Beijing has already agreed that, in 1999—the election after that to be held in 1995

1387
—24 should be directly elected by universal suffrage and that, in the year 2003, 30 should be elected by universal suffrage. Beijing accepts in the Basic Law that after 2003 there should be a continuing progress towards universal suffrage for all the Legislative Council seats.
Our Foreign Secretary has said that he will raise the matter in Beijing, but without much hope of success; and he has not yet raised it. The British Government are afraid that by pressing the issue of a more democratically elected Legislative Council its members in Hong Kong will dangerously antagonise Beijing. But their constituents want them to press the issue. That is what they were sent to LEGCO to do. The Foreign Office says, "No, we know much better what's good for you". The great majority of the people of Hong Kong says, "That is for us to decide. You are not our nannies. It's we, not you, who will have to deal with Beijing after 1997".
I believe that we should let the people of Hong Kong act as they think fit, and that the governor should make no attempt to block any amendment that they make to the existing electoral procedures. I do not accept that if LEGCO decides to speed up the democratic process already accepted by Beijing that Beijing in July 1997 would immediately reduce the number of directly-elected members to 24. It would be very poor public relations if they did so, and they are not such fools.
I now come to the growing resentment against the British Government and Britain. The people of Hong Kong feel that we are so preoccupied with electioneering that we are ignoring their affairs at a critical moment in Hong Kong. They are appalled at our extraordinary behaviour in announcing the imminent removal of the present governor without naming a replacement. Sir David Wilson is now seen as lacking the essential authority to deal with Beijing. His faithful and loyal services do not merit that shabby treatment.
One strongly held view in Hong Kong is that the last British governor should be Her Majesty's ceremonial representative while waiting to haul down the Union Jack when Beijing takes over the last jewel of the British Empire. Otherwise he should be confined to matters of defence and foreign affairs.
The real work of administration, according to that thinking, should be done by a deputy governor, a local Hong Kong Chinese resident. It is an idea with much to commend it. But whatever the power of the new governor it is essential that he be appointed now to end damaging uncertainty. In my view he should be a person with presence, courage and high political skills. He should not be either a past or present civil servant, however distinguished.
Even if there were a deputy governor, it is of great importance that the new governor's proven wisdom and sensible advice should be available to the Hong Kong administration. The choice should not be a party matter. I understand that there have been no consultations between the Government and the Opposition as to who should be chosen. If that is so, it is unforgivable on a non-partisan matter. There is no reason why the new governor should not be a
1388
member of the Labour Party. In some ways it would be desirable. I can think of one noble Lord in your Lordships' House who, through his experience and vigour, would be admirable. I can think, too, of a second Labour Member in another place who would do the job excellently. However, I shall not name either publicly for fear of spoiling their chances.
In Hong Kong itself I know of at least two with the required ability—one Chinese and one British. Their names, too, I shall not mention publicly. I believe that either would have strong support from the local community, whether or not connected with business. Unfortunately, at present I cannot think of anyone now or previously in the Government who would be suitable. Of course, there might be such a person but he should be acceptable to the Opposition should he emerge.
Delaying the choice because of our election is shameful and foolish. It is understandably seen in Hong Kong as a parting insult both to Hong Kong and Beijing. Beijing is showing its good faith and confidence in Hong Kong's future by huge investments from its banks in Hong Kong. It is also showing it by its warm welcome to Hong Kong entrepreneurs in Guangdong. Already the people of Hong Kong employ over 3 million people in that adjacent province. With far higher wages, those people are learning the delights of capitalism and enjoying what, to them, are novel displays of uninhibited discussion on Hong Kong television and radio.
Beijing has described its takeover of Hong Kong as two systems in one nation. I do not believe that the rulers of Beijing have the slightest intention of wrecking the Hong Kong system. China's finances would collapse without it. I have no doubt which of the two systems will dominate China's commerce and industry after 1997. Between now and 1997 it is up to us to create the atmosphere in which that can happen smoothly and fruitfully.
The Government are failing in their duty to business in Hong Kong, whether locally or foreign-owned. They are letting down the people of Hong Kong who are anxious to preserve the best of what they have learnt of the British way of life. They are giving Beijing the impression that we in this country are too busy watching the opinion polls to notice the urgency of attending to opinion in Hong Kong. I commiserate with the noble Earl for having to answer my Question so quickly after the second debate. However, I hope that he will urge upon his senior colleagues at the highest level that they should take a brief interlude from electioneering and attend to the appointment of a new Governor of Hong Kong. It really will not take them more than a couple of hours.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, for giving us the opportunity to debate these urgent questions. It is difficult to follow him because he has covered the points so admirably and clearly. The questions that he has raised deal with democracy and the administration of

1389
justice. It is right to consider whether Her Majesty's Government are dealing fairly with the matters raised in the terms of the Joint Declaration.
The Joint Declaration enshrined the goals of autonomy and democracy for Hong Kong. That commitment was clearly spelt out in the debate on the Joint Declaration in another place in December 1984. My right honourable friend Mr. Richard Luce, then the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said:
"We all fully accept that we should build up a firmly-based, democratic administration in Hong Kong in the years between now and 1997".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/12/84; col. 470.]
There is a great deal of concern in Hong Kong that that firmly-based, democratic administration is not in place. There is at the moment a curious hybrid which could have come straight out of Alice in Wonderland. There is an elected opposition and a non-elected, chosen, appointed administration consisting of appointees of the governor and members of various sectional interests. Would it not seem odd if there were an elected government and an appointed opposition? Will my noble friend Lord Caithness tell us whether that is the right way forward for Hong Kong?
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, referred to the elections in September. However small the turnout, and the issue has been criticised, there is no gainsaying the fact that the United Democratic Party claims to be and is the only truly representative political party in Hong Kong. Yet, as the noble Lord pointed out, that has not been reflected in appointments made either to the Legislative Council or to the Executive Council. Ought some consideration be given to that at this stage? It is seen as an insult to the intelligence of the voters and to the democratic process itself.
Disillusionment with the niggardly progress to democracy has been compounded by the clumsy handling of the appointment of the successor to the present governor. That is seen as a slight to Hong Kong and to the present governor. The strong impression is that once again Britain has let Hong Kong down. Clearly that was not the intention but I am afraid that it has been the effect. The question of a successor to the present governor is of great—probably of prime—importance in Hong Kong. With only 5½ years remaining of our stewardship it is of key importance that a person who is credible here, in Hong Kong and in China should be appointed. Such a person should possess a great many attributes. He should be respected in Hong Kong, Westminster and China. He should have an understanding of the commercial realities that obtain in Hong Kong. He should be an effective leader and spokesman for Hong Kong.
That is quite a tall order but there is such a person. I do not share the diffidence of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, in naming that person. If your Lordships substitute "she" for "he" you may find the answer. I refer of course to the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, who is at the same time politician, businesswoman and diplomat. Her appointment would be welcome in
1390
Hong Kong. It would give that territory something of the political confidence that it seeks in the years remaining until 1997.
