Sitting of 2 March 1992

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

    National Insurance
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many non-pensioners with annual gross incomes below £10,000 a year would be affected by the imposition of national insurance contributions on income from savings in excess of £3,000 a year.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): We estimate that for the United Kingdom, in 1991–92, some 230,000 non-pensioners with gross incomes below £10,000 a year would have to pay national insurance contributions on their income from savings.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the use of national insurance contributions as an underhand tax is fundamentally dishonest and that early retirers, widows and those on limited incomes would be hurt by the imposition of a savings tax as proposed by the Labour party?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is certainly right to identify the type of people who are likely to be hit—in all,
    2
    more than 1 million people. What is more, they would get absolutely nothing in benefit entitlement for this purported contribution.
    Mr. Enright: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating my constituent, Archie Heptinstall, on his 80th birthday this week? Will the right hon. Gentleman further explain to my constituent why people who reach that age end up in the appalling position of having all their age allowances clawed back by the Government?
    Mr. Newton: I would wish warmly to join in congratulating the hon. Gentleman's constituent on his 80th birthday, particularly as, next month, the income support premium for the over-80s will be raised in real terms for the second time in three years.
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the average cost to a non-pensioner basic rate taxpayer of the imposition of national insurance contributions at 9 per cent. on savings income in excess of £3,000 a year.
    Mr. Newton: We estimate that in the United Kingdom the average cost in 1991–92 to a non-pensioner basic rate taxpayer would be £280.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that imposing an extra 9 per cent. on savings income would almost certainly deter individuals from saving and that the knock-on effect would be to reduce the resources available for investment in industry? Does he agree that such a policy—it is, of course, Labour policy—would be sheer lunacy? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is based on the Labour party's ideological dislike of people who are not wholly dependent on the state?
    Mr. Newton: I have great sympathy with every point that my hon. Friend made. I have the greatest difficulty in finding the remotest sense in the policy of a party which says that it is in favour of investment but which goes out of its way by every possible means to penalise saving.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the Secretary of State explain where is the remotest sense in the present system whereby the editor of a national newspaper pays less than 1 per cent. of his

    3
    salary in national insurance, someone on the Prime Minister's salary pays 3 per cent. and a person on average wages pays 9 per cent? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government—without announcing it in any manifesto—have increased national insurance charges by 40 per cent?
    Mr. Newton: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's figures are right. He has looked at marginal rates in some cases, but not in others. The basic point about the national insurance system is that it is a contributory one whereby what is paid bears some relationship to what is received. If the hon. Gentleman wants to tax people more rigorously, he should do so openly and not in the disguised form in which that is proposed.

    Self-employed
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many self-employed people earn more than £20,280 a year.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): We estimate that, in 1991–92 about 400,000 self-employed people will earn above the upper profit limit of £20,280.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Bearing in mind the Opposition's unalloyed joy at the thought of an increase in national insurance contributions for people who earn more than that, is it time that the Opposition came clean on their plans for the self-employed, who are the engine of the power house for this country? Does my hon. Friend agree that any extra tax on the self-employed without benefits in return would damage the country's chances of growth, and would help it in no way whatsoever?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend, in his inimitable style, has smoked out one of the hidden parts of the Opposition's agenda. I hope that, during this Question Time, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) will make Labour's policy clear. The Labour party is committed to removing the upper earnings limit for employed persons, but the hon. Member for Oldham, West has not made his party's policy on the self-employed clear. We have flushed him out today. His policy is the start of Labour's hand-in-the-till tax.
    Mr. Skinner: One thing that the Opposition are certain about is that those who earn more than £20,000 have every right to be called upon to pay the extra 9 per cent. Members of Parliament earn between £20,000 and £30,000. If they cannot find that extra 9 per cent.—a few hundred quid a year—what right have Tory Members to talk about pensioners who must get by on about £56 a week? I am prepared to pay my contribution. It is time that Tory Members understood that they should pay theirs, too.
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman shows the Opposition's fundamental commitment to tax, tax and tax again and then spend, spend and spend again. He ignores the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, our national insurance scheme is founded on a contributory principle that has served the country well for 50 years. We now know what the Labour party's agenda is on that issue.

    National Insurance
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the time necessary to switch from the current system for collecting national insurance to one based on annual assessment.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): It could take three years or even more, depending on the exact nature of the change and, of course, the priority given to it.
    Mr. Dykes: Is my hon. Friend aware that that bizarre proposal, tucked into the back end of a newspaper on 25 January by an Opposition spokesman, would cause total chaos and huge problems for companies making such a change, particularly small companies? It would mean devastating expense in terms of new software and the reprogramming of computers. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the chaos proposed by the Labour party?
    Miss Widdecombe: The proposal would cause a huge administrative burden not only on business—the necessity to give businesses good notice would take some time—but on the DSS and the Inland Revenue. It would also mean massive computer reprogramming and possibly the expense of other computer programmes which would have to be introduced.
    Mr. Dalyell: In the absence of a member of the Scottish National party in the House, may I ask the Minister to write me a letter setting out, in terms of computer programming and related difficulties, the problems of collecting national insurance in the event of an independent Scottish Parliament?
    Miss Widdecombe: Where are the Members of the Scottish National party if they are so concerned about the matter? As for the unlikely event that the hon. Gentleman sketched, he may wish to test that policy with members of the SNP to find out precisely how such a system would work. Although I am always prepared to enter discussions with the hon. Gentleman about hypothetical matters, one must also balance the amount of time and expense that it would take to comment on something that is not a reality.

    Pension Funds
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last held a meeting with the Occupational Pensions Board to discuss protection of pension funds.
    Mr. Newton: I have had a number of informal discussions with the chairman of the Occupational Pensions Board in recent months.
    Mr. Corbyn: In those discussions, did the Secretary of State draw to the attention of the Occupational Pensions Board the loss of hundreds of millions of pounds of money owned by Maxwell and Mirror Group pensioners? Did he also draw attention to the total inadequacy of control over pension fund investments and procedures? Is he prepared to state clearly now that he will introduce legislation to ensure that the sort of scandal that occurred, which robbed the workers of the Maxwell and Mirror corporations, will not occur again and those workers and others like them will be protected in future?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Select Committee on Social Security, which is examining

    5
    those matters, and I see that the Committee's Chairman, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), is sitting in front of the hon. Gentleman. We have seen in the press suggestions about what members of the Committee might say, and we shall consider their proposals with interest. I spent two hours responding to questions put to me by the Select Committee only a fortnight or so ago. I made it absolutely clear that, when we know precisely what happened in that case and can draw the lessons from it, we shall be willing to learn them and take note of the need for future action, if that is shown to be necessary.
    Mr. Hind: In the light of the serious situation which has arisen in relation to the Maxwell case, will my right hon. Friend take a good look at the pension funds of ABG Research, which is about to be wound up? Hundreds of pensioners in the north and south of England who work for that company are about to lose their pensions, including a 79-year-old widow. Will my right hon. Friend consider the problem to see whether the Government can help?
    Mr. Newton: I am concerned about the position in which some people find themselves as a result of problems with the funds. That is why, among other matters, I made it clear that, in the appropriate circumstances, we would expect to operate the provisions—through state scheme premiums—to ensure that people at least receive their state earnings-related pension scheme entitlement.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Although I fully understand why the Secretary of State needs to be cautious about the Maxwell case, will he be more firm on the need for change? His earlier answer suggested that there was some doubt in his mind about whether that was necessary. Is he having any discussions with the Treasury to find ways of getting some compensation for pensioners, who stand to lose millions of pounds?
    Mr. Newton: I have made the point about the SERPS buy-back provisions and the guarantee involved, but I cannot go beyond that. On the wider issue, it has been made clear, not simply from what I have said but through what I have done over many years—in an earlier ministerial capacity and in my present one—that we are more than willing to take action where it is shown to be necessary, once we are sure that such action would be well-judged. We are some way short of being able to judge precisely what is required, especially as questions have been raised about the regulatory machinery under the Financial Services Act 1986, as well as the arrangements of the Occupational Pensions Board.
    Mr. Irvine: My right hon. Friend will know that the Serious Fraud Office is conducting investigations into fraud and dishonesty in this sphere. However, there is also the related issue of possible negligence and breach of duty on the part of the supervisory authorities. Will my right hon. Friend give the several hundred Maxwell pensioners in my constituency an assurance that he will scrutinise carefully the role of those supervisory authorities—such as the Occupational Pensions Board—in relation to that subject? If those authorities were negligent or in any way in breach of duty, it is important that that fact should be uncovered at an early stage.
    Mr. Newton: I can certainly give my hon. Friend an assurance that, were the investigations by the Serious
    6
    Fraud Office to produce evidence of fraud that would have to be considered by those involved in criminal prosecutions of if there were claims that the Occupational Pensions Board had been negligent or in any other way culpable of failure to carry out its duties as imposed by the law, those matters would be considered with great care.
    Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that the answer that he has given on paying the guaranteed minimum pension to the Maxwell pensioners is wholly inadequate? Does he accept that many of the constituents of his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) face losing their houses if they do not receive the full pension? Once the facts are established, will the Government be prepared to move beyond carrying out what they are, after all, required to do by law?
    Mr. Newton: I certainly cannot go beyond what I have said this afternoon and on earlier occasions, including what I have told the hon. Gentleman in the Select Committee, about the guarantee of SERPS rights—to put it in shorthand terms—in respect of the guaranteed minimum pension. As I told the Select Committee—I make no apologies for reminding the hon. Gentleman of it—anything going beyond that would raise huge implications for all kinds of investments.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Robert Maxwell episode has vividly illustrated to the nation the fact that an unscrupulous director can put his hand in the till and get hold of pension fund money? That being so, many people throughout the nation who are in pension schemes are frightened. Will my right hon. Friend go as far as to say that we definitely intend in the fulness of time to bring in legislation and, I hope, include in the legislation the provision that there should be at least one employee representative among pension fund trustees?
    Mr. Newton: To take the latter point first, if my hon. Friend looks at many, perhaps all, of the Maxwell pension fund trustee bodies, he will find that they were split 50:50—there was employee representation. I do not think that that would necessarily solve the problem. I cannot go beyond what I have said, except to make it clear once again that if and when it is clear that a further legislative change will materially assist in ensuring that this sort of thing does not happen again, we will be ready to make it. But there is still a great lack of clarity and we are not prepared to pretend that we know the answer, thereby running the risk of causing at least as much damage as we do good.
    Mr. Meacher: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the banks and the Government have treated Mirror Group Newspapers pensioners extremely shabbily? Will he seek to ensure that the banks hand back the pension fund assets which belong to scheme members and which the banks have no right to keep, given their reckless lending practices? Is not the right hon. Gentleman culpably negligent in that, 20 months after the Social Security Act 1990 became law, he has still not introduced the regulations that would protect pension funds in the event of bankruptcy? Although the right hon. Gentleman has said again—several times today—that he will pay MGN pensioners their guaranteed minimum pension, will he accept that it is a mere pittance, and that if Barlow Clowes group shareholders who knowingly took the risk of

    7
    speculating offshore can be compensated by the Government, the pensioners in MGN and other pension funds are no less deserving?
    Mr. Newton: On the latter point, the hon. Gentleman is well aware of what was said at the time of the Barlow Clowes affair, following an investigation by the ombudsman into what was seen to be a unique set of circumstances.
    To answer the hon. Gentleman's other points—I hope, not taking too much time over it—the debt-on-wind-up provisions were originally linked, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, with the wider provisions for limited price indexation. As they involved a great deal of the same work to bring them into effect—work that would have taken a considerable time—and would have imposed further contingent or actual liabilities on funds at a time when there was already considerable anxiety because of the uncertainty over the Barber judgment—
    Mr. Meacher: The Government dropped limited price indexation.
    Mr. Newton: We did not. We made it clear that we would give further consideration to it once the Barber judgment was clear, and that is precisely what we are beginning to do.
    On the hon. Gentleman's first question, he will understand that I have no power to order banks to take particular actions. However, he will have noted what some banks have said in recent days about their attitude to this matter.

    National Insurance
    Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many more people would be liable for payment of employees' national insurance contributions if the atypical work directive were adopted.
    Mr. Jack: We estimate that a further 1,750,000 people would have to pay national insurance contributions if the directive were adopted.
    Mr. Squire: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that the directive, which is strongly supported by the Labour party, would discriminate heavily against part-time workers, especially women who are trying to combine a job with family responsibilities? Is this yet another instance of the anti-choice nature of the Labour party which, in the guise of new-found moderation, seeks to deny that which is currently available?
    Mr. Jack: Again, the Opposition seem to be confused on the issue. They seem to have signed up to the work directive from which the measure comes. As my hon. Friend says, the proposal would bring another 1,750,000 people into the position that he describes. My hon. Friend is right. Many people take a part-time or lower-paid job because it suits their circumstances and is a good choice for them. Those people benefit from the fact that they do not have to make national insurance contributions. Again, the Opposition are recommending a "take" society.
    Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister confirm that even if the work directive came into force, the Government could still levy national insurance at a zero rating of 1 per cent. instead of the full rate? Would not many of those workers
    8
    prefer that option, with all the benefits that would come from it, rather than the scare stories that the Government are putting over in this pre-election period?
    Mr. Jack: I know that the hon. Gentleman is assiduous about detail, and I recommend that he reads article 2 of the directive. It is not disputed by any member of the European Community that if that part of the directive were to be implemented everybody would have to pay for the associated benefits. I refer the hon. Gentleman to his hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) who, if I have understood her words, made it clear that she did not think that it was a very good idea for people below the lower earnings limit to pay small amounts of national insurance. The hon. Gentleman should look at the detail.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the directive would force employers to pay national insurance for employees who were below the lower earnings limit and that, effectively, that would be a tax on businesses that wish to employ part-time workers? Given that we wish to give British industry the flexibility to employ part-time workers, is not this another effort by Labour to hit the people who most want to seek jobs?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend has put his finger on an interesting point. The measure, coupled to Labour's proposal for a minimum wage, is a straightforward attack on jobs. The receipts received by us on the consultation document about the directive show that the Contract Cleaning and Maintenance Association claims that some 40 per cent. of those employed in its industry would be sacked in the first year. That is the kind of enlightened policy to which the Opposition are signing up.

    State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will revise the state earnings-related pension scheme to make higher pensions available for those people made redundant in their late 50s who are unlikely to obtain another job.
    Mr. Newton: We have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Bennett: The Minister will recall that during the first Tory recession, Ministers claimed that making many people redundant was a price worth paying to make British industry leaner and fitter. For many of my constituents who were made redundant, it was not a price worth paying. They lost their jobs and the chance to get another job and contribute to their pensions. Now, when they are at pensionable age, their pension is much below that of people who were fortunate enough to keep their jobs. Is not it time for the Government to compensate the people whom they damaged in their first Tory recession?
    Mr. Newton: That is a slightly odd point from a Labour Member in view of the fact that the SERPS entitlement of such people, which is what the original question was about, is precisely as it was left by the Labour Government. None of the changes made to SERPS affects anybody who is retiring this century. It is even odder that many of the people about whom the hon. Gentleman expresses concern are precisely those who would suffer from Labour's proposed savings tax.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, under the current rules for SERPS, there is a cut-off in the

    9
    amount which is the same as the cut-off for the earnings limit? Will he confirm that all the figures published so far by the Labour party, in attempting to collect more money from the national insurance contribution, show that it will not put a penny of that money into increased SERPS for people who retire? Is that not a clear case of fraud?
    Mr. Newton: Even in these relatively heated times, I am not sure that I would wish to use such a word as fraud against the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). However, 1 endorse my hon. Friend's suggestion that the SERPS entitlement accrues on earnings between the lower earnings limit and the upper earnings limit and that the Labour party's proposal to scrap the upper earnings limit for contribution purposes is associated with no increase in benefit for those persons.

    Pensioners (Owner-Occupiers)
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners are owner-occupiers and have paid off their mortgage.
    Miss Widdecombe: The latest figures available show that in 1988, 50 per cent. of pensioners were owner-occupiers, of whom 46 per cent. owned their homes outright. That compares well with 1979, when only 38 per cent. owned their homes outright.
    Mr. Bowden: With more and more pensioners owing their homes outright, and with eight out of 10 recently retired pensioners having an income from investment and savings, is it not reasonable to recognise a measure of prosperity among pensioners? If resources are to be used to increase pensions, should they not be used to target those in greatest need, rather than spreading across the board and benefiting both rich and poor? Does not the idea of giving out a blanket provision look like political bribery in an election year?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It not only looks like political bribery—it probably is. It is perhaps worth pointing out that in the past three years we have spent some £350 million on the poorer pensioners. Whereas it is right to make sure that the value of the basic state pension is preserved for all income brackets we believe that any extra resources should be directed to the poorer end. The Labour party may well find that by the time it has spent billions of pounds on all income levels it will not have the extra money to spend on those who need it most. That is the price that Labour will have to pay for its policy, in the unlikely event of its ever being able to implement it.
    Mr. Bradley: Is the Minister not aware that a significant number of pensioners who own their own homes are among the poorest in the country? Many have all their capital tied up in their homes and have to use the meagre resources of the basic state retirement pension to repair and restore their homes and to pay their heating bills? Is not that situation made even worse by the massive Government cuts in renovation grants for elderly people? Will the Government recognise that the only way that many of those pensioners will have a happy and healthy retirement is through a substantial increase in the basic rate of income of at least £5 for a single person and £8 per couple, which is the commitment of the Labour party and which is supported by pensioner groups throughout the
    10
    country as was shown by a recent lobby of Parliament by pensioners from the north-west which was supported by many Conservative Members?
    Miss Widdecombe: When those same pensioners understand that blanket commitments of that type will erode the extra money available to help the poorer end, they may take rather a different view. When they also understand that housing costs play a proportionately lower part in pensioners' expenditure in England than in the rest of Europe, they may be grateful for the way in which we have promoted home ownership. If 50 per cent. of those retiring now own their own homes, they do so thanks almost solely to the policies pursued and enacted by the Government. We have made a major contribution to the overall income of pensioners, while all that the Labour party has to offer is inflationary erosion of savings, a failure in home ownership and many other schemes that Labour has offered; although such proposals make it seem that pensioners are better off, because they are offered with other features, in reality it is a small percentage rise. Labour has nothing new to offer. We saw the effects of those policies and, in the unlikely event of the Labour party taking power, we shall see them again.

    Pension Levels
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about pension levels.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): We have maintained the real value of the basic retirement pension since we took office in 1979 and we are pledged to continue this policy.
    Mr. Taylor: At my weekend surgery three pensioners came to see me in considerable distress because of the difficulty that they faced in paying their water and electricity bills and other bills from private utilities following the large price increases. Is it not time that those pensioners, including the one who told me that she was keeping warm during the day by clutching a hot-water bottle because she could not afford heating bills, were given a decent state pension as of right, without the humiliation of a contributory test, which involves means-testing for those who are in greatest need?
    Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman examines the incomes of retirement pensioners since the Government took office, he will find that they have increased substantially. From 1979 to 1988 they increased by about 34 per cent., and there have been further improvements since 1988. Under this Government, the income of retirement pensioners as a whole has increased more in each year than it did throughout the Labour Government's administration.
    Mr. Dunn: Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate as to the impact on pensioner living standards of the suggestion that petrol prices be increased by 50p per gallon, and especially the impact on pensioners who live in the country and who need a motor car for shopping and other aspects of life? Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that the 50p tax on petrol is a Liberal Democrat idea?
    Mr. Scott: I am sure that the House needs no reminding of that. None the less, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for

    11
    doing so. He will realise the concern that I have for disabled people, who would be hit by such an increase in petrol tax.
    Mr. Meacher: In the light of the current Conservative "Newsline" pledge that the Conservative party, if it wins the election, will "target social security" so that it is
    "not a handout to those who do not need it",
    will the Minister confirm that that is a Tory pledge to means test pensions after the election? Will he also confirm that that is exactly what a previous Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer—the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson)—said that he intended to do during a notorious private briefing? Before the right hon. Gentleman issues a denial, will he confirm that before the previous election the Tories said that they would continue to pay child benefit as before—only to freeze it immediately for three years when they took office? Does he recall that before 1979 the Tories said that they would maintain the value of the retirement pension in line with rising living standards—a pledge which was promptly broken when they took office? As a result, a single pensioner has lost £17 a week under the Government while a married couple have lost £28.
    Mr. Scott: I can say unequivocally and without a shadow of doubt that the Conservative party has no intention whatever, when it is returned to office, to means test the basic retirement pension. As I have already said, we have pledged ourselves to maintain the pension's real value. What we shall do, as we have done over the past three years, is to ensure that poorer pensioners—those who have not benefited from the result of our general policies towards pensioners which have increased pensioners' real living standards by over 34 per cent.—will be helped. To that end, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has already said, we have contributed about £350 million since October 1989.
    Mr. Speaker: I call Mrs. Alice Mahon. I call Mr. John Evans. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I call Mrs. Teresa Gorman.
    Mrs. Gorman: No. 15, Sir.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes you shout out the names of hon. Members who are caught up in British Rail delays. It is most unreasonable—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

    Benefits (Recent Settlers)
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the eligibility criteria for benefits for individuals recently settled in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Jack: People who have the right of residence in the United Kingdom and who might apply for social security benefits will have their application assessed on the same criteria as British citizens. Those criteria are kept under review.
    Mrs. Gorman: Is my hon. Friend aware that, during the recent debate on the Asylum Bill, our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary pointed out that about 30,000 people are registered as asylum seekers, without their families, and that they are allowed six months' benefit immediately upon registering as asylum seekers? Will my hon. Friend
    12
    please comment on the cost of that and on the fact that, 50 years after the Beveridge report, we have moved a long way from the principle of paying into the kitty through insurance before being allowed to draw out of it?
    Mr. Jack: First, on a point of detail, people are not automatically entitled to six months' social security. The longest period for which an order book can be issued to an asylum seeker who makes a successful application for income support is 20 weeks. Secondly, we are very aware of the seriousness of that development. Admissions to the United Kingdom are matters for our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    On income support applications, I reassure my hon. Friend that the standard acknowledgement letter, a copy of which I have, has been markedly improved by watermarking and the addition of a photograph. That is a key part in the identification process of an asylum seeker applying for income support. In the first two months since its advent, that process has reduced by 40 per cent. the number of people making application for asylum status. It is important that we maintain our form of help because among asylum seekers there are those who will ultimately be proved to be genuine refugees.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Fraud
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Attorney-General if he has any proposals to change the prosecution procedures in cases of fraud.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): No, Sir. Wherever they have been operating, persons whose dishonesty has infringed the criminal law, on the basis of reliable and admissible evidence, will continue to be prosecuted. If, on review, any procedural change is shown to be desirable, the Government will consider the steps that need to be taken.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Attorney-General aware that, while the West Bromwich building society and financial advisers have grown fat and rich by selling home income equity bonds, 14,000 pensioners face the prospect of losing their homes, including some of my constituents who were not advised that the bonds were dangerous? One pensioner, tragically, has taken his life because of them. Is it not fraud of the most cynical, wicked type that financial advisers are not telling elderly people that those bonds are dangerous and that they are likely to lose their homes within two years? What does the Attorney-General intend to do about that?
    The Attorney-General: I am naturally extremely sorry to hear of the personal circumstances that the hon. Gentleman very properly brings to the attention of the House, but he will not expect me to prejudge any issue of criminality that may arise. If the hon. Gentleman believes that there is evidence of criminality, he should draw it to the attention of the police, if he has not done so already.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, since it was established in 1988, the Serious Fraud Office, under the direction of Barbara Mills, has done an outstandingly good job and has brought a number

    13
    of successful prosecutions for fraud? Before we make any radical changes such as doing away with jury trials, should we not think very carefully indeed?
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Recent comment has been disfigured by a good deal of misinformation. The Serious Fraud Office has been in operation for three years and has achieved a striking rate of success in serious and complex frauds. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in the tribute that he pays.
    Mr. John Morris: Does the Attorney-General accept that there is concern about our procedures? Will the Lord Chancellor consider asking the Lord Chief Justice to establish a committee of judges and practitioners to propose reforms to be approved by a practice direction, and by legislation where necessary? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that while juries are unequalled in deciding dishonesty, the burden of lengthy trials is becoming unfair on jurors? Why are there such a multiplicity of counts, and sometimes of defendants, with long opening speeches and insufficient identification of the issues for the jury until nearly the end of a trial?
    The Attorney-General: Obviously, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will heed the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks. I am not sure about there being a multiplicity of counts. In the recently concluded County NatWest and Blue Arrow case, there was only one count—yet comment on it included the assertion that the Serious Fraud Office used a "scattergun approach". In Guinness 2, there were five counts. I believe that I am right in saying that in the most recent 20 cases, there have been at most 22 counts. Some of them have to be in the alternative, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows. Every effort is made to bring matters into clear focus.
    Incidentally, I was interested to read in the Financial Times and other newspapers today that the foreman in the Guinness 2 trial of Mr. Seelig and Lord Spens said that the prosecution had made a good job of identifying the structure of that case.
    Mr. John Marshall: Visitors to Westminster Hall are amazed at Warren Hastings' ability to survive a case which lasted seven years. Is there not a danger that modern cases go on too long and cover too wide an area? Is it not sometimes the judges who are overwhelmed by the evidence?
    The Attorney-General: I am very sensitive to my hon. Friend's reference to Warren Hastings' because it was Edmund Burke, a kinsman of mine, who prosecuted him over that length of time. I agree with my hon. Friend that recent cases last far too long, and that a means must be found of securing quicker trials. In the County NatWest and Blue Arrow case, the time taken before the jury by the prosecution amounted to 27·5 per cent. of the total. At present, there is no means by which a judge can sufficiently control the length of time taken by a defendant, particularly—this was not the case with the County NatWest and Blue Arrow trial—one who is defending himself. We must find a quicker way of securing justice. That issue is not one on which the Government have made up their mind, and all suggestions will be sensibly considered.