I hope that the Government will address the issues that were raised so cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt. I look forward to hearing my noble friend's reply.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, for facilitating the debate. I agree with much that he said, although not all, and with much that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. I believe that Parliament, especially another place, has given inadequate attention to developments in Hong Kong during recent years. It has overlooked the significance of the five years between now and the time when responsibility is to be handed to Beijing.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, that there has been a real failure on the part of the British Government to formulate an adequate strategy in the negotiations over Hong Kong. I believe that the Chinese have taken advantage of that. I have said on a number of occasions when talking about Tibet that the Government have been prepared never to be strong but always to be weak. I do not believe that is the best way to have satisfactory and effective negotiations with the Chinese.
On 22nd January I attended a business conference at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre. The conference was brilliantly organised and magnificently attended by more than 600 people. I cannot adequately praise the people of Hong Kong for their energy and enthusiasm. Their economy and that of the 18 million people in South China within the economic zone that is now influenced by Hong Kong is surging ahead. One of their few complaints is that the deplorable economic management of affairs in the United Kingdom is something of a drag upon their rate of growth.
If Britain appears to forget about Hong Kong it is not surprising that Hong Kong appears to have little or no expectations of Britain. It is painful to see Britain becoming more and more isolated and irrelevant in Hong Kong and to see the situation in Hong Kong becoming more marginalised by British politicians.
However, the case against the British Government is not merely of neglect but of extraordinary insensitivity. That was sadly demonstrated by the handling of the governor, Sir David Wilson. He is a man of outstanding ability who will be warmly welcomed in this House, as was the noble Lord, Lord Maclehose. We look forward to hearing from him. In my view Sir David was publicly humiliated by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in the announcement that he would be retiring but that his successor would not be appointed until after the election. I do not argue that an appointment ought to be made before the election; I argue that no such statement should have been made about Sir David's

1391
retirement. He is a highly respected man. On 22nd January in the Legislative Council the honourable J. D. McGregor said:
"The lack of information is alarming and, frankly speaking, disgraceful and insulting to Sir David Wilson and the people of Hong Kong… Who on earth in the British Government decided to announce Sir David's retirement and not his successor? I believe that this was a real blunder and that it has seriously reduced Sir David's standing and credibility during his remaining months of office. It also suggests that the British Government is insensitive to the very delicate situation in Hong Kong where six million people ponder their future".
I agree with that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, said, the elections in September 1991 were a watershed in Hong Kong. That was the date when—in the words of Mr. George Foulkes the Labour spokesman in another place—the first shafts of democracy lit up in the Territory. As has been said, the voters were allowed to elect 18 out of 66 candidates for the legislative council. The United Democratic Party, led by Martin Lee, won 12 of the 18 seats and five of the six remaining seats went to people with liberal tendencies. It was a stunning victory for those who really believe in democracy. Many of them were deeply disappointed that the appointments in no way recognised the will of the people of Hong Kong.
At the conference last week to which I have referred, a Mr. Stephen Cheong, who has been a LEGCO member since 1980, said:
"We in Hong Kong have the funniest situation in terms of politics: the government in power are not allowed, or see it as undesirable, to form their own party, while the largest party in the legislative assembly remain an opposition party. The present state of affairs is unimaginable in any western democratic countries".
He went on to say:
"If nothing is done to rectify this situation, then what we see today may well be the beginning of a period of anarchy in Hong Kong".
I hope that that is not true but the British Government have an obligation to recognise the strength of feeling which now exists in the Territory.
In the course of the next few weeks something must be done to rectify the situation. It is a pity that the Government did not introduce an element of democracy years ago. It would be absurd to assume, as the Government seem to, that agreements already reached with China are set in stone. After all, there are five years between now and 1997. There must be some flexibility. I welcome statements by Labour leaders that, if elected to power, they will begin early discussions on how to improve the democratic conditions in Hong Kong. Of course we want to see a free press, an independent judiciary and a democratic legislature. The political situations in Hong Kong and China are also not set in stone. In this country we are bound to have an election in the next few months. In China there must be changes as younger men are bound to succeed to prominent positions in the increasingly aged leadership of China. China is unlikely to avoid some of the winds of change which have blown from Europe, Africa and Latin America. It may be that the speed will not be so great but I do not believe that there will be no change in China in the course of the next five years.
Hong Kong itself may help to bring about the change. We have already seen the remarkable speed
1392
with which China's southern provinces have broken free from a command economy. In helping to create a climate which is free from the central control of Beijing, Hong Kong is helping to create a climate in which political differences with Beijing can be submerged. I believe that the taste of economic freedom is bound to create a taste for political freedom so far denied to the rest of China's population and, in a sense, to its colonial peoples.
Of course the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law remain the foundations on which Hong Kong's future must be built but the five remaining years of British rule must be years in which there is everything to play for. It is a period in which the old men calling the shots in Beijing and the has-beens in Westminster will be replaced by a more rational, accommodating and imaginative leadership. I have great confidence in the people of Hong Kong, in their judgment and ability to lead. Without mentioning any names, I agree that when one looks around for the next governor, we should look seriously at those who come from Hong Kong and who know and understand the nature of the people. I urge the Government, in the weeks before the election, to turn their minds away from electioneering and confront this fundamental problem which must be faced in Hong Kong. They must have a strategy to take us through the next five years.
8.24 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, for initiating this debate. I must apologise to the House because, for unavoidable reasons, I may have to leave the Chamber after my speech. I hope to be back to hear the Minister's reply but I apologise to the noble Lords, Lord Derwent, Lord MacLehose and Lord Geddes, if I do not hear their speeches. I shall certainly read them in Hansard.
As a bishop I am in contact with Hong Kong through the Anglican communion network. There is an Anglican bishop in Hong Kong and through Church House I have been in contact with him. In 1984 and 1990 a delegation of the British Council of Churches was invited to Hong Kong. The message which was brought back was that we should alert people to Hong Kong's situation and needs.
Through my contacts I have found that the first thing which seems to be lacking is confidence in the British Government —with their great tradition of colonial experience and government—to see their responsibility for Hong Kong through to the moment at which it joins the mainland of China in 1997. That 60,000 people left Hong Kong in one year is an indication of that lack of confidence. The bishop tells me that the people of Hong Kong are conscious of the fact that the right of abode was taken away from them in 1962. They now have the status of British dependent territory citizens. They realise that in 1962, when their right of abode was taken away, the United Kingdom was concerned not to have large numbers of people entering the country because our services would inevitably break down. They understand that. However, the people of Hong Kong need effective citizenship. If they can be given that, and if there can

1393
be movement towards that between now and the time at which they join the mainland of China, there will be less desire to leave. Even so, they need an escape clause to prevent their becoming prisoners on their own island. That does not mean that they would use the clause. They would, however, have a sense that they were not trapped.