    Serious Fraud Office
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General what is the current complement for the Serious Fraud Office; what is the number of staff in post; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General: The complement of the Serious Fraud Office is 129 permanent posts. All those posts are filled and, in addition, a number of temporary staff are employed to meet the varying demands of its case load.
    Mr. Skinner: Are there any doctors among that complement? What is the source of the medical advice given in fraud trials? Why was Roger Seelig told by someone giving medical advice several months after his trial began that he was on the verge of a mental breakdown, yet last week he was roaring up the M4 in his Porsche to look after his two properties? Ernest Saunders was told that he should leave gaol after serving 10 months of a five-year sentence because he was a victim of senile dementia, yet now he is running his own business. I have a suggestion for the Attorney-General. He ought to swap the doctors that he has at the Serious Fraud Office for those who decide applications for disability allowance and attendance allowance. If he did that, some of our constituents might receive benefits, and the people involved in crime might get sent down for longer periods.
    The Attorney-General: There is no space in the Serious Fraud Office complement for a doctor. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that each of the two cases to which he has referred was decided by the trial judge on the basis of medical evidence, including independent medical evidence.
    The hon. Gentleman knows that I am in no position to comment on the decision of any judge. Let me say this, however. Mr. Justice Henry is no respecter of persons, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman has not become such a respecter of persons that he supposes that those two people were dealt with out of any consideration for who or what they were.

    Law Reform
    Mr. Fraser: To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the chairman of the Law Commission to discuss the Commission's programme for law reform.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The Lord Chancellor has regular contact with the commission about all aspects of its work.
    Mr. Fraser: How does the Lord Chancellor explain to the chairman of the Law Commission the Government's appalling record on matters of law reform? Since 1984, 22 Bills have not been acted on. What does that do for the morale of the Law Commission? Why do the Government not act on the huge injustices currently affecting business people, such as original lessee liability? Why have they such an appalling record when ready-made Bills are presented to them by the Law Commission?
    The Solicitor-General: There are two answers to that question. First, the hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the immense force of major legislation presented by the Lord Chancellor in the past three or four years—not least the Children Act 1989, which has entirely restructured the law on children and paved the way for the

    15
    family court, and the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, one of the most important pieces of legislation in this field to appear for decades.
    The House of Commons will need—and the other place will wish—to examine the recommendations of Lord Jellicoe for new procedures to bring such comparatively uncontroversial measures before both Houses more swiftly.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    CIS (Aid)
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the latest figures for aid and other financial support for the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Britain has pledged more than £80 million in bilateral aid to the former Soviet Union and is contributing through the EC budget about 18 per cent. of Community technical assistance and food aid which totals £595 million. The Community has also agreed a programme of food credits worth £1,225 billion.
    Mr. Bowis: With other hon. Members, I recently visited Russia and the Ukraine. Does my right hon. Friend accept that we returned with an impression of economic chaos—and the impression that, although aid from this country and others is welcomed, it is feared that too much is being siphoned off on to the black market? Above all, the need is for the west to encourage economic development trade with export credits and, indeed, joint ventures such as the one that we saw with one firm—Tambrands—in Kiev.
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the former Soviet Union and all the republics are ever to put the situation right, the most urgent job is to bring about economic reform. That is why we have ensured, through our know-how funds and all the other means at our disposal, that we are providing economic advice and sound advice for training members of the former republics to get on with the job of economic reform.
    I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the siphoning off of food aid. I have said from the beginning that we and other donors, including the European Community, must have arrangements to guard against misappropriation. That is why, to date, food has been available through only a limited number of channels. I have pressed the EC, however, and we have now secured agreement that it will expand the number of outlets in Moscow and St. Petersburg from the 60 shops that were operational in January and February to 150. Later this week, further missions will be sent from the EC and from this country to ensure that food is getting through.
    It is interesting to note that other countries are now copying our know-how funds because they have been of such help to the former Soviet Union and other eastern European countries.
    Mr. Winnick: I was on the same delegation to Russia and the Ukraine. Would it not be very short sighted of the western democracies—not simply Britain—to allow the countries which now make up the Commonwealth of Independent States to drift into such a state of anarchy that a dictatorship could well return? Given the 74 years of
    16
    Communist dictatorship and the long period of Tsarist dictatorship before that, is it not essential to provide aid and assistance so that at long last Russia and the countries associated with the former Soviet Union can become stable democracies?
    Mrs. Chalker: I agree very much with what the hon. Gentleman says. That is why Britain was the first country to give £20 million worth of feed grain. Medical supplies are going in from this country not only to help Moscow and St. Petersburg, but to go as far as Ekaterinburg, Tymen, Novokuznetsk, the Kiev oblast, the Donetsk oblast, and further afield. We have help going in alongside the United States and German Project Hope airlift, and we have £50 million for the know-how fund. Everywhere we go, we have been told that the British help is extremely well appreciated. We are considering what more we can do and it is up to some other donors to do likewise.
    Mr. Soames: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on her excellent work in co-ordinating the aid, but does she agree that the words of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) are correct? We need a kind of Marshall plan which will bring to those poor suffering countries aid such as was brought to continental Europe when it lay prostrate at the end of the second world war. Is it not time that we tried to co-ordinate an effort on that basis to enable the Soviet Union to pick itself up and start taking a proper role in the world economy?
    Mrs. Chalker: The size of the problem is comparable, but I do not believe that the post-war reconstruction programme in Europe is a good model for what is required in the Commonwealth of Independent States. More than anything else, the CIS needs economic and agricultural reform. The responsibility for that lies not with the west, but with the CIS itself. Through our International Monetary Fund membership, we have pushed forward the idea that the CIS countries should come under the IMF. In Moscow tomorrow we shall discuss with the Russian authorities the way forward on a number of difficult economic questions.
    Mrs. Clwyd: I listened to the Minister's words with interest. Is she aware that when my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and I visited Moscow last week and questioned Russian officials about food aid, we found stacked away in a third-floor warehouse what we were told was the whole British contribution of beef to Moscow, which had been there for a month? We were told that the reason for that outrageous situation was that, unlike the meat from all the other EC countries, our consignment was not colour coded. The labels were in English and no one could read them. Downstairs in the warehouse, French pork was being offloaded from vehicles and immediately reloaded for distribution in Moscow shops.
    When we asked Russian officials whether the beef was having any impact on meat prices in Russia, we were told that it was not. As the Minister said, there are too few outlets, which she intends to do something about. There is also a shortage of EC monitors. Does the Minister intend to increase the number of monitors? Are we not faced with the same old story of a badly managed project with inadequate monitoring—in other words, Government incompetence?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Lady could not be more wrong. Of course I am aware of what she found in Moscow. The beef that went to Murmansk was used immediately, and the beef that has gone to St. Petersburg has been used. [HON. MEMBERS: "Moscow."] I know that there has been a problem with beef in Moscow. I also know that the EC arrangements for labelling were not adequate. That is why the goods for which we are responsible are being labelled in Russian when they go to the former Soviet Union. We have asked the Commission for greater consistency in labelling and colour coding for the beef, and we have told Moscow that it is vital that the meat is released on to the market straight away. The problem is not the incompetence of this country. The EC simply had not got matters organised. The way in which we put our food over there actually got it to the places for which it was intended.

    Refugees
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with the United Nations High Commission on Refugees over the last month.
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs called on Mrs. Ogata in Geneva on 29 January. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State also had discussions with Mrs. Ogata on 7 February. My officials are in regular contact with UNHCR and I shall welcome Mrs. Ogata to London again in a fortnight's time.
    Mr. Wareing: When the discussions took place with the UNHCR, did the problem of the Kurds come up? On 25 June last year the Prime Minister said:
    18
    "We have now met most of the humanitarian needs of the Kurds in Iraq."—[Official Report, 25 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 856.]
    Is the Minister satisfied that those humanitarian needs have been met and are being met, or that they can be met so long as there is a risk to the Kurdish population from the evil dictator in Baghdad? What do the British Government intend to do to ensure that the Prime Minister's promise of last June is upheld?
    Mrs. Chalker: When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke in June last year, the UNHCR was well on the way to meeting the humanitarian needs of the Kurdish people. Since then, and particularly in the past three months, the economic blockade of northern Iraq by Saddam Hussein has prevented the UNHCR from doing as much as it would like to do. We have made sure that we get on with as much as we can get through in our help for Iraq through UNHCR, but there is one man—and one man only—who stands in the dock for the denial of resources to the northern Iraqi people, and that is Saddam Hussein. Until United Nations Security Council resolutions 706 and 712 are implemented, we cannot relieve the plight of all those people.
    Sir Philip Goodhart: As the contribution of Britain to the UNHCR is very much greater than that of France or Germany, will my right hon. Friend encourage our European partners to increase their support for the vital work of refugee relief?
    Mrs. Chalker: Indeed, our contribution to the UNHCR this financial year totals some £40 million. I have asked that the United Nations hold a conference this month to ensure that the UNHCR's vital work continues not only in Iraq but in helping all the people who so desperately need our assistance.

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any request from the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement? I raise this matter because it has been reported that four patients under the care of the hospital trust of Guy's and Lewisham have died because there was no money to pay for their continued heart surgery. That has been confirmed by Dr. Graham Jackson, a consultant at Guy's, who is a member of the Conservative party. We have just rightly dealt—
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Winnick: The point of order is that it is an urgent matter that four people have apparently died as a result of the failure of the reorganisation of the health service. As a matter of urgency, I am asking you whether the Secretary of State for Health can be brought to the House to make a statement by 7 o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows that that was a good try but that it is not a matter for me.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that, at last Thursday's business questions, I asked the Leader of the House to ask the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement about the changes that they propose to make to renovate and improve the A1. This morning, a press conference was held in Edinburgh. [Interruption.] My point of order is this. When the Government are in control of a press conference, they can leak in advance the contents of such a statement, whereas, if they were brought to the House to make a statement, it would be a contempt to do so. Have you no control as Speaker to lay down some guidelines for any predecessor to control such occurrences in future?
Mr. Speaker: Well—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Gentleman meant "successors". I have had no request for such a statement. I heard what was said at business questions, but, of course, if we had to have a statement on absolutely everything that happened to every road in the country, we would not get very far down the Order Paper.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did you see the sad story this weekend about an eight-week-old child who was refused admission to the Royal Bristol hospital for sick children because the surgeon insisted on a promise that funding would be available before he treated that baby? Subsequently, the baby died. Is it not absolutely right that we should discuss such cases in the House, and that the Secretary of State should make a statement by 7 o'clock?
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I did not see that report, because I paid a happy visit to the Principality of Wales and therefore did not have the opportunity to see the newspapers. That is the sort of subject that could well be raised on the Adjournment.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last Friday you were in the Chair when the Minister of Agriculture made a statement on decommissioning. Do you intend to make a statement
20
about what happened, in the light of the precedent that appeared to be set, whereby on one day a written answer is given in Hansard, which no one sees, and the next day you feel obliged to allow a private notice question? If you were not to make a statement deprecating that as a procedure, surely it has major implications for the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member knows that the Speaker is specifically enjoined never to give any reasons for his decisions. I granted that private notice question on Friday, and I was present for the proceedings.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I went for a ball of chalk down the Mile End road this morning in my new whistle and saw a poster being put up which said that when Labour is elected it will deliver a "double-whammy". You ruled out Cockney rhyming slang earlier in our proceedings. First, do you know what a double-whammy is, and secondly will you make it clear that, if Cockney rhyming slang is banned in the House, Americanisms that have been imported for use during the election will also be banned?
Mr. Speaker: I am not an expert in rhyming slang and I have no idea what a "wham" is. Certainly, if it is in the Old Kent road or wherever, it is not raised in this Chamber.

BILLS PRESENTED
  FIREARMS (AMENDMENT) (No. 2)
  Mr. Michael Shersby, supported by Sir Bernard Braine, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Neville Trotter, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Dr. John Blackburn and Sir Anthony Durant, presented a Bill to amend the Firearms Act 1982 so as to apply certain provisions of the Firearms Act 1968 to imitation firearms which are capable of firing blank ammunition; to make provision for the issuing of permits for such weapons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March and to be printed. [Bill 99.]
  NEWSPRINT RECYCLING
  Mr. Harry Cohen presented a Bill to provide for a minimum content of recycled paper in newsprint produced in or imported into the United Kingdom; to impose a duty on the publishers of newspapers to use newsprint with a minimum content of recycled paper; to empower the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance for the recycling of newsprint; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 100.]

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

Statutory Instruments &c.

  FINANCIAL SERVICES
  That the Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 273) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  21
  That the draft Financial Services Act 1986 (Investment Advertisements) (Exemption) (No. 2) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instrument,, &c.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Question agreed to.

Asylum and Immigration
Mr. Speaker: Before I call upon the Home Secretary to move the motion, I must tell the House that I have not selected either of the amendments on the Order Paper. However, the arguments which are advanced in them may be canvassed during the debate.
3.38 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8810/91, relating to the right of asylum and 8811/91, relating to immigration and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Home Office on 27th February 1992; endorses the Government's view that harmonisation of substantive immigration and asylum policies among the Member States of the European Community should be taken forward inter-governmentally outside the Treaty of Rome; and welcomes the wide recognition of this principle at Maastricht.
I welcome the opportunity that this debate provides to discuss immigration and asylum issues within the Community and to explain the objectives that the Government are pursuing in this area.
It is right that Europe should be concerned—and collectively concerned—about increasing immigration pressures, which almost every member of the Community faces, and that collectively we should look for common solutions in Europe.
We only have to look at the problems which we and our European partners are facing with asylum to see the scale of those pressures. The number applying for asylum in Europe rose from 64,000 in 1983 to half a million last year. In the United Kingdom, it has increased tenfold in the past three years, to 45,000 principal applications last year. Well over 90 per cent. of those are people already within the borders of Europe when they apply for asylum. Many have arrived illegally. Fewer than a fifth are found to be genuine refugees. In Germany—with its large number of eastern European applicants—the proportion is as low as 3 per cent.
This is a European problem. Germany last year had 250,000 applications for asylum; France, 46,000; and Italy, 30,000. The uncontrolled mass movement of people is one of the biggest problems facing the world today. All hon. Members will be aware of the political consequences in Europe. In Germany, we have seen attacks on asylum seekers and the rise of the extreme right. In France, again, there has been unrest in many major cities and an undoubted surge in support for the National Front. In Austria, a party won nearly 25 per cent. of the vote on the slogan, "Vienna for the Viennese". In Belgium, a similar movement, gaining similar support, has emerged in Flanders. All these movements thrive upon the racism and nationalism aroused by large numbers of asylum seekers.
I am absolutely determined that we should not give any encouragement to the rise of the extreme right in Britain. This is fertile ground for its extreme racialist policies. To remove the circumstances in which it could flourish, action has to be taken to deal with the problem. We have to show that we are dealing urgently, energetically and firmly with the manifest abuse of our system. We have therefore taken the following action.
Mr. Tony Banks: Clearly, the Home Secretary would not want fascists, whether in this country or the rest of Europe, to dictate our actions in this

23
House. If we are talking about removing the reason why asylum seekers come to the west, surely we should not put restrictions on them, but should do something about the economic circumstances of their countries, so that they have no wish to come to the west. Is not that the way of dealing with the problem?
Mr. Baker: A large part of our aid programme is directed towards doing that, but one must be realistic. The difference in the economic performance between much of the third world and Europe is large, and the gap is likely to remain large for many years to come. Europe will continue to be a magnet for many people from the third world. I entirely take the hon. Gentleman's point that it is part and parcel of our policy to increase our aid to the most under-privileged and poorest parts of the world to ensure that people stay there and resolve their economic problems. Nevertheless, it is also necessary for us to take action in this country.
Mr. John Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend mentioned aid and assistance. Could he and Her Majesty's Government recognise that local authorities, such as mine and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) face particular problems, as Hillingdon borough contains Heathrow airport, the biggest port of entry into the United Kingdom, and many scores of refugee children are literally dumped there? We require national assistance to finance looking after them.
Mr. Baker: I am glad to say that the numbers of unaccompanied children have fallen substantially. My hon. Friend will recall that the Asylum Bill makes specific provision on housing to help local authorities that face inordinate pressure—I accept that they do face inordinate pressure—as a result of the influx of refugees.
Mr. Michael Shersby: My right hon. Friend talks about housing. Is he aware that the problem is one of child care? Is he aware that the cost to the local authority, which is running at about £1 million a year in Hillingdon, is for specialised child care on a one-to-one basis? It is not so much a question of housing as of providing foster children parents and child care.
Mr. Baker: The matter was debated at length both on Second Reading and in Committee on the Asylum Bill. We are aware of the problem. Some assistance is available to local authorities. I am glad to tell the House that the number of unaccompanied children, which was extremely high in 1990, has dropped.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: I want to press the Home Secretary on resources. He said that he was aware of the problem and wanted to provide assistance. It is now clear that some provisions of the Bill, by driving local authorities to use bed-and-breakfast accommodation rather than to provide housing, will turn out to be more expensive for local authorities. Does he intend to make a recommendation that overcomes the mistake that appears in the Bill on that point?
Mr. Baker: No, I do not intend to change the Bill in that regard. The Bill will restrain the number of people who come to this country as asylum seekers. That must be
24
the main thrust of the Government's policy and of any party's policy. The constant pressure of numbers coming in all the time must be addressed.
The Government have brought in a policy that consists of five different strands. First, the number of staff in the asylum determination division in Croydon has been increased, and we now have nearly 400 more than a year ago to cope with the increased numbers. Secondly, we have sent document specialists out to airports around the world to train airport staff and immigration staff to try to ensure that people without the proper documentation are prevented from getting on planes. Thirdly, over the next few years, we will increase the number of detention places in the United Kingdom at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted from 226 by 290. Fourthly, we have increased the enforcement staff of the immigration service to deal with those who are returned to their own countries.
Fifthly, we have introduced the Asylum Bill, the main principles of which are well known to the House, so I will not re-argue them today. The Bill will streamline the handling of claims to a period of 12 weeks instead of two to three years, and provide additional appeal rights as a safeguard. It will also introduce a power to fingerprint asylum seekers, which is a power that most of our European partners already have. That is an essential check to deal with fraudulent multiple applications. The Asylum Bill has a crucial part to play.
The Bill is now before the House of Lords and the Government are committed to seeing it become law. Its provisions are urgently needed, so that asylum does not become a back door to immigration. They are needed to protect the genuine refugee. Not least, they are needed to ensure that we do not face the wave of anti-refugee and anti-immigrant feeling which has swept across Europe over the last few years.
Misuse of asylum must not be allowed to overturn two decades of progress in achieving harmonious race relations in this country—something of which all parties can be proud. If the Asylum Bill does not become law in this Parliament, the Government will reintroduce it as soon as possible in the next Parliament.
The problem of multiple applications for asylum and for social security has now reached quite unacceptable levels. Only last week, an asylum seeker was sentenced to four years' imprisonment for having made 40 applications for social security benefit as an asylum seeker. That is not an isolated case. There have been other convictions, and a number of cases are awaiting trial. Last week, nine people were arrested in connection with similar frauds. Many more cases are suspected.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The Home Secretary is repeating a litany of complaints about a minority of asylum seekers and the allegations made against them. Instead of that, would he turn his attention to the plight of people who have come here, are divided from their families and unable to achieve family reunion, such as the Kurdish people who came from Turkey two years ago? Will he adopt a more humane and sympathetic approach towards asylum seekers rather than searching for every opportunity he can to criticise them for being victims of the most appalling aggression in their countries in the first place?
Mr. Baker: Until the status of a refugee applicant is determined and he is accepted as a refugee, that person

25
does not have the right to family reunion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support our efforts, as we are increasing the number of staff and changing the procedures so that the process of determination can be speeded up. That is the most important thing that we can do. If, as a result of the Asylum Bill, we can determine cases within 12 weeks, that will be an enormous improvement on the two to three years during which such cases can drag out.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: We are talking about relatively small points. If it is held by the European Court of Justice that control of immigration is a matter for the European Community, none of those points will be of any significance. Will my right hon. Friend please deal with the central point: what is the Government's argument as to the status of this policy? If it be that the European Court of Justice rules against us, what will the Government's attitude be to that interference in our domestic affairs?
Mr. Baker: I ask my hon. Friend to bide his time for a moment, because I shall deal with those precise points in the course of my speech. I am dealing first with the issue of asylum, and I shall come on—
Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend tell us when he comes to it?
Mr. Baker: I shall signal it in such a way that it is quite clear to my hon. Friends that I have reached that exact point in my speech.
I was considering the abuse of multiple applications. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South-West (Mr. Budgen) should appreciate that that is not a minor matter but one involving considerable fraud. Since November, all those who applied for asylum by post to Croydon have been asked to attend an interview. So far, out of 4,628 who have been called to initial interview, 3,807 have failed to turn up—that is 82 per cent.
The measures that we are taking will have a major effect on reducing the type of fraud that has come to be associated with asylum seeking. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security shares my concerns on that issue. In line with his long established policy to deter fraudulent claims, he will shortly introduce a change in the method of income support to asylum seekers. Their order books will be restricted to six weeks instead of six months, and will be encashable at one nominated post office only. For the bona fide asylum seeker, that will not be a hardship, but it will act as a deterrent for those intent on fraud. I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals.
Mr. John Carlisle: My right hon. Friend mentioned those who fail to turn up. He may have noticed that Liberal Democrat Members have failed to turn up to listen to this debate. He will recall that a majority of them voted against the Second Reading of the Asylum Bill. Is he not distressed to see that those who have an open-door policy on this issue and oppose the Government's policy are not even here to listen to the debate?
Mr. Baker: Yes, their absence indicates an absence of policy on this matter. They certainly have an open-door policy on the issue.
26
Before I go any further, it may help the House if I explain briefly the status of the Commission communications on immigration and asylum, which the Scrutiny Committee has recommended for debate and to which the Motion refers. They are communications to the Council and the European Parliament. They are not proposals for Community action as such: nor are they likely to be the subject of specific decisions in the Community law framework. They were prepared as discussion papers for use in the preparations for the Maastricht summit.
The Luxembourg European Council in June 1991 decided to seek greater harmonisation of member states' immigration and asylum policies. Since then, there have been two further major developments.
First, the Immigration Ministers' meeting in the Hague in December 1991 agreed on a work programme for discussing, and, where appropriate, harmonising, immigration and asylum policies. That work programme, which was approved by the Maastricht European Council, sets the agenda for work on those issues in the period ahead —including the United Kingdom's presidency of the Community in the second half of 1992.
Secondly, the treaty on European union, agreed at Maastricht in December in December and signed on 7 February, sets a framework for consideration by the member states of immigration and asylum issues, along with other "Interior and Justice" issues.
During the Maastricht negotiations, a number of our partners pressed hard for immigration and asylum matters to be taken into Community competence under the treaty of Rome. That would have made them subject to Community legislation and to the jurisdiction of the European Court. We were not prepared to agree to that. We took the view that policies that determine whether non-EC nationals are to be allowed to live and work in a member state are matters of considerable domestic sensitivity and essential national importance, on which each member state has its own traditions and constitutional framework.
In the event, as the House will know, only two immigration matters will be taken into Community competence: first, a substantive one—the common visa list —which is the agreement on the countries whose nationals would require visas for entry to the Community: and secondly, the more technical question of the format of a common visa. All other aspects of immigration and asylum policy will fall within the procedure for intergovernmental co-operation under the interior and justice chapter of the new treaty.
We have agreed with our European partners that no other matters relating to immigration and asylum will be transferred to Community competence unless two things happen—that constitutes a double lock: first, a unanimous decision in the Council of Ministers—which means that the British Government can veto any proposal; secondly, the approval of each of the national Parliaments. We have agreed to consider at the end of 1993 whether asylum policy should be so transferred. If a transfer were to be proposed, it would be subject to that double lock.
Dr. Norman A. Godman:: The Secretary of State has just used the term "non-European Community national". Will he confirm that the immigrant worker long domiciled in, say, France, or the gastarbeiter equally long domiciled in Germany, is defined as a non-European Community national? Most of

27
the racist attacks that have taken place in those two countries have been focused on those people. Are they to be denied the status of free movement throughout the European Community that, I understand, is to be given to the nationals of the countries of the European Free Trade Association in relation to the European economic area?
Mr. Baker: I am coming directly to that point, and I think that what I have to say will answer the hon. Gentleman's question relating to the movement of non-EC nationals across frontiers.
I was emphasising to the House the existence of the double lock for the transfer of asylum and immigration matters into the competence of the Community. In that respect, as in others, the outcome of the Maastricht summit represents a highly satisfactory outcome for this country.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way; I think it may be better to clear up a jurisdiction matter now. He may know that the Under-Secretary has written a helpful memorandum dated 27 February on the arrangements for the movement of EEC nationals within the single market from January 1993, particularly the arrangements under article 8A, soon to be 7A, which require the absence of frontiers.
Paragraph 10 of the memorandum states that the Government
"does not regard this step"—
a single market—
"as being required for the completion of the Single European Market and does not propose that the United Kingdom should adopt such a course"
that course being free movement through an airport without any examination. That is undoubtedly the Government's view, but is it the view of the Commission and the European Court?
Mr. Baker: I am coming to that point, which has already been raised.
I want to emphasise the legal position on jurisdiction, but first I wish to stress that the way forward in such matters—which will be the case as a result of Maastricht is through intergovernmental co-operation. Such co-operation gives us considerable protection.
An ad hoc group of Immigration Ministers and officials has been working on the issue since 1986. Its most important product so far has been the draft external frontiers convention. That is a major piece of work that sets common standards for controls at the Community's external frontiers and for visas for short stays. It also provides for the sharing of information about serious and repeated immigration offenders. It affords the prospect of improved collective defences against illegal entry into the European Community. We shall press vigorously on our partners the importance of strengthening the Community's external frontiers.
Mr. Giles Radice: On the issue of short-stay visas, is it not true that this country has retained visas for Poland, but got rid of them for Czechoslovakia and Hungary, while Germany and France have abolished visas for Poland? It does not seem as though the policies are co-ordinated.
Mr. Baker: I have answered several letters and questions on the matter. Speaking from memory, I think that last year there were about 4,400 rejections of visa applications—[HON. MEMBERS: "Two thousand."] The point that I wished to make was that there were several thousand rejections, whereas the number on visa applications from Hungary and Czechoslovakia is about 20 per country. Therefore, for that reason we think that the visa control should stay for the time being.
Mr. Budgen: Is not the problem of nationality the fact that some countries, particularly France, had a system of dealing with former colonial territories by making them, in law, a part of metropolitan France? Therefore, the talk about external barriers does not assist us, as many of the people who come from, for example, North Africa are French citizens and, under EC legislation, may have to be dealt with on the same basis as people born and brought up in Paris.
Mr. Baker: The French nationality laws are much more complicated than that. Not all the people who come from the Maghreb and north African countries are entitled to French nationality and citizenship—
Mr. Budgen: But some are.
Mr. Baker: That is true. Those who come to France d'outre mer enjoy another status, and that is one of the problems in Europe. There is a great variety of nationality systems entitling people to citizenship. I have repeatedly told my counterparts in Europe—the Ministers of the Interior—over the past 18 months that, as a result of the problems that we have faced since the 1950s with immigration from the old Commonwealth, we have developed a series of controls and arrangements for determining nationality; they are sophisticated and complicated and, on the whole, effective—very much more effective than those in many other countries in Europe.
The amount of competence is limited. There is a double lock before other matters may move into competence, and the way forward is through intergovernmental cooperation. I have already cited the external frontiers convention. Another example is the Dublin convention, another valuable product of this process. It deals with the problem of so-called asylum shopping by setting out rules to determine which member state is to take responsibility for a given application. We plan to ratify it in the course of this year.
With this work programme agreed at Maastricht, we are moving into a new phase.
Sir Teddy Taylor: While my right hon. Friend is expressing these splendid sentiments—we know that he is fighting hard for Britain—would he think it fair to say that his interpretation of the double-lock mechanism from Maastricht means that article 8A does not apply to non-Community nationals who have entered legally? Would it not be fair to point out that that interpretation is energetically disputed by the Commission, particularly by Mr. Bangemann? Will he say before he sits down what the British Government intend to do if by chance the Commission wins the case and we are instructed that these reservations have been overtaken by the views of the Commission? This is desperately important for Britain.
Mr. Baker: The answer is in the part of my speech that I am trying to get to. I am on the threshold of it now.