The other fear conveyed to me is one already mentioned by noble Lords; namely, that the pace of change has been deliberately slow out of a desire not to offend the Government of China. I should like to be reassured that that is not so. We should not be proud to think that we have slowed down the pace of change out of a desire not to displease mainland China. Indeed, Jan Morris, writing from Hong Kong, has said that the Chinese Government have made known their opposition to, for example, some of the suggestions which have been made in this House today.
There could be a restoration of confidence moving towards democracy and democratic institutions. Mr. Douglas Hurd and Sir Geoffrey Howe have said that that is desirable. It is possible that by 1997 a fully elected legislative assembly could be in place. As I said, that would prevent a flow of immigrants to Britain. There could be the appointment of a chief executive by a representative assembly.
An enforceable Bill of Rights is also needed. The present Bill of Rights lacks two very important elements. It lacks the right to self-determination and the right to elect political representatives. If there came to be a clash with a strong Chinese Government the Bill of Rights would not stand up.
I shall not repeat what has been said about the court of appeal. I am told that the Executive Council, after a long debate, rejected the composition of that court of appeal. If I were to say anything further about the appointment of a new Governor, it would be that there is a great desire among the politically aware in Hong Kong that consultation shall take place. Can we be assured of that?
I want to move on to the question of religious freedom. Recently, Graham Hutchings of the Daily Telegraph and Raymond Whitaker of the Independent drew attention to the fact that mainland China is cracking down on religion, largely because it sees that in Eastern Europe the Churches, to a large extent, were the midwives of the revolution—certainly in Poland, East Germany and possibly in Czechoslovakia—in a secret and hidden way in co-operation with others. It is determined that that shall not happen in China.
It is possible that those who worship or gather in groups outside the five official religions—Buddhism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam and Taoism—could be charged with counter-revolution and colluding with foreign states, for which the punishment is from 10 years up to life imprisonment. Recently, 32 Catholic bishops, priests and lay workers were arrested. In short, there is a new hardness towards religion. I ask my noble friend Lord Caithness, first, to reassure me that it is something of
1394
which the Government are aware and, secondly, that it is something upon which he will seek further information.
I offer the hope that there can be a rebuilding of confidence and trust in the British Government; that there can be the establishment of effective citizenship, which is more important to many people in Hong Kong than the restoration of right of abode, and that along with that will go movement and education towards democratic styles and institutions. It is not simply a matter of structures. It is also a matter of encouraging participation.
Finally, I raise an issue where the British Council of Churches' delegation found real fear and foreboding. It was mentioned by the Bishop of Hong Kong, Peter Kwong. It is that religious freedom could be eroded for fear that the Churches might be as effective in the East as they were in Eastern Europe in helping to roll back the Communist regime.
8.34 p.m.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, not for tabling the Question, nor because I necessarily agree with everything that he said, but because I believe that the greatest protection the people of Hong Kong have is that their affairs should be kept constantly in the public eye.
The Question of the noble Lord is whether the Government,
"are satisfied with the arrangements made for the maintenance of democratic freedom and the administration of justice in Hong Kong after 1997".
I am sure that the Government's Answer to the question will be, "no". So far as I am aware, the Government have never claimed that the arrangements which emerged from the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law are wholly satisfactory. The more relevant question is whether the arrangements are as satisfactory as can be achieved at present. There are certainly anomalies to which reference has already been made. It is an anomaly that the largest party in LEGCO is in opposition. It is an anomaly that the Opposition is not an alternative government since it can never, under current arrangements, have a majority in the Legislative Council. There are, therefore, important respects in which democracy as we see it in Hong Kong today is deficient.
That is not to say that the degree of democracy already achieved is useless. An article in the Financial Times yesterday rightly pointed out that, since September's elections the legislature is now a body where virtually all aspects of the Government's legislative programme are vigorously debated and, in some cases, changed. I am sure that process will continue and develop further after the next round of elections. Perhaps we should therefore not be too dismissive of what has already been achieved.
I beg your Lordships not to job backwards and reflect too much on what might or might not have been included in the Joint Declaration or the Basic Law. We must face reality as it is today. The Joint Declaration exists; the Basic Law exists. The Chinese have said that they regard both documents as sacrosanct. The documents are clearly not perfect. How could they be since they represent a

1395
compromise? As in all compromises, the different provisions cannot be disentangled. If one side seeks to ignore or reinterpret one provision, then the other side will seek to ignore or reinterpret another. At this juncture that does not seem to be a useful way forward. Better to build on what we have.
In practice it means that neither the United Kingdom nor the People's Republic of China should at this stage of the proceedings do anything to rock the boat. By that I mean they should not seek to move unilaterally in a direction which they know in advance to be unacceptable to the other side.
If that sounds craven, let me invite noble Lords to consider what is actually happening on the ground in Hong Kong. In the weeks since agreement with China was reached over the airport, confidence has greatly improved. The stock market is at an all time high. Business is doing better—certainly much better than it is, for example, in this country. New investment is coming in, which means that there are jobs and prosperity for all. Why is that? It is not because the agreement is perfect but because the mere fact that an agreement exists between the two sides on a range of issues means that everyone knows, or thinks they know, where they stand and can plan accordingly. On the other hand, each time we are at public loggerheads with the Chinese tension rises, investment falls away, confidence drops and prosperity is at risk. If Hong Kong is not prospering in 1997 the Chinese will have no incentive to keep to the Joint Declaration.
The need to reach agreement with the Chinese does not mean that progress cannot be made towards a greater degree of democracy; towards improved arrangements in regard to the administration of justice or in other directions. What strikes all of us who have daily dealings with Hong Kong is the way in which the economies of Hong Kong and China are becoming not only interdependent—they always were—but that there is now in reality only one economy covering Hong Kong proper and the neighbouring provinces of China. The point has now been reached where it is impossible—I repeat, impossible—for China to damage the economy of Hong Kong without inflicting serious, perhaps disastrous, damage on the economy of China itself.
When one thinks about it, in the real world China has much more to gain from the continued prosperity of Hong Kong than we do. That being so, the right way forward is the one that the British Government are following. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has promised that he will continue to press on the Chinese our views on the best way to achieve the continuing prosperity of Hong Kong. Even more important, he will be pressing the views of the Hong Kong people.
I do not wish to repeat what noble Lords have said, but I wish to digress by saying that I too regret that my right honourable friend will no longer be assisted in that task by Sir David Wilson. This was no time to change the Governor. Those in this country who have campaigned against him have little to be proud of.
There is no point in striking attitudes. We believe in democracy for democracy's sake. The Chinese Government do not. So slanging matches on that
1396
subject lead to a dead-end. That is the trouble with campaigns which merely have as their theme "more democracy must be good". Rather, let us use up our ammunition and our persuasive powers in getting the Chinese to move forward on specific issues—many of which have already been summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford—not to win a political argument but in order to further the future well-being of the people of Hong Kong.