29
As I said, work under intergovernmental co-operation is moving into a new phase. The immigration work programme is a comprehensive document covering virtually the whole range of immigration policy, from measures to counter illegal immigration to providing help to countries of origin—the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—and, an important issue for our ethnic minority communities, the enhancement of the position of third-country nationals with long-term residence. Probably the largest and most immediate task to which we have committed ourselves is the harmonisation of policies towards people seeking admission for stays longer than short visits. This work, together with the work programme on asylum, will be a major challenge for the United Kingdom presidency.
Bearing in mind this country's long experience of operating an effective control and the Government's firm but fair immigration policies, I believe that the United Kingdom has an important contribution to make to this work. In any process of harmonisation, there has to be an element of give and take, but I have no intention that we should agree to measures that would represent a significant loss in our present strict controls on immigration for settlement.
Finally, I should like to restate the Government's position on frontier controls. The communications that we are discussing are concerned with policies on immigration and asylum. Checks at frontiers bear on those policies, of course, and I think it important to set out the Government's view on them, particularly in the light of recent reported comments by the Commission.
We are well aware of the view that article 8A of the treaty of Rome requires member states to discontinue all controls at internal frontiers from 1 January 1993. We have repeatedly made it clear that that is not our view. We do not regard the abolition of all immigration controls at internal frontiers after 1992 as required for the completion of the single European market, and we do not propose that the United Kingdom adopt such a course. The Government have consistently said that immigration controls, for an island nation such as the United Kingdom, are most effectively operated at the point of entry, and we intend to continue to apply controls to all arriving non-EC nationals, including those arriving from other member states.
We do not seek to exercise substantive controls in respect of entry to the United Kingdom of EC nationals. They are asked to produce a passport or an identity card to show that they are EC nationals as they go through the EC channel.
Mr. David Ashby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that frontier controls are not very effective? We require a smart identity card that can be machine-read and is common throughout Europe. That would be the most effective control possible and would be far more effective than frontier controls.
Mr. Baker: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. Our examination of the effectiveness of controls clearly leads us to the conclusion that the most effective way is to apply controls at the internal frontiers of the United Kingdom, at our ports and airports.
I have been asked to speculate about what would happen if there were changes and whether there are alternatives to internal controls. There are five. First,
30
legislation would be needed to impose heavy fines on employers who employ immigrants without permission. Secondly, there would be more systematic checks on such companies and more unannounced visits. Thirdly, there would be a more systematic check before granting access to social security and state benefits. The fourth alternative is identity cards, and the fifth is random checks on people who are already in the country.
Other countries apply some or all of those controls, but they have not proved very effective in checking illegal immigration. For example, the United States has checks on employment and heavy penalties for companies that employ illegal immigrants, but those controls have not stemmed the flow of illegal immigrants who come from Mexico every night.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) asked about identity cards, and I know that he has pursued that topic in the Select Committee. Various countries have identity cards, but they are not generally used systematically to identify a person's national status. An identity card system would have to be universal and as forgery-proof as possible. There would have to be a careful definition of the identity card's function to establish the immigration status of the cardholder. Any system would have to set out clearly the occasions on which people could be asked to produce an identity card.
From what I have said, it is clear that any alternatives to internal frontier controls would be expensive and cumbersome to operate, and would certainly be a major departure from the way in which we have traditionally operated in this country.
Mr. Peter Shore: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he accepts that it is essential to maintain British frontier controls on those who seek to enter the United Kingdom from third countries and those who are not EC citizens. Does not the need to maintain sensible control also apply to EC residents and members as well? Are we simply saying that we are maintaining frontier controls for people who come from countries outside Europe, and that we have opened our frontier to 300 million Europeans without any check or control upon them?
Mr. Baker: That is the very issue that I am addressing. Perhaps I could return to the argument that I was advancing before my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth asked about identity cards.
I was emphasising that we do not seek to exercise substantive controls in respect of entry to the United Kingdom of EC nationals. They are asked to produce a passport or identity card to show that they are EC nationals. If there were no identity check at the EC Channel, it would be tempting for illegal immigrants to enter the United Kingdom in that way.
Even as it is, we detect a large number of forged documents. In the last quarter of 1991, of 934 forged documents detected by the immigration service, nearly a third were forgeries of EC documents. Most of these were being used by passengers in the EC channel. If they had not been required actually to show some means of identification, we certainly would not have been able to pick up those forgeries.
In signing and ratifying the Single European Act, which inserted article 8A into the treaty of Rome, the United

31
Kingdom Government had no intention of abandoning immigration control on third-country nationals arriving in the United Kingdom, including those arriving from other member states. In terms of the legal interpretation of article 8A, the Government rely on the final words of the article—
"In accordance with the provisions of this Treaty"—
taken together with the general declaration on articles 13 to 19 of the Single European Act, which provides:
"Nothing in these provisions shall affect the right of member states to take such measures as they consider necessary for the purpose of controlling immigration from third countries".
Our island geography enables us to place the main weight of our immigration control at the ports of entry. For us, this is by far the most effective way of doing it. It also means that we can avoid the need for intrusive forms of in-country controls—a subject on which I have just touched—such as sanctions on employers who employ illegal immigrants or identity cards or random police checks, which other countries without an effective means of controlling their borders find necessary.
When more and more people are wanting to move around the world, not just as visitors intending to return to their own countries but also with the intention of moving to, and staying permanently in, another country, we must not weaken our controls.
Mr. WilkinsonIs there not a specific and immediate problem, and one that my right hon. Friend appears to have overlooked? It is that, in the present security emergency, there is a need for identity cards for British nationals, and for passports for those coming from the Irish Republic, because, with the free travel area that we have with the Republic of Ireland, people can come from there without the strict control that is so necessary.
Mr. Baker: Only a week ago, we debated the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, which allows checks on travellers between the Republic of Ireland and our country. That is a separate matter.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Before he leaves this point, will my right hon. Friend return to the subject of Mr. Bangemann? I am sure that the House will warmly endorse the robust sentiments that my right hon. Friend has expressed about the need not to weaken the immigration checks or controls, but Mr. Bangemann has thrown down a gauntlet. He has said:
"We will fight like lions against anyone violating these rules"—
he means his rules—and continues:
"I will encourage EEC citizens to sue for damages against Governments which do not lift controls."
There is clearly a clash here. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he has taken legal advice, and that he thinks that he will win any case fought in front of the European Court, and that he will continue this robust and admirable stance?
Mr. Baker: The rules are not Mr. Bangemann's rules. What he has said is his view of the interpretation of the rules. What I have expressed today is the collective and considered view of the Government on these matters. At the moment that interpretation is not being challenged. If it is, we shall defend our interpretation robustly.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Is it part of the legal advice that the Government have received on this matter that our case could be weakened if it were shown that we had a less effective or less strict form of control on the frontier with the Irish Republic than we operate on other internal frontiers with Community members?
Mr. Baker: No. The methods of control on movements between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom are determined by the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. That is a separate consideration, and does not bear upon it.
Mr. Hattersley: I am very much on the Home Secretary's side in terms of competence and what the EC is entitled to do and not entitled to do. However, I hope that he will not overstate his case. Movement between the Irish Republic and Great Britain is determined not by the Act but by such factors as the treaties governing the Community and by the Government of Ireland Act 1920. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act is only—how can I put it?—the icing on the cake.
Mr. Baker: Although there is an area of free movement, checks can be operated on certain travellers, and that is the important point. I am glad that we shall get some support from the Labour party, and I hope that we shall also have support in our interpretation of article 8A and its application to the movement across frontiers.
The House recognises that Europe is a magnet for the rest of the world, because of our living standards, our welfare system, our free speech, our access to justice, our open and democratic way of doing things. The living standards of Europe are infinitely higher than those of most of the rest of the world, and, to be realistic, are likely to remain so for a very, very long time to come. This inevitably makes Europe an immensely attractive place to live in.
Europe cannot be open house to the world. There are already millions of irregular immigrants in Europe. It is essential that all these problems are addressed and are dealt with. Otherwise, there will be all the political and social difficulties which we now see in some countries in Europe. At this moment of great uncertainty, I am sure that it is right that we should not weaken any of our existing controls. Indeed, we should strengthen them, as we are doing. If we did not do this, we would be betraying the basic interests of our country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in the debate, and if there are major interruptions during the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), it will be difficult to call them all.
4.15 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: I wish to make it clear at the outset that it is my strongly held view that the two matters being discussed—the acceptance of asylum seekers into the United Kingdom and immigration policy in the United Kingdom—are essentially for the United Kingdom Government alone. In my view, they do not come within the competence of the European Community, and nor should they. The United Kingdom must exercise its own frontier controls and, as

33
the Home Secretary said, they must include the right to check on the entry of European Community nationals. If we were not able to do that, we would be unable to exercise any meaningful control.
I shall go slightly further, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will deal with these matters when he replies. On many occasions I have expressed my concern in the House about what I can describe only as informal arrangements which amount to something very much like Community competence. I accept that, in the absence of a treaty obligation, such arrangements cannot be taken before a court and cannot be dictated by the Commission.
I fear, however, that, through the Trevi and Schengen agreements, there is a danger—the Home Secretary will be aware of it if he listens to me describing it—that Home Secretaries or ministers of the interior meet together in private, come to an agreement that they will impose their collective decisions on individual Parliaments and then use the majorities that they possess in those Parliaments to provide a pan-European solution to problems. As well as being opposed to any formal intervention or interference by the Community, we are opposed to the Schengen and Trevi technique of coming to an informal agreement that is then individually imposed.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am concerned inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman accepts the sovereignty of the European court interpreting the competence of the Commission. We understand clearly from the Commissioner's own words that the matter will come before the European Court at some stage for a decision. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman, having accepted the sovereignty of the court, is able to recognise the possibility that the court will not accept his interpretation, or that of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and the strong words that the House clearly accepts. What, then, is the policy? We have lost control over our borders, have we not?
Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is arguing—he is entitled so to do—the principles of membership of the European Community. When we accepted membership, with all that it implied, we also accepted jurisdiction on certain matters through the courts. The best advice available to the Opposition, like that available to the Government—this is one of the few things on which the Home Secretary and 1 will agree today—is that Community competence does not extend to these matters. I hope and believe that that is the position. I regard it as a necessary provision which enables us to maintain our own rights over our own border control, immigration policy and asylum policy.
Mr. Spearing: My right hon. Friend and the Home Secretary will appreciate that a point of major importance has been made. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the interpretation of article 8A, as enunciated by the Home Secretary—when taken with the other articles with which he and, I believe, the majority of hon. Members concur —is not acceptable in any case which comes before the European Court of Justice, the logic of such a position, if it were arrived at, would be the introduction of checks and identity cards? That would be wholly alien to the population of this country. It is a practice that is found elsewhere, but it would not be acceptable here.
Mr. Hattersley: I am wholly opposed to identity cards for reasons that I shall not go into today. I rely on the situation that my hon. Friend has described not arising. I believe that the best advice available to both sides of the House is that the independence of our decisions on these matters can be preserved.
Of the two communications, the one which concerns the right of asylum obviously possesses the special importance of, even now, being examined in this House, and is even now the subject of decisions which I hope that we shall soon take as to how the asylum laws and regulations are to be updated and improved. It is to that directive that I wish to devote most of the time at my disposal today, pausing only to say that, as the Home Secretary tells us that revision of this matter is an urgent necessity—a term that he used three times—perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will tell us why the Bill, which has passed through this House, has been held up for so long before being debated in the other place.
Before talking about asylum, I wish to spend a moment on the other directive—the directive concerning immigration. I repeat again my strongly held view that immigration must be a matter for determination by individual member states. There cannot be a common Community immigration policy mandatory on all Community members. I have read what the Commission has to say on the subject of co-operation between Community members, and I understand that in some ways that is desirable.
I was particularly attracted by what the Select Committee said about one aspect of co-operation—the need for common policies throughout the Community on family reunion—but the most urgent reform needed in British immigration law does not so much concern common policies uniform throughout the Community on family reunion as regulations uniform to all British residents in respect of family reunion.
Mr. Ashby: Is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of relaxing our firm but fair rules on immigration? How would he relax them, and how many additional immigrants would he allow to enter the United Kingdom under such relaxed rules?
Mr. Hattersley: That shows every sign of being a carefully prepared question and it possesses all the subtlety of Conservative central office. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, he will find that I shall answer all those questions. I suspect that, when he was primed, he was told to intervene rather later in my speech. If he can abide in patience for a moment or two, he will hear exactly what I have to say on the subject.
I was referring to the necessity for a United Kingdom immigration policy and policies concerning family reunion which are uniform for all residents in and citizens of the United Kingdom. I will remind the House how the present situation works. The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) clearly makes a study of .such matters, and it will be of particular interest to Conservative Members who have always taken a robust view on the right of the British citizen in England as distinct from Community rights.
At present there are absurd anomalies which discriminate against British citizens. If an Englishman living in England marries a foreign national, his wife does not have the automatic and unqualified right to join him

35
in this country. If a German living in England or, for that matter, a Greek, Spaniard, Dane, Belgian or Dutchman, marries a foreign national, that citizen of the Community has the right for his wife automatically and without qualification to join him in this country. However, if a British citizen goes and lives in Germany, he possesses the right for his third-country nationality wife to join him in Germany. He possesses rights which he does not possess in his homeland—the land of his birth, the United Kingdom. That seems to be a simple absurdity.
Mr. Budgen: Why?
Mr. Hattersley: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is surprised to hear that. An Englishman should possess the rights in England that a German possesses in England. It is preposterous to say that Germans can do things here which are denied to English citizens. If the hon. Gentleman wants to defend that proposition, I will give way.
Mr. Budgen: Undoubtedly the procedures are not common or particularly logical, but they arise from the circumstances of each nation state having to come to terms with the historical obligations that it has given to various citizens. It is better for a legislature to keep muddling along and doing the best that it can in the circumstances rather than having a thoroughly defective, if logical, overall solution.
Mr. Hattersley: The phrase "to keep muddling along" seems a good way of describing a system which allows European foreign nationals privileges that are not available to the British. I make no bones about the intention of the next Labour Government to end that kind of anomaly. In short, British citizens have fewer rights now in the United Kingdom than other Community nationals, and more rights in the Community than in the United Kingdom. That absurd anomaly will be rectified by the next Labour Government.
Sir Timothy Raison: The right hon. Gentleman said that the right of foreigners to bring their non-national wives here derives from the fact that that is Community and not domestic law. It is not strictly the case that Community immigration law is concerned only with Community nationals. It extends in this case to their families. The right hon. Gentleman says firmly that if a Labour Government came to power, they would end that anomaly. I am not sure how, because it is hard to see how they could force other member states to change their policies.
Mr. Hattersley: The present law states that we can treat our own citizens as badly as we like, but we must treat Community citizens rather better. I believe that it is important to treat our own citizens as well as we treat Community citizens.
Sir John Wheeler: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that a future Labour Government, if elected, would abolish the primary purpose rule? If so, they would take away the central plank of our immigration controls. What would the right hon. Gentleman wish to see put in its place?
Mr. Hattersley: A rule that would enable an immigration official to make an objective and clearly described judgment as to whether a marriage was genuine or bogus.
Sir John Wheeler: That is the primary purpose rule.
Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman shows that he does not understand how the rule works. It requires an immigration officer to read the mind of an applicant. I am opposed to laws which require officials to read the minds of British citizens. There should be clearly determined rules to show whether a marriage is bogus or genuine according to accepted criteria. We shall, of course, keep parties to bogus marriages out of this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—and rather more calmly than the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), by applying objective rules rather than by allowing officials to pretend to be able to read applicants' minds.
Mr. Kenneth Baker: The right hon. Gentleman is making an important statement. He owes it to the House and to the country to explain the magic of the objective rules that he mentions. What objective rules could determine whether or not a marriage is genuine? I have seen how our entry clearance officers deal with such matters at their posts overseas. They take difficult decisions with great care. If the right hon. Gentleman has some magic objective rules, let us hear about them. The clear advice that I received was that if the rules or procedures are varied there would be a substantial inflow of fiancées into this country.
Mr. Hattersley: That is not happening in other countries. I will give the right hon. Gentleman an example of a rule change that I regard as absolutely essential. The Kumar judgment says that a man can be refused entry to this country because the immigration authorities doubt the genuineness of his marriage. The courts ruled that if a man showed continued devotion over a period of years, that ought to be taken as evidence that his was a genuine marriage. Cases are being taken to court time and again. The courts are accepting the previous ruling of the High Court and the Lords of Appeal—against the will, objections, and postponements of the Home Office. That is the kind of change that must be made.
Asylum is the central issue. As the Home Secretary knows, the next Labour Government will operate an asylum policy which will draw a sharp distinction between bogus and genuine asylum seekers. It will ensure that the genuine refugee finds a safe haven here, and will rigorously exclude the bogus applicant. I wish to deal with how that can best be done, referring specifically to a page in one of the two directives that have been drawn to our attention. The programme concerning asylum policy is dealt with in chapter 4, entitled "Work": the reference number is SN 4038/91 (WGI 930).
That page of the document deals with all the policies which have been proposed by the Government and examined by the House over the past year, and have been enshrined—more or less—in the Asylum Bill. When we discussed the Bill. I said—I am happy to repeat it today —that the exclusion of bogus applicants was a sensible and honourable objective. That was my view then, and it remains my view.
When we last discussed the matters described in the document, the Opposition tabled a reasoned amendment

37
in an attempt to explain how we believed that asylum policy should be operated. We feared then—together with the Churches, the General Council of the Bar, and the Law Society—that the genuine asylum seeker would be excluded, and we were right to express that fear. Our concerns were intensified by the behaviour of the Home Secretary, who sought to deal with the real problem in terms of party advantage and has continued to do so today.
I do not refer only to the pleasure—indeed, glee—with which the right hon. Gentleman has described every hypothesised fraud; he made one comment that struck me as disgraceful. Heaven knows, it is not my task to defend the Liberal Democrats, but when that party was mentioned, the Home Secretary said, "Of course, we all know that they support an open-door policy." That is a simple slander, and for the right hon. Gentleman to discuss matters in such terms does no credit to him or to the debate.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: My absence from that debate—in which I would have sought to rebut the Home Secretary's slanderous suggestion—was due to the difficulty that I had experienced in establishing contact with the right hon. Gentleman's office to discuss the Representation of the People Act. I think that, once again, he is misleading the House.
Mr. Hattersley: I repeat that the Home Secretary's attitude has not helped our attempts to achieve the good will, common sense and mutually agreed asylum policies that most European Community states have been able to maintain. It is possible that the Home Secretary wants the Asylum Bill to fail. If that is so, he can prevent its passage, but if it is so, let us have no more of the talk that we have heard today about an urgent measure which must be passed speedily.
The Home Secretary must decide whether he wants to make haste in obtaining an Asylum Bill which deals with bogus applicants but protects the geunine asylum seeker, or whether he wants to use the entire operation as an opportunity for what he sees—wrongly, in my opinion —as party advantage.
So that he may make progress, if he chooses to do so, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill which left the House of Commons was radically different from the Bill that received a Second Reading. The Government made five concessions, each representing a change for which the Opposition had asked. If the Home Secretary or any of his hon. Friends wishes to contest that statement, I will gladly give the Hansard references for each demand and each concession. Initially, however, I will simply list the five changes that the Opposition managed to bring about in Committee. I will deal a little later with a sixth change, which concerns the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir. T. Raison).
First, asylum seekers who arrive without documents, and who would originally have been assumed to be fraudulent applicants attempting to evade the regulations, will be able to advance reasonable explanations as to why their documents are deficient. That is now a part of the legislation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): Perhaps I can save the right hon. Gentleman some time. That was never part of the Bill, and it is not part of the Bill now. There was a
38
reference to those matters in the draft rules that were issued for discussion along with the Bill. It became perfectly plain that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends had chosen not to understand—or were somehow incapable of understanding—that such matters reflected on credibility, which demands that, if there is a satisfactory explanation, that too is taken into account. The only changes made were introduced so that even the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) could understand what the Government intended.
Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that I should have referred to the rule rather than to the Bill. He is repeating exactly the words that he used to me on Third Reading. Before we demanded it, the provision was not in the rules. After we demanded it, it was in the rules. That is a concession.
Secondly, applicants will not, as was originally intended, have the actions of others held against them when they apply to remain here. Thirdly, oral hearings, which, according to the Home Secretary on Second Reading, were to be allowed only after the special adjudicator agreed, are now more easily obtained. Fourthly, the period allowed for lodging an appeal—[Interruption.] Talking Whips are always a disadvantage. The hon. Member at the Dispatch Box always says that if they want to say something they should say it, and that if they do not they should be quiet. The period allowed for lodging an appeal was originally totally inadequate, but it has now been extended to 10 days, with the small exception of people against whom the refusal notice is personally awarded.
The sixth concession—I think that it is a concession, although the Under-Secretary of State will no doubt be quick to advise me on that as well—seemed to be made at the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Aylesbury. He asked that the original proposal for leave to remain if the asylum applicant was already here should not be removed that anyone with leave to remain who applied for asylum should not automatically have that leave to remain cancelled. In Committee, the Under-Secretary said that he accepted the principle of that proposition. It has not been incorporated through an amendment, but it is no doubt intended that it should be in another place.
Mr. Peter Lloyd: I will not get up to correct the right hon. Gentleman every time he is wrong, or we should never get through the debate . My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) raised some interesting points about which he was concerned. We made no change to the Bill: the Bill used the word "may" and left the matter to the discretion of the Home Secretary —I merely described how the Home Secretary intended to exercise it.
Mr. Hattersley: That is exactly what I said. I conceded that the amendment had not been made, and I asked whether an amendment would be made in the House of Lords. I understand from the Under-Secretary's answer that such an amendment will not be made in the House of Lords.
Most importantly, the Government have been forced by their critics and by force of circumstances totally to reverse their policy on legal advice and legal assistance for and to asylum seekers. The House will recall that the Home Secretary made an announcement on 2 July, when he also announced the provisions of the Bill, that the

39
United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service was to become the sole provider of free advice and free representation. He announced that the green form scheme —legal aid—was to be withdrawn from such cases. It is now the Government's habit to say that the Home Secretary never made that announcement at all, and that he merely observed that he and the Lord Chancellor might possibly be thinking about it. The words make it clear that he intended to withdraw legal aid as the alternative provision of legal advice—the choice—which the asylum seeker might receive. That is no longer his intention. He has not merely changed his position: he has changed it diametrically—legal aid is available, the green form scheme is reprieved, asylum applicants will have a choice of legal adviser, and we rejoice in that change above all others.
There are other outstanding issues which must be examined if we are to have decent asylum policy which is agreed between the parties. Our first concern is the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 and its extension to transit passengers. We propose after the election—
Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is this another debate on the Asylum Bill or is it a debate on the European document?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I have heard nothing out of order so far.
Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) was not here when I referred to the paper which deals with all these matters in detail. Item IV of "Summary, work programmes and conclusion" deals with each of the items that I am now discussing.
I wish to make it clear to the hon. Member for Thanet, North and to others that it is our intention to reform and revise the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act after the general election. I will tell the Home Secretary at once what some of those changes should be.
First, it is clear that the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 has not worked. If it had worked, the immense increase in the number of asylum seekers to which the Home Secretary constantly draws attention would not have taken place. It is also clear that two major changes are necessary.
First, greater powers must be taken against those who organise and profit from illegal immigration—the entrepreneurs of illegal immigration. Secondly, we must end the preposterous practice of fining airlines, particularly British Airways, sometimes for carrying passengers who are eventually allowed into the United Kingdom by immigration officials. Lord King has expressed his view clearly to the Home Secretary that it is preposterous that British Airways, above all other companies, should bear a financial penalty for carrying passengers who are eventually allowed in.
We must also discuss some more fundamental questions of human rights and asylum. On Second Reading I described myself—Conservative Members will not be surprised to hear the description—as "ambivalent" about fingerprinting. I remain unashamedly ambivalent. My wish—indeed, my determination—to exclude bogus applicants and to prevent double applications makes me favour fingerprinting, but my reluctance to see asylum
40
seekers alone subjected to a process otherwise thought appropriate only for suspected criminals makes me oppose the scheme.
Fingerprinting raises a question about Europe. I understand from the documents—I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will answer this question when he replies—that we have virtually committed ourselves to fingerprinting because that is the common policy in Europe and it is a way in which we can co-operate in Europe. I hope that we shall have a system of fingerprinting which applies only to those genuinely suspected of being bogus applicants and to those suspected of making multiple applications. As I understand it from the documents, we are now committed to fingerprinting everyone, including infants and babies. Is that the case? Does that seem reasonable?
Mr. Peter Lloyd: To make a change such as the right hon. Gentleman suggests would do what some of his hon. Friends suggested that the provision in the Bill does: it would criminalise a category of asylum seekers, who would be fingerprinted not because we were comprehensively checking all asylum seekers, but only because we had some suspicion about their veracity. I can think of no more absurd suggestion in the light of the arguments made by the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends in Committee.
Mr. Hattersley: That is not the argument that my hon. Friends advanced to me. Will the Minister now answer the two questions that I asked? Have we agreed to universal fingerprinting as part of our obligation to Europe, and does the Minister suggest that we fingerprint children, infants and babies in arms?
Mr. Lloyd: No, we do not suggest that we should fingerprint babes in arms, as the right hon. Gentleman would know if he had read the report of the Committee proceedings on the Bill. We are taking a power to fingerprint, not because the powers exist elsewhere—although, indeed, they do—but because it is clear from the problems that we have that it is a necessary measure which we ought to have on the statute book. If the right hon. Gentleman were ever to fill the place of the Home Secretary, he would regret that such a measure was not on the statute book before the election. I hope that he will help us to put it there.
Mr. Hattersley: This is becoming a strange debate, because the Under-Secretary of State persists in saying things which I can only describe as palpably untrue. It appears in the Hansard record that he regards it as necessary to fingerprint babies and infants.
Mr. Ashby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Italy has great problems with bogus asylum seekers and has a policy of fingerprinting all those who are rejected so that they can be identified when they make a further application? If that happens in other countries, why should we not do it in Britain?
Mr. Hattersley: As I said earlier, I do not believe that we have to do it simply because the rest of Europe does it. I thought that the hon. Gentleman agreed with that. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that such a policy is common European practice, he is taking the argument a stage further—in a direction which will not allow some of his hon. Friends to follow him.