8.42 p.m.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, for introducing this debate. Like many other noble Lords, he mentioned various things about the Governor. I claim to have a special knowledge about gubernatorial matters. The point was made that the Governor is now a kind of lame duck and that the Government have just about killed him off. He was here the other day and I have never seen any duck less lame. He was in exuberant form. It is delightful that he is going to be joining your Lordships in this House. He will make a great contribution.
There was strong criticism of the announcement that the Governor is going to retire without a successor being named. Think of all the fun that it has given to journalists playing this game! I noticed your Lordships joining in the game of suggesting who will succeed him. My retirement was announced four months before I retired. The name of my successor was announced one month before I retired. I did survive and so did Hong Kong. However, I say this to those who are to appoint him: they will be hard put to find somebody as good as the person they are allowing to go.
It was a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. I agreed with everything he said, and particularly with his presentation of one's attitude to China in these circumstances. He referred to the importance of not harking back to past agreements; the importance of not proceeding in a confrontational manner, and the importance of seeing things to some extent from the Chinese point of view. I am thinking of the question of democracy as being something which is European and utterly un-Asian. These matters have to be dealt with with great care.
I would like not to follow the noble Lord in all the points he made. I wish to proceed somewhat differently. I begin by saying what I believe people in Hong Kong would like to see. They are well-known for their pragmatism. They understand the political realities of their own situation. With only five years more of British responsibility, I believe that what they want to see is a strong and efficient public service. That they have. I believe they wish to see a political structure which will give them, on the one hand, assurance of a continuation of their personal freedom and, on the other, one that does not provoke Chinese suspicion and consequent instability.
A great deal has been said about that this evening. I entirely agree that more work has to be done on this matter. The people of Hong Kong want to see a system of justice which is fair and impartial. That they certainly have and there is every prospect of it

1397
continuing. They want an economic environment in which they and their families can prosper. That again they assuredly have, and I shall return to it. I was very glad about the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to developments in China.
There is a great deal of common ground in Hong Kong about what they want. Of course opinions inevitably differ on some matters, but the community is at one about the need to establish a sound relationship with China and to avoid measures which may generate instability through friction with China. I know what fun it is to confront China from the Benches of your Lordships' House. It is an entirely different matter to do so from Hong Kong and a good deal less wise.
Noble Lords have referred to the issues which are under debate at present; for instance, the progress of democracy and the composition of the Court of Final Appeal. In both those instances the choice seems to lie between an ideal solution, which will probably not be agreed with China and so would add to uncertainty about the future in 1997, or accepting something workable now in the knowledge that it will not be an issue when the difficult time of 1997 comes. I am advised that about these issues there is no consensus in Hong Kong. I believe that the choices are best left to the people in Hong Kong and to their Legislative and Executive Councils to decide. I do not believe that we would be doing the people of Hong Kong a service by encouraging any particular solution. Our overriding goal should simply be to ensure the smoothest transfer of sovereignty in 1997 and the smoothest possible lead-up to that date.
This debate has raised various criticisms of the British Government and of what is happening in Hong Kong which may raise doubts about Hong Kong's future. I do not share them. I also sensed an underlying new feeling of optimism in your Lordships' House which I am not sure that I have felt before. I entirely agree that there is a current moving very strongly in Hong Kong's favour. The place itself is booming. It is the centre of a huge area of economic growth in South China which includes 60 million to 100 million people. Economically, it is the fastest growing area of the world, with huge benefits to the people who live there.
Let us remember that this is the product of Chinese policy. It is the product of Den Xiaoping's open-door policy, which has been persisted in during these difficult past years in China. Hong Kong is a key element in it. It was significant that Den Xiaoping himself, who so very rarely appears in public, made a public appearance a few days ago and reaffirmed that policy. He did that in Chungshan on the borders of Hong Kong. That is something from which we can take a great deal of confidence.
This economic thrust from South China is in fact underpinning Hong Kong. In considering the number of details that I am sure will come to your Lordships about Hong Kong in the course of the next few years, let us take comfort from the fact that this force is there and is working very much in Hong Kong's favour.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I wholeheartedly endorse the comments made by, I think, all noble Lords who have spoken, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, with regard to Sir David Wilson. I can best sum up by saying that our gain in this House is going to be Hong Kong's loss. He has done a quite excellent job for Hong Kong in extremely difficult and increasingly difficult circumstances. I do not, however, intend to enter the lists of the guessing game as regards his successor.
Not for the first time, we are truly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, for bringing Hong Kong to our attention. His Question refers both to "the maintenance of democratic freedom and the administration of justice in Hong Kong after 1997". All noble Lords who have spoken have addressed the former more general issue of democratic freedoms, and I should just like to make one comment in that context: that is with regard to passports, a subject that I have studied closely since the then British Nationality Bill over a decade ago.
In the Chinese memorandum of 19th December 1984, which was attached to the Joint Declaration of the same date, considerable comfort could, and hopefully still can be, drawn from what are now called marginal paragraphs 233 and 234 with regard to the Chinese recognition and tacit approval of British Dependent Territory citizens and their BDTC passports. However, the only reference to passports in the Basic Law is in Article 154, which refers to the government of the Hong Kong special administrative region issuing passports,
"of the Hong Kong SAR of the People's Republic of China to all Chinese citizens who hold permanent identity cards of the region, and travel documents of the Hong Kong SAR of the People's Republic of China to all other persons lawfully residing in the region".
While I do not see a conflict between the Joint Declaration of 1984 and the Basic Law of 1990, I should be grateful if my noble friend Lord Caithness could advise the House whether those marginal paragraphs 233 and 234 in the Joint Declaration are still valid, whether British national overseas citizens and therefore holders of the BN(0) passports will be similarly recognised by the People's Republic on and after 1st July 1997, and why the Basic Law made no reference to either BDTCs or BN(0)s and their passports.
I shall now restrict my comments to "the administration of justice in Hong Kong after 1997" and in particular to the Court of Final Appeal. There have been numerous suggestions in the press and elsewhere to the effect that Britain has yet again in some way "sold out" to the Chinese in the matter of the Court of Final Appeal. Without for the moment commenting on the merits of the agreement reached in September last year by the joint liaison group, I think it would be appropriate first to look at the printed published text.
Article 82 of the Basic Law states as follows, and the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has already mentioned this:
"The power of final adjudication of the Hong Kong special administrative region is vested in the Court of Final Appeal

1399
in the region, which may as required invite judges from other common law jurisdictions to sit on the Court of Final Appeal".
Those are important words, and I shall come back to them in a minute.
The only reference in the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law to the number of judges connected with the Court of Final Appeal is with the tribunals set up to make recommendations regarding the removal of judges from that Court of Final Appeal, and indeed of the chief justice of the Court of Final Appeal. In both the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law such a tribunal is to consist of no fewer than three (or, in the case of considering the chief justice, five) local judges. Those numbers do not refer to the Court of Final Appeal itself.