41
I wish to deal with what I regard as the real sticking point in the Asylum Bill. There are problems with fingerprinting. There are problems with the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987. There are problems with housing. But the real sticking point—the point that we could not accept, the point to which item 4 in the document is related and the one which is unacceptable to us—is the right of appeal. It ought to be the unqualified and automatic right of every asylum applicant for a refusal to be subject to appeal.
What we ask for and what ought to be the centre of any decent Bill which genuinely discriminates between the bogus and the genuine applicant, is exactly what the Home Secretary said on 2 July that he would provide. He said:
"The Bill will make it clear that all those who are turned down in the determination process will be able to appeal while they are in the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 2 July 1991; Vol. 194, c. 166.]
He said nothing about the leave to appeal, nothing about the adjudicator deciding whether an appeal was possible, and nothing about an argument as to whether a second hearing was appropriate. He said on 2 July that asylum seekers already resident in Britain already enjoyed that automatic right and that it must be extended to all asylum seekers. To us, that is the essential element of a decent Bill.
We are less likely to send the wrong people back with an appeal system than without one. While I understand and support the need for speed, we cannot have speed which prevents genuine justice. There should be a full right of appeal exercisable in the United Kingdom. It must include an oral hearing. All applicants must be given 10 days in which to mount a case. That is the overriding requirement. It is more important than clause 7 and the carriers' liability Act and more important than clause 2 and fingerprinting, important though those issues are.
I believe, as I have always believed, that unanimity in the House on matters such as asylum is far better than contention. If the Secretary of State wants a Bill with the urgency that he continues to stipulate, he can have it so long as he makes those three concessions and justifiable variations. At least one of them is a variation which he announced in his opening statement but from which he later retreated.
I claim again that, if the Home Secretary wants the Bill to founder, the way in which it will founder will be through his being wholly inflexible and unreasonable. If he wants to make progress, he will accept those three requirements, make progress, maintain the Bill and its principles, and get it on the statute book in a reasonable time. I know that that is a stern test of the Home Secretary's integrity, and some will say that it is an unfair test to place upon him, but for once I am prepared to take him at his word. On 13 November, the Home Secretary said:
"I am anxious to find common ground in the country on this matter and I suggest that it is important that common ground is found."—[Official Report, 13 November 1991; Vol. 198, c. 1086.]
I offer the Home Secretary the chance to find it. If he loses his way, he will have only himself to blame. There must be a new asylum Bill. It can be done decently. If the Home Secretary wants to work with us, we will help to make it the decent Bill that the country needs and wants.
Mr. Bob Dunn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you have any power under the protocol of the House to point out to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) an
42
oversight? He promised to answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby). My hon. Friend asked the shadow Home Secretary to say whether his party intended to relax the immigration rules and, if so, in what way and what would be the impact of that on numbers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
4.48 pm
Sir John Wheeler: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and it is no less a pleasure this afternoon. However, I found the early part of his speech in particular somewhat reminiscent of one of those large rubber balls with which children are minded to play in school playgrounds. It reminded me of a ball filled with hot air that bounced all over the place without any clear sense of direction. His statement that if he were the Home Secretary in a Labour Government that Government would abolish the primary purpose rule is one of the most significant political statements to have been made. The primary purpose rule is an essential component of the control of immigration, especially that from the Indian sub-continent. Without it, this country would assuredly be the recipient—for perfectly understandable reasons—of significant numbers of would-be immigrants.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that he would seek to substitute the primary purpose rule with what he called "objective" rules. I wonder what they are. I hope that he will give us the advantage of setting them out in writing so that the House and the nation can examine them. They will most certainly form part of the country's deliberations in the general election.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred to the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987. Yes, it is a difficult Act to operate, but Home Office officials seek to advise and assist airline carriers and there are many cases, where a person has been brought into the United Kingdom and is subsequently allowed to remain here, when the carrier receives a refund from the Home Office for any financial penalty imposed upon it.
I am glad to hear that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will be able to give qualified support to the Asylum Bill. That sits rather uncomfortably with the language that he used at the Labour party conference on 2 October last year, when he called the Bill a "squalid appeal to racism" and said:
"We shall fight that proposal with the ferocity that conies from contempt".
It appears that he has had a significant change of heart. Perhaps it has something to do with the imminence of the general election.
Like the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, I shall consider the Commission's communication on immigration and I shall relate it to the work which the Select Committee on Home Affairs has done and the inquiry which it is undertaking into immigration controls at the external frontiers of the Community. I do not seek to prejudice any report that the Committee may eventually produce, but from the evidence that we have taken and visits that we have made, several important matters are clear.
No one can say with certainty to what immigration pressures the European Community will be subject in the

43
future. There are certainly demographic pressures, especially from north Africa, but we must beware the more lurid fears fostered by people such as Le Pen. In parts of Europe, racism and xenophobia are issues of great concern. Although we see no present evidence that those evils are increasing in this country, that is no cause for complacency.
Under the Maastricht treaty, the European Commission will have certain new limited powers over immigration Athough the Commission assured the Committee, during a visit to Brussels, that it did not wish to extend its competence, some member states and non-governmental organisations in this country want that to happen. It may be inevitable.
Under the external frontiers convention, there will be mutual recognition of visas granted by other member states, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already explained. It is hoped that that will bring other countries' standards on the issue of visas up to those of the United Kingdom. However, there is concern that individuals' rights—perhaps the right of appeal—will suffer as countries adopt the lowest common denominator of safeguards for would-be immigrants and the highest common denominator of control. There is little doubt that some nationals who do not need visas will be required to hold them in future.
The United Kingdom's present system of immigration control is based primarily on checks at the frontier. We are set on a collision course with Brussels over the continuation of those frontier controls on passengers arriving after 1 January 1993 from other EC states. The Government's interpretation of the treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act—that our present system of control can continue—is contested by the Commission. Our system relies on those frontier controls. They are especially appropriate on an island and are especially necessary because of the threat of terrorism. They bring other benefits to the police in the fight against crime. Other member states cannot so easily control their frontiers.
If the Commission's view prevails, the frontiers of other member states will become our frontiers and their problems will also become ours. The British people will regard such a development as extraordinary, as they see the United Kingdom for what it is—a series of islands, which ought to exploit that natural advantage with our existing airport and sea port controls. I have sometimes heard the comparison with the United States of America. The European Community cannot be compared with the USA. The way in which people are treated when they arrive in Hawaii, one of the 50 states, is not a suitable comparison with the way in which people are treated when arriving at Heathrow or Dover.
If we relax internal frontier controls, there will be a demand for compensatory measures. The Government have not formed any view on the nature and extent of those measures. Among such measures which will need discussion are identity cards and checks on people's immigration status by employers and the agencies paying them state benefits.
I am glad that the Association of Chief Police Officers, in giving evidence to the Committee, has confirmed that it is in favour of identity cards. I share its view for the
44
following reasons: the identity card is primarily a civil liberties document and gives certainty of identity to an individual and entitles him or her to travel freely within the European Community without let or hindrance; it offers the individual the opportunity to demand and receive services from the state; and it helps in the suppression of crime. For example, the banking industry loses about £0·25 billion a year through cheque card fraud because of the lack of any suitable bona fide identity card.
I agree with the Association of Chief Police Officers that if such a card is to serve the purpose of freedom
"it should be the size of a normal credit card … be incapable of being forged: it should have a unique background and a computer-readable internal strip … it should be renewable at regular intervals … the individual's fingerprint should be included … the individual's place of birth and other suitable details should be included, including the National Insurance number".
We have had national insurance numbers for many decades in this country, but we do not exploit them to give people the services and advantages to which they are entitled.
I also agree with the association when it says:
"the individual's photograph should be sealed into the card, which should be self-defacing if tampered with";
and:
"the manufacture of the card should take into account current and developing technology".
If we adopt the identity card scheme, we shall not be alone within the European Community in having such a device. We shall have to decide whether it should be mandatory to carry it, and in what circumstances it should be produced for inspection. We should use the opportunity of our presidency of the European Community Commission to make progress on this matter urgently.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: The hon. Gentleman suggested that one's national insurance number should be included on the proposed identity card. We all have a national health service number as well and the hon. Gentleman will know that, for those of us who are old enough, it was our national identity number during the war when we had national identity cards. Would he want to include that number also on the proposed card?
Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the present absurd position. We have a series of numbers. We have a number on a driver's licence. Now there is to be a driver's licence that includes a photograph. It will become the de facto identity card for those fortunate British citizens who happen to have a driver's licence. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, there is a national health service number. There is also a national insurance number and a United Kingdom passport number. There are too many numbers. Few people remember any of them and they do not serve the best interests of British citizens. We should settle for one number and we should seize the opportunity to exploit that one number within the Community.
Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman is making the case for a main identity card in the United Kingdom. Indeed, he has just said that we should exploit that at Community level. First, is that a personal view? Secondly, is he saying that we would solve the frontier problem which he mentioned earlier by granting freedom of entry and exit on production of such cards which would be valid throughout