My reading of the two relevant documents—that is, the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, and it was on those two documents that the joint liaison group were working—is that, with the exception of the chief justice of the Court of Final Appeal and indeed the chief justice of the High Court of the Hong Kong SAR (both of whom, as the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has already advised us are required to "be Chinese citizens who are permanent residents of the region with no right of abode in any foreign country"), there neither is nor was any definitive statute with regard to the number of judges constituting the Court of Final Appeal nor to the nationality or domicile of those judges other than the chief justice himself.
We then turn to the agreement reached by the joint liaison group in September of last year; namely, that the Court of Final Appeal shall consist of five judges in any sitting made up of the chief justice of the Court of Final Appeal, three permanent Hong Kong judges —and an important wording in parenthesis here—who may be local or expatriate, and, depending on the needs of each particular case, one remaining judge to be drawn from a list of non-permanent Hong Kong judges or from a list of distinguished judges from other common law jurisdictions. Here we are getting the same phrase coming through again; other common law jurisdictions.
On 4th December last year the Legislative Council rejected by 34 to 11 the joint liaison group's agreement. I have read with the greatest of interest the speech of the Hon. Simon Ip Sik-on (the representative on LEGCO of Hong Kong's legal profession). As I well know, it is at the very least foolhardy for a layman such as myself to disagree with a lawyer, particularly one as eminent as Mr. Simon Ip. However, while I agree with much of his speech, I disagree on two specific and, I suggest, fundamental points.
First, he said:
"the agreement reached by the JLG … has altered the clear wording of those documents".
namely, the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. As I read it, that agreement by the JLG in no way contravenes either the Joint Declaration or the Basic Law even if, as some of your Lordships and much of the press think, it may not entirely live up to the hopes and aspirations of some.
Secondly, Mr. Ip said that he considered that:
1400
"the composition of the Court of Final Appeal and the court's unrestricted power to invite overseas judges to sit on it [was] more important than setting up the court early".
He went on to say that it was:
"difficult to imagine a court structure that is consistent with the Basic Law that is less flexible than that we are faced with today".
My Lords, I wonder. The noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, if he did not refer to it, certainly inferred from this point that it was impossible to know what sort of Court of Final Appeal might be imposed in July 1997. What Hong Kong needs is stability, and it is running out of time. The smooth transition of the legal system is of paramount importance for the future of Hong Kong, and the vesting of the power of final adjudication in Hong Kong is the most significant aspect of this.
Hong Kong needs to have a Court of Final Appeal in place by 1993 so that it can have four years to establish its credentials and iron out any wrinkles before the territory reverts to China in July 1997. If this can be achieved, the aim of maintaining continuity within the legal system will be greatly assisted, and in addition its early establishment will bring further confidence and stability not only to the judicial system but also, and more widely, to Hong Kong as a whole.
On 6th December 1991, two days after the LEGCO debate, in the context of that three to one rejection of the agreement reached by the joint liaison group, the South China Morning Post commented as follows in its leading article. I unashamedly quote this paragraph in full because it is of considerable importance. It reads:
"There is, however, a way out of the impasse which Hong Kong can chart itself, without any constitutional change. Instead of trying more backdoor political manoeuvres, the Hong Kong Government can strengthen the territory's judiciary. Accepting that localisation of the judiciary has been a failure to date"—
that is a moot point—
"especially at High Court level, Hong Kong should invite the most eminent judges available from other Common Law jurisdictions"—
here is the same phrase coming through again—
"to serve on the bench for the next six years, preferably longer. Not only would Hong Kong's judicial system benefit from their presence, but they could strengthen the pool of talent from which Hong Kong could choose candidates to sit on a Court of Final Appeal. Overseas expertise would therefore be injected into the system, without an argument over how many judges from other countries should be invited to sit in the appeal court. Since it would be a domestic decision, it would be entirely within Hong Kong's right to make it, and does not require approval by either China or Britain".
In my experience—and here again I wholly endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose—Hong Kong is nothing if not an immensely practical place. The action proposed in the South China Morning Post leading article seems to me to be an eminently sensible way of addressing what is clearly a difficult and extremely important problem. Surely it is in the interests of all concerned—Hong Kong, China and the United Kingdom—to accept the agreement as worked out in the joint liaison group and now take action to strengthen Hong Kong's judiciary along the lines advocated in that leading article.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, for asking this Unstarred Question. It is important that in your Lordships' House the issue of Hong Kong and its future should be raised at regular intervals. I find myself in broad agreement with the tenor of what the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, said. I am sorry that he is mildly unhappy that Martin Lee and his colleagues have given themselves a liberal label, but that is their choice. Let me comfort the noble Lord. No one will ever affix that label to him in any of his political manifestations. I agree however, that the main issues we have to address are those of the Court of Final Appeal, which was discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and to which I shall return, the pace of democratisation and its impact, and the appointment of the Governor who will succeed Sir David Wilson.
In our previous debate we discussed human rights in connection with the United Nations. That is highly relevant to this Unstarred Question. It is not surprising that the people of Hong Kong, looking across to the mainland, should be anxious that they will lose the rights and the freedom, guaranteed by their connection with this country, which they have enjoyed. The two main protections of those rights, to which we attach importance, are democracy and the establishment of an independent judiciary—the Court of Final Appeal. Hence, in this general question of the rights of citizens—it is relevant to what the right reverend Prelate said about freedom of religion—those two constitutional protections are very relevant. So also is the Bill of Rights to which the right reverend Prelate referred.
As other noble Lords have said, last September the first 18 members of the Legislative Council were elected and, as was acknowledged by the Foreign Secretary and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the elections were a great success. It is the view of many that if what was called the high degree of autonomy is to be assured, as specified in the Sino-British Declaration of 1984, the process of democratisation must not be slowed down. There are obvious pressures for it to be speeded up. But it should certainly not be slowed down. It should be continued on the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt. Moreover, if it is the case, as the noble Lord, MacLehose, said, that these matters are best left to the people of Hong Kong to decide, how better can they decide them than through elected representatives? Or does he honestly believe that they can decide matters better through unelected representatives chosen by the administration? The answer is self-evident.
It has also been said that the most important thing is that Hong Kong should have stability. Stability is not intrinsically good. One can have bad stability as well as good stability. The governments in Central and Eastern Europe over the past 40 years were extremely stable, or appeared to be. However, one would hardly advocate them as intrinsically desirable.
The second protection against the abuse of power is the establishment of a truly independent judiciary. Hence the importance of the Court of Final Appeal, and the presence of common law judges outside their
1402
jurisdiction. There is also the agreement made by the joint liaison group—and I do not pretend that I could mediate between the interpretation of the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and that of the Legislative Council—which aroused the anxiety of the council because it appeared to say that only one of those judges at each session should be a foreign judge. I do not think that we shall be able to decide tonight who is right. However, I must confess that I find it very odd that members of the Legislative Council should so overwhelmingly interpret the agreement in that way, despite the persuasion of the Government, the presence of the Government's legal officers and, presumably, having every wish not to be alarmed by what had happened, if they were completely wrong.
I should point out that the only document that I have read on the matter is fairly specific in saying that the group also agreed to limit foreign judges to one in each session. I do not know whether that is a false interpretation of the decision. If it is, many people must have been profoundly misled and the agreement reached by the joint liaison group must have been unduly and unnecessarily obscure. That could hardly be desirable in such circumstances.
One would like to know how the Government will react to the anxiety that the agreement has caused. That is what matters. Will they listen to the anxieties expressed by the Legislative Council? Alternatively, do they agree with Mr. Wang, vice president of the China News Agency whose comment, when asked if he would listen to the opinion of the Legislative Council, was:
"Listen to their opinions? We have already told them our opinions and stance so there is no need to listen".
We have been told that it is unwise to confront the Chinese. However, it is very difficult not to call that statement confrontational. It is a comment that justifies the anxieties of the people in Hong Kong and their need for reassurance. As the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords have indicated, the Government need to instil confidence in the people of Hong Kong by reassuring them that their rights will not be completely abandoned.
Finally, the council—and this has been referred to by many speakers—attacked the British Government for delay in appointing a new Governor. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to reassure us on the matter. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Maclehose, said that Sir David Wilson did not look like a lame duck. Well, I do not know what he looked like; but it is a fact that that is generally considered as a misfortune when it happens to politicians who find themselves in such a position. Indeed, it happens to American presidents. No one thinks that it is a desirable situation in which to find oneself. I say that because to make someone in office a lame duck must damage that person's authority, no matter what else is done.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, my point was that Sir David Wilson was standing up frightfully well in the situation.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I accept totally the noble Lord's explanation. However, it means that the Government have more explaining to do. I say

1403
that because to put someone in a situation in which he has to stand up frightfully well is hardly the way a distinguished public service should operate. I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, that the treatment of Sir David Wilson was hardly desirable and that, if his governorship was not to be continued, his successor should have been announced. I hope, in the course of his response, that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will be able to provide us with an explanation as regards this unhappy affair.
In the course of the debate anxieties have been expressed which require to be answered. In the years to come, I hope that we shall regularly raise the question of Hong Kong and the importance of our obligations to that colony.
9.13 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, this has been an important and timely debate. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, for initiating it and for his opening speech. Although there are a number of critical issues to be resolved in Hong Kong, the noble Lord concentrated upon two of them in his Motion. Like other noble Lords, I shall therefore deal with those issues, although that does not mean that we are not mindful of the other problems which exist there.
The Motion refers, first, to democratic freedom. Noble Lords in excellent speeches effectively analysed that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, on that. There are, as always, two schools of thought: those who want to proceed rapidly and those who favour cautious progress. Whichever camp we support, we must agree that the elections of 15th September last year were a significant step on the way to democracy. We take elections as a matter of course, but the Chinese Government in Beijing do not. They regard them as a threat to stability. We think of them as essential to stability. Those are points of view which will, I hope, be reconciled over the years. But I feel sure that many of the leaders in China will have thought deeply about developments in Eastern Europe and elsewhere in the world. I believe that their wish is for as amicable a transition as possible in 1997; and, further, that they will observe the letter of agreements that they have signed. They know perfectly well that that has a bearing on their standing in the world.
The September elections, to which all noble Lords have referred, were for 18 members out of the 60 who sit on the Legislative Council. Of those, 12 went to the United Democrats; three others to parties allied to the Democrats; and three to independents whose policies are close to those of the Democrats. I was not surprised by that result, nor by the fact that Mr. Martin Lee emerged as the leader of that group of radical critics. He is an able man of integrity and determination. He polled more votes than any other candidate, and that counts for something. Neither China, nor the Government of Hong Kong, need worry too much about Mr. Lee. They are fortunate to have a man of his calibre in political life. He reminds me a little of Mr. Lloyd George who started in much the same way and ended up as Prime Minister.
1404
What cannot be overlooked is that out of the 3.6 million people entitled to vote, only half registered, and out of those only 39 per cent. voted, which meant a turn-out of less than 20 per cent. of the eligible voters. This country must take some responsibility for that result because we did not encourage the march to democracy in Hong Kong during the long years of government there. Britain did many good things in Hong Kong, but we tended to be democrats at home and plutocrats abroad.
As my noble friend Lord Ennals said, we believe in the steady advance of democracy in Hong Kong. The Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984 promised Hong Kong "a high degree of autonomy" and there is nothing here which implies that a local democracy should be excluded. China wishes to see a prosperous Hong Kong, which is very much in her interests, and that can best be achieved if there is an efficient local government authority. The Isle of Man may not be a precise model for Hong Kong but there are important lessons to be learnt there and also in the Channel Islands; and His Excellency, the Chinese Ambassador, whom we warmly welcome to this country, might be invited to visit those stable communities which enjoy a high degree of autonomy under the aegis of the British Government.
I think that a little more elasticity in negotiation might be helpful if we are to avoid some years of frustration and disappointment. With other noble Lords, I warmly congratulate Sir David Wilson upon the honour conferred upon him and, like all noble Lords, look forward to seeing him in this House where I know he will make an important contribution. He has had a difficult tenure of office but he has carried out his duties with dignity and common sense, which I know to be true.
Noble Lords have stressed the need to appoint the right successor and there is a good deal of talk about that. What we need is a person with courage, political experience and common sense who can gain the respect of the people of Hong Kong and the Chinese Government; in other words, we are looking for someone very much like Sir David Wilson, because that is what he achieved. Above all, such a man must be given clear guidelines to enable him to do his job properly. We cannot afford to have a loose cannon on the deck in Hong Kong at this time. Whoever he is, I wish him well.
The noble Lord's Motion refers, secondly, to the administration of justice in Hong Kong, and that subject is developing into a conflict of views as the noble Lord and others have described.
The Government, with China and the Hong Kong Government, have agreed on the structure of the Court of Appeal, but on 4th December LEGCO called for the court to be renegotiated. It said the structure compromised the court's independence. As the noble Lord said, the voting was 34 to 11, with 13 abstaining. That has opened a new chapter of suspicion between the Chinese and British Governments. It only goes to show how sensitive is the atmosphere.
As I understand it, the position is that the 1984 Declaration and the Basic Law both provide that Hong Kong's courts shall have,

1405
"independent judicial power. including that of final adjudication".
The argument involving the Joint Liaison Group hinges on how many judges from other common law jurisdictions shall sit on the court.
I have read the speeches on the matter made to LEGCO by the Attorney-General and the Secretary of Constitutional Affairs, and it seems that strenuous efforts will be made to resolve the problem. It appears, however, that the real vote will come in a few weeks when the Hong Kong Government present LEGCO with legislation to set up the court. The proposal in the leading article in a newspaper quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, also deserves careful consideration.
We shall be glad to hear what the noble Earl has to say about all this. It seems to me that the Hong Kong Administration must get together with the Executive Council and LEGCO to seek to agree on their joint objectives. If this is not done, there could be trouble ahead. The Chinese Government will have more respect for them if they are seen to be united, and the shape and success of the years following 1997 will depend on this. It will also depend on the integrity of the Government of China and their observation of the terms of the agreement and beyond that their tolerance of different traditions, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent.
I was much disturbed by the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester when he said that the Beijing Government were beginning to harden their attitude to the Church. That would be unfortunate and damaging to our relations and the future of Hong Kong, as well as to the world view of the Chinese Government. We wish to co-operate with China and we hope that nothing will interfere with that objective.
9.21 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, for raising these important issues which are vital to the future of Hong Kong. I should also like to thank all your Lordships for taking part in this important discussion. I have listened to a wide range of views, as wide a range as I hear in Hong Kong. None of your Lordships will have failed to notice the speeches of those who know Hong Kong well. In particular, I commend the speech of great authority from the former Governor, the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose of Beoch, who spoke about the realism of the Hong Kong people and their links with China.
As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, I felt that he was looking at the problem through the wrong end of a telescope. That is unusual for him and not the voice of reason that we have come to expect.
Your Lordships will know that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, originally tabled this Question for debate two weeks ago. As I wished to answer it but was due to be in Indo-China at the time, he kindly agreed to change the date. However, your Lordships lost out because although I am grateful to him your Lordships
1406
have suffered the loss of the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, from the original list of speakers. She cannot be with us today, much though she wished it. Her input into the debate would have been most useful.
One of my abiding memories of my visits to Hong Kong is the persuasive arguments put forward for the necessity of good relations between China and Britain, as this would benefit Hong Kong in the period up to and through the transition in 1997. That was a particularly clear message I received from everyone I talked to, especially during my first visit in 1990. Over the past 18 months the Sino-British relationship has improved significantly from a low point and as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said in an excellent speech, this has led to significant benefits for Hong Kong. It has done so against the background of the commitment by both sides to implement the Sino-British Joint Declaration signed in 1984 and registered at the United Nations. This sets out the basis agreed between Britain and China for the preservation of Hong Kong's way of life for at least 50 years after sovereignty returns to China in 1997. The implementation of the Joint Declaration is the cornerstone of our policy to ensure the continuing success of Hong Kong.
Nineteen ninety-one was an important and eventful year for Hong Kong. During the first six months tough and protracted negotiations continued with China over Hong Kong's new airport. A good agreement in which the Hong Kong Government were fully involved was eventually reached, and the Prime Minister and the Chinese Premier signed the Memorandum of Understanding in Peking in September. The Hong Kong Government are now pressing ahead with this vital enterprise and tenders for the first main works project, the Lantau Fixed Crossing, will be awarded in the next few months.
On the political side, after elections to the district boards in March and municipal councils in May, the key event was the first direct elections to the Legislative Council (LEGCO) which took place on 15th September. A total of 54 candidates contested 18 seats in a lively and hard fought campaign. The turnout at almost 40 per cent. of registered voters was a record for Hong Kong, although lower than some had predicted. The United Democrats and other Liberals won 16 of the seats, with about 50 per cent. of the votes cast, giving them overall a vote of approximately 10 per cent. of the eligible electorate.
Contrary to the impression given by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, the aim of the 1991 election was not to elect a government for Hong Kong, or indeed a majority on EXCO. Both the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, are not as well informed as they usually are. It is not a question of not inviting Martin Lee onto EXCO, but rather of Martin Lee indicating clearly that he cannot accept the conventions on confidentiality and corporate responsibility that go with being a member of EXCO. I know that the Hong Kong Government want—
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, as I understand the matter, Martin Lee was quite prepared to accept the remit on secrecy. However, he was not prepared to

1407
accept the doctrine of collective responsibility, as he thought his party was rather stronger in LEGCO than the unelected governor's nominees.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, what one has to understand is there is no government party in Hong Kong. That decision was entirely for Martin Lee to make and he made it.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I did not say anything about the Executive. I did not say anything about who should be elected or about whether or not Martin Lee should be nominated. I hope the noble Earl will withdraw the accusation he made that I am ill-informed on this matter.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am most happy to withdraw that accusation. I apologise to the noble Lord if I misunderstood his speech. I shall read his speech with great care when it is printed in the Official Report, as I normally do.
I know the Hong Kong Government want to work closely with all those in LEGCO, and I hope all those in LEGCO want to work closely with the Hong Kong Government. The election marked a significant step forward—as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, remarked—in the development of democracy in Hong Kong. It implemented stage one of the process agreed by Britain, China and the Hong Kong Government. LEGCO now has almost one-third of its members elected by universal suffrage and, for the first time, a majority of the Council consists of elected rather than appointed members. We are well on the way to transforming LEGCO from a wholly appointed body in 1984 to a body after 1997 which, in the words of the Joint Declaration, will be "constituted by elections". That is the strategy, based on the Joint Declaration, that aims to ensure a smooth transition. That is the strategy the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, wants to tear asunder. I must ask the noble Lord what continuity he has proposed for the people of Hong Kong. He has proposed no such continuity.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, takes a personal interest in this important matter of democracy. Our aim is not only to establish in the territory before 1997 a system of government which includes a substantial element of elected democracy but also one that will endure and develop further after 1997. Present arrangements provide for steady progress towards the possibility of eventual full direct elections in line with the Basic Law. As a result of our earlier representations to the Chinese authorities, the Basic Law provides for a progressive increase in directly-elected seats from 20 in 1995, rising to 24 directly-elected seats in 1999 and 30 in 2003, with the option of full direct elections in 2007. In October last year the Hong Kong Government announced a comprehensive review of the electoral legislation and arrangements.
The aim of the review is to examine issues and problems that emerged from the experience of the 1991 elections. The review will be completed in 1992. We shall, in due course, be discussing with the Chinese the arrangements for the next LEGCO elections in 1995 and will continue to press the case for a faster
1408
rate of democratisation. The aim should be to agree alterations with China in advance on a subject such as this. This is the only way we can be sure that the Legislative Council elected in 1995 will be able to continue in office through 1997 to 1999. If we increased the number of directly-elected seats unilaterally, the Chinese would certainly regard the resulting LEGCO as incompatible with the Basic Law. In all likelihood they would not therefore allow it to continue after 1997.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I shall have to ask the noble Earl to give way again. He accused me of having advocated the tearing up of agreements already reached. If he reads my speech carefully he will see that I made no such suggestion. He has just used the words "only changed by agreement". I agree with that absolutely. The noble Earl ought not to be making accusations which are not based on fact.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall read the noble Lord's speech in the Official Report. I gained the impression that he did not like the present arrangement and that he was quite happy to tear up those arrangements without putting anything in their place which was not agreed with China. If I am wrong, I am delighted. The noble Lord may have made a slightly different speech from the one I understood him to have made. I certainly interpreted it differently.
The democratic freedoms referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, go beyond the question of elections, important though that is. The Joint Declaration expressly provides for Hong Kong's present capitalist and democratic way of life, with all its human rights and freedoms, laws and legal system, to continue for at least 50 years after Hong Kong reverts to Chinese sovereignty. Like the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose of Beoch, I was pleased, incidentally, to see press reports over the weekend quoting Mr. Deng Xiaoping as saying that that guarantee will remain the same for 100 years.
There are many aspects to democratic freedom besides the freedom to vote: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment and freedom from mental or physical ill-treatment, to name just a few of the basic ones. Those have been a feature of life in Hong Kong in the past and under the one country, two system approach set out in the Joint Declaration will continue to be so.
In addition, with our support, the Hong Kong Government have introduced a Bill of Rights which became law on 8th June last year. It reinforces protection of the rights of individual citizens. It gives effect in local law to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as applied in Hong Kong and makes it justiciable in Hong Kong courts. To ensure consistency some local legislation will need to be amended to a limited degree. The Chinese have expressed reservations about the Bill but we have ensured that it is compatible with the Basic Law.
As so many of your Lordships have said, the judiciary has an important role to play in protecting those rights. The Joint Declaration provided that a Court of Final Appeal, to replace the jurisdiction for Hong Kong of the Privy Council after 1997, should be

1409
established in Hong Kong. It is a key element in providing for Hong Kong's continued judicial independence.
The court's establishment could of course have been left until 1997, with the present arrangements for appeals to the Privy Council continuing until then. However, it is the view of the Hong Kong Government, and one which we fully support, that there is considerable advantage in setting up the court before 1997 so that it can establish working practices and gain experience while Hong Kong is still under British administration. It is also crucial that the court is established in accordance with the Basic Law so that it can continue to function without any disruption through 1997.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, appeared to argue that the agreement reached with the Chinese and Joint Liaison Group on the membership of the Court of Final Appeal contravenes the Basic Law and Joint Declaration. Let me make it absolutely clear that we do not accept that view. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Geddes for his support.
After the most careful consideration we are satisfied that the agreement is consistent with both the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. Indeed, if we were not we could not possibly have signed the agreement. We do not consider that the wording of the Joint Declaration or the Basic Law gives the court unfettered discretion to invite as many visiting judges as it wishes.
I am aware of the view that the phrase "as required" in paragraph 4 of Section 3 of Annex 1 of the Joint Declaration may be interpreted to mean as the Court of Final Appeal may itself think fit. We disagree. If that had been the intention of the drafters they could have said so. Rather, as the Attorney-General of Hong Kong has pointed out, the Joint Declaration and Basic Law state that the court may "as required" invite such judges. That is clearly intended as an objective test, as the Chinese language text makes clear, depending on the needs of each case.
Some critics have used the argument that Britain and China have stitched up a deal without consulting Hong Kong. They are obviously unaware of the true situation. The agreement reached on the Court of Final Appeal was made with the approval of the Hong Kong Government, their Executive Council and the Hong Kong judiciary.
The legal profession was consulted on the outline proposals for establishing the court in 1987 and in early 1988, before beginning negotiations with the Chinese Government. During the lengthy negotiation process the views of a wide range of people in Hong Kong, including the legal profession, were consulted. Some have argued that the Court of Final Appeal drawn mainly from the existing Court of Appeal in Hong Kong will not have the ability or international repute of the Privy Council.
Clearly a reputation takes time to acquire. That is another argument for the Court of Final Appeal's early establishment. There will be some cases where specific skills or expertise are required which are not available in Hong Kong. That is why provision is
1410
made for overseas judges to sit on the Court of Final Appeal. However, it should be noted that in 1990 the percentage of Hong Kong judgments overturned by the Privy Council was much lower than in the case of judgments passed in English courts. That is a good indication of the quality of Hong Kong's judiciary, in which we have full confidence, and there is no soundly based reason for others not to share it.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, will be interested to learn that the Government of Hong Kong are now preparing legislation to establish the Court of Final Appeal in accordance with the agreement reached with the Chinese. That will cover far more than just the membership issue. When it is ready members of the Legislative Council in Hong Kong (and Hong Kong people generally) will have an opportunity to consider the agreement reached with the Chinese in the round. I believe that they will find that it contains satisfactory assurances about the independence of the Hong Kong judiciary after 1997.
I accept that the agreement on the Court of Final Appeal is not ideal. No agreement that is the product of three years' negotiation ever will be. But I hope that members of LEGCO will concentrate on the essential point. So let me make it clear: the choice in practice lies between having a Court of Final Appeal established in Hong Kong well before 1997, on the lines agreed with the Chinese, or having no Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong before 1997. To reject the legislation will effectively prevent the court's establishment before 1997. That would cause unnecessary uncertainty for Hong Kong's judicial system after 1997.
My noble friend Lord Geddes raised the question of nationality and some very technical points. I can assure him that paragraphs 233 and 234 of the Joint Declaration are still valid. Perhaps he will allow me to write to him on the other points that he raised.
All noble Lords who have spoken in this debate are at one in agreeing that the issues of democracy and the administration of justice are vital to Hong Kong's continued success. I am glad that the noble Lord has given us the opportunity to debate them today. They are part of the much larger task of managing change in Hong Kong so that its development—political, economic and social—can be sustained up to 1997 and beyond. The Joint Declaration is the essential framework for this.
The Hong Kong Government already have a high degree of autonomy in running their own affairs except in the fields of foreign affairs and defence. The Hong Kong Government play a full part in deciding policy on Hong Kong's relations with China, and Hong Kong Government representatives take part in the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group, whose task it is to prepare for the smooth transition in 1997. We maintain the closest contact with the Governor of Hong Kong, who was in London last week. 1, too, look forward to his joining us as a Member of this House; I know that we shall benefit from his great knowledge and experience of Hong Kong. I shall be in Hong Kong for the second time this year next month for an extended visit. Ministers also meet regularly

1411
with members of EXCO and LEGCO, making sure that the needs and views of Hong Kong people are fully understood.
In summary, the short answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, is: within the parameters in which we work, yes, and so are the Hong Kong Government.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, before he concludes, would the noble Earl care to reconsider the strange statement that there is no government party in LEGCO, in view of the fact that the Government appoint the largest single group of Members plus the Attorney-General, the Financial Secretary and the Chief Executive. To say that there is no government party is mad. Are they appointed to vote against the Government? Does the noble Earl expect them to vote against the Government? Of course he does not.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Chief Executive is part of the administration of Hong Kong. I fear that the noble Lord has not got his facts quite right on this occasion.
Moreover, the prospects are good, a fact which emerged loud and clear from the very successful conference organised by the Hong Kong Trade Development Council in London last week. We have entered into agreements with China that are binding and which all sides have reconfirmed their commitment to honour. With its buoyant economy, its dynamic people and its prime location at the centre of one of the fastest growing regions on earth, Hong Kong can look forward with confidence to the future.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before 10 o'clock.

  IRAN: ARMS EMBARGO
  IRAN: ARMS EMBARGO
  UKIAS: FUNDING OF REFUGEE UNIT
  UKIAS: FUNDING OF REFUGEE UNIT