45
the Community? Would the cards and their national variants then be virtually cards of European citizenship, if the Maastricht treaty is endorsed?
Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman is right. In previous reports, the Home Affairs Select Committee recommended the adoption of a national identity card. We shall have to see what it will conclude in its report on this inquiry. It is my view—I believe that it is shared by many other members of the Committee, if not all—that we must grasp this opportunity and make progress. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that such an identity card would be the card of the European citizen. If the 350 million citizens of the European Community are to exploit the opportunities of being in the Community, they must have the certainty of identification. Other member states are already developing high-tech cards. The kingdom of Spain, for example, is working on one now. When we hold the presidency, we should lead the initiative in the interests of British citizens as well as those of the Community as a whole.
Mr. Mark Wolfson: Does my hon. Friend agred that there is nothing to prevent us from developing the card for considerable valuable use in this country, whether or not it ultimately becomes relevant within Europe? Many of his arguments are highly relevant in this country first.
Sir John Wheeler: The arguments for the ca rd are primarily those of civil liberties and the right to receive services. Imagine a pensioner or a recipient of social service benefits who possessed such a card. It would render an entitlement by electronic technology without the argument and debate that is so often the case now. It would be efficient and effective as a tool for delivering rights and services to individuals. It would have the secondary purpose of being the European Community travel passport and means of identity. Therefore, it would solve a number of problems. I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's question.
Dr. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir John Wheeler: I should like to make farther progress.
I want to continue for a moment on compensatory measures. British airports and sea ports and air and sea carriers are not prepared for the potential changes that would be necessary if the Government's view of the controls permitted at the internal frontier does not prevail. The changes will be costly. Irrespective of decisions about our frontiers, money will need to be spent on improving the control of the external frontier elsewhere in the Community and on improving visa-issuing procedures by some other member states. Important issues are at stake. They need full discussion in Parliament and in the country.
I am glad that the Select Committee on European Legislation has recognised the importance of these proposals. I look forward to a more detailed examination of immigration in the European Community context in Committee and in the Chamber in the near future.
5.5 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: When I sought to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), I wished to ask him whether I was right in presuming that the
46
identity card would be extended to citizens of European Free Trade Association countries vis-a-vis the European economic area agreement.
These documents prompt several questions which I hope that the Minister will answer when he replies to the debate. The supplementary explanatory memorandum states:
"the Community has competence in relation to rights of free movement and residence under the Treaty of Rome and has issued a number of directives and regulations governing the exercise of those rights."
However, it continues:
"Under Article 100C, a new provision to be inserted into the Treaty of Rome by the Treaty on European Union, the Community will also have competence over the determination of the non-Member States whose nationals are to be subject to a visa requirement."
I know that that requirement will be subject to the ratification of this Parliament together with the other 11 Parliaments, but we seem to be shifting towards giving competence to the European Commission and taking it from national states.
Hon. Members who sought to talk about the implementation of the principle of subsidiary missed the boat. I am beginning to come to the conclusion that the concept of subsidiarity—perhaps I should say, the doctrine of subsidiarity—is worthless where Community officials are concerned, in terms of devolving political power to national legislatures, and even further to regional and local government.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) talked about some measures being given strength by unanimous support in the House of Commons. I remind the House that we gave unanimous support to the Bill that became the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. One of its most important sections was overturned or suspended by an interim judgment of the President of the European Court of Justice sitting on his own. In other words, an Act of Parliament, passed with support from both sides of this House, was overturned by the President of that court. I suspect that we might have a similar position here.
The European Community documents refer, among other things, to free movement of European Community nationals throughout the Community. The documents precede the European economic area agreement, so will the Minister confirm that the right of movement and travel will be extended to citizens of the 19 countries of the European economic area?
Mr. Peter Lloyd indicated dissent.
Dr. Godman: I notice that the Minister is shaking his head. Is he saying that, as a result of that agreement, the citizens of the seven EFTA countries will not enjoy the rights outlined in article 8A and in articles 48 to 59? It seems to me that there is a case for suggesting that the citizens of the 19 countries will be given that freedom.
Mr. Lloyd: The treaty of Rome confers rights of movement on the nationals of EC countries, but it does not confer those rights on those who are not EC nationals.
Mr. Spearing: Not at the moment.
Dr. Godman: I note my hon. Friend's remark, but I am seeking to establish that the rights of movement contained in article 8A are confined to EC nationals and that thecitizensof the seven EFTA nations will not be given those rights under the terms of the European economic area agreement.
Mr. Lloyd: That is our interpretation of article 8A. We must consider what rights of movement might be given to residents of the Community who are not EC nationals. Clearly, that is a matter for the intergovernmental discussions that will take place under the new pillar structure that has come about as a result of Maastricht.
Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. However, the rights might be given by the European Commission in advance of membership being formally granted to the EFTA countries seeking membership of the European Community.
Mr. Lloyd: I shall try to clarify the point. Such residents will have rights within the countries party to the Schengen agreement, which have removed their internal frontiers. That is a matter for, and an agreement between, those countries. Our position is that that is not required by the treaty.
Dr. Godman: Again, I am grateful to the Minister.
In an earlier intervention, I asked the Secretary of State about the rights of third-country nationals long domiciled within the European Community, and whether different classes of citizens would arise. For example, would those from north African countries now living in France and immigrant workers from countries such as Turkey and Yugoslavia, who have been long domiciled in Germany, be given inferior status in comparison with the nationals of the 12 nations that make up the European Community?
The euphemistically named gastarbeiter in Germany and the immigrants working in France will not be given the same freedom of movement under article 8A and articles 48 to 59. If they are to be denied such rights to movement, will they be confined within the borders of the countries in which they now live? That would seem to be the case for several millions of people, many of whom have lived in such countries for many years.
In Germany, the Government actively encouraged people to move from countries such as Spain, Yugoslavia and Turkey to take up work when the German economy was booming. Some of those people have lived in Germany for more than 30 years. The same could be said of many people living in France.
I am concerned that those people will be denied the rights of free movement, travel and work in the 12 Community countries. We will be left with a group of people who will not have the rights given to all EC nationals. That is a matter for considerable concern.
The secretary to the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, Elspeth Guild, has written to me to say:
"It is not conducive to the completion of the internal market that long term resident third country nationals should be subject to a fundamentally different regime in EC law as regards family life, deportation, employment or other immigration matters than EC nationals exercising free movement rights."
As I said to the Secretary of State earlier, many of the recent racist attacks in Germany and France have been directed against those migrant workers and their families. If the EC treats such people as inferior citizens, that encourages the vicious and horrible treatment that is meted out to them by their fellow EC citizens.
Those workers were encouraged to work in the EC just as many West Indians were encouraged to come here to work for the national health service, London Transport and other public agencies. After migrant workers have been resident in the EC for perhaps seven years, they
48
should have equal rights to those enjoyed by EC nationals under the terms of the articles that I mentioned. I appreciate that we do not have such workers within the borders of the United Kingdom, but I should be interested to discover the Government's position on the status of immigrant workers.
Under the terms of the new directory—one could call it the "Yellow Pages"—and assuming that it goes any further, if one of my constituents chose to live and work in any of the 11 EC countries, he or she would have the right to vote in municipal elections. That Greenockian would also have the right to vote in elections to the European Parliament. I suspect that the next stage would be the right to vote in domestic elections to national legislatures.
My constituents will have the right to travel freely throughout the other 11 countries of the Community—I suspect that they will be given the right to travel freely throughout the whole of the European economic area, despite the reservations that the Under-Secretary of State voiced—whereas immigrant workers long domiciled within the European Community, having been encouraged to come and work here, will be denied such rights. That is shameful.
The European Commission has much to answer for, because the measure will affect not only the immigrant workers and their families but also members of their families who still reside in their country of origin. It is difficult for immigrant workers in the European Community to encourage members of their families to visit them from their countries of origin. Such discrimination should be eliminated on the basis of a period of residence within the European Community. Nothing less will do.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. May I remind hon. Members of Mr. Speaker's appeal for brief speeches?
5.22 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: I shall make a brief speech, because there is just a small issue to consider. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will answer the point clearly and precisely. The only issue that really matters is: if the European Court overturns the lovely outline of policies set out by the Home Secretary in his splendid speech, what will the Government do?
This debate is about the fact that our whole immigration control policy could disappear so that we would have no effective parliamentary or governmental control. We all know that that is the issue. I also want to know why we are having this debate at such a good time. There is one reporter in the Press Gallery and plenty of people listening in the Public Gallery.
Why, when the Government usually have all the filthy, rotten, dirty, expensive, undemocratic issues in Europe discussed after 11 o'clock at night, is this issue being discussed in the afternoon when people can hear about it? We all know that the reason is that we have a decent Home Secretary who wants to fight for our rights and for democracy. He knows that it will be a tough battle with the European Community, and he is looking for support. However, he is not getting much support, with only a handful of hon. Members present, because most hon. Members do not like talking about the EEC.

49
The Home Secretary will agree that the issue is terribly important. If the British people appreciate—as they will—the fact that our control of immigration is likely to disappear, they will be concerned about good race relations. Conservative and Opposition Members who, like me, want to keep good race relations in Britain know that that depends on people feeling that we have matters under control.
Much has already gone. We have heard about the double lock in Maastricht—it sounds wonderful—but, sadly, we add to that what we committed ourselves to discussing and agreeing so quickly at Maastricht. It is all set out in the official documents: harmonisation of policies on admission; harmonisation of admission for other purposes; harmonisation of legal provisions; and a common approach to illegal immigration. We have committed ourselves to working out agreements on what should go.
We now know that we have made a commitment that European nationals will be free to move. We must remember what an EEC national is—not just nice people who live in France, Germany and Italy. If the Community is extended, EEC nationals will include eastern Europeans. I am sure that the civil servants who give such splendid advice will tell us that many European nationals do not even live in Europe. For example, only a few miles from Hong Kong is a Portuguese territory with Portuguese citizens who will shortly have the right to enter Britain, while the people of Hong Kong, which until now has been a British colony, will not have the same right. Citizens of French territories will also be allowed to enter Britain in the same way.
What will the Government do on the European scene? They believe that, because of the Maastricht agreement and other legislation, Britain and its European partners will have the power to decide what is allowed and what is not allowed. The Home Secretary set that out in his speech. He said that the Government think that they have control, having ensured a double lock at Maastricht, but he and many others know that the European Commission challenges that absolutely and fundamentally, arid has energetically disputed our interpretation of the legislation. it understands what the single European act says.
Some of my hon. Friends who voted so enthusiastically for the Act should tell their constituents what they agreed to—the free movement of goods, people, services and capital. The Commission says that that means something else—if the free movement of people is to be guaranteed and because the majority of MPs voted for it, the controls that we think we have will not be enforced.
Who will decide? Sadly, the Home Secretary will not decide. Rather, the European Court will do so, and we must warn people in Britain that the European Court is not like our courts but is a political court. At almost every opportunity, it gives more power and control to the institutions of the Community. As certainly as night follows day, on the basis of reading all its judgments and interpretations, I believe that it will find against Britain.
Individuals may follow Mr. Bangemann's advice and go to the court and say, "Please sir, the British law is rubbish." However, after 1 January 1993, the Commission will promote that case, and I am certain that the British Government will lose. People may say that I am a fatalist, and that I always think that we shall lose but that we may win; but what will happen if the Government lose? Will we
50
simply say that the decision is fair enough, we shall scrap our immigration control and it does not matter? Ultimately, we must state our policy now.
Conservative Members are becoming well aware of the fact that the power and authority of British elected Governments are not only fading away because of the policies to which we have agreed but slipping away because of the interpretations of the court. After the next election—we do not know who will win—we must start to ask where we should go on Europe. Are we willing simply to sit back and let all the power of our democratic assembly simply go to non-elected bodies? People—including my hon. enthusiastic Euro-Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who is always promoting the EEC—who think that the European Parliament will fill that gap should know that they are kidding themselves. There is no way in which the European Parliament could fill that gap unless we were to start over again.
Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Sir Teddy Taylor: I promised to speak briefly, but if my hon. Friend insists, I shall give way.
Mr. Budgen: Is not one of the problems the fact that people think of judges as highly qualified and wise technicians whereas, unfortunately, the judges of the European Court of Justice are part-lawyers, part-politicians? They interpret the treaty in a way that gives it extra impetus, and, as a result, the alliance between the court and the Commission always extends the power of the EC.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Those are wise words, but I am not sure whether the public will listen to them.
There is a real danger that our immigration control laws will be switched to Brussels and therefore become useless. If anyone doubts that, he should consider the control of immigration in Italy, for example, and the spasmodic control of immigration in Greece. Given the fact that that will be our boundary, the matter is important.
The Government should say what they will do if Britain loses in the European Court. They can do something in a positive European way. First, to make it clear that they have everyone on their side, they should publish a statement by our Law Officers saying that they support the views of the Home Secretary and explaining why they support those views. If we had a clear indication that the Government and the Law Officers were united, that would strengthen our purpose.
Secondly, if the Government fundamentally believe that immigration control is still to be a United Kingdom matter, they should use the presidency of the Council to put forward an emergency proposal or treaty saying that, for the avoidance of doubt should the Commission disagree, we wish to make it abundantly clear that the control of who comes into our country is a matter for our Government and our laws.
I am glad that the Government had the courage to discuss a difficult Euro-issue at a time when people will hear what is happening. We cannot run away from the issue; the EEC is taking more and more control over it. But if responsibility for the control of who comes into this country is transferred to the EEC, national sovereignty will effectively disappear. It will not be enough to say that

51
we shall have new cards stating, "I am a Euro-citizen," and giving the holder certain entitlements. Even if we tried to the best of our ability not to allow forged identity cards for citizens of a United Europe, we would not solve the problem of who comes into this country and how. The Government must stand firm.
I watch Ministers, and I believe that, in my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, we have someone who is prepared to have a fight and have a go. I believe that he will not merely pass the issue to a committee to have another look. If my judgment is right, I am delighted that my right hon. Friend is prepared to stand firm and have a go. If that is his intention, he should first ask for a statement from the Law Officers giving the Government's view and the reasons for it. Secondly, we should have a new treaty under the British presidency stating that the matter of who comes into a country is one for elected national Governments. If he does that, it will be a step forward for democracy, Britain and Europe.
5.32 pm
Sir Timothy Raison: It is absolutely right that we should debate this subject today, and that it should be debated in a tone remarkably free from the electioneering which accompanies almost everything that happens in the House at present. We have had a sensible and serious debate. We know that problems are caused by the pressure of large numbers of potential asylum seekers, that the Government's Asylum Bill is proceeding through Parliament, and what happened at Maastricht. Nobody could doubt the seriousness of what is taking place in many parts of the world, such as Africa, the middle east and eastern Europe, where events are all liable enormously to step up pressure to migrate.
We are faced with terrific difficulties. We have a tradition of dealing with refugees fairly and seriously, and it would be sad if we were ever to abandon that, but we cannot simply accept everyone who comes from a country where there is civil war, famine or poverty. So far as possible, we must act through our aid and development programmes—hon. Members have been right to stress that —but we must also recognise that the most intense pressure at present comes not from strictly economic refugees, but from those fleeing the civil wars that are breaking out, causing chaos and cruelty in places such as Africa, Sri Lanka and Iraq. Therefore, it is not simply an economic refugee problem.
We must also press throughout the world, through aid and development programmes, for human rights. One of the wise moves of the Government, led by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, is the way in which they have been willing to couple the notion of good human and civil rights with the provision of aid for development. We are moving into an era in which not only our aid programmes, but the United Nations, are having to be a bit more interventionist than they were in the years of post-war dispensation.
The debate is about how the Government and the European Community are responding to the pressures. I believe that on the whole we have got it about right. The policy that is developing is basically sensible. I support the Asylum Bill, the need for it and, generally, the measures postulated to accompany it. Those measures have been
52
activated by the need to cope with the pressures that I have already mentioned and the need to speed up the handling of asylum cases, which is enormously important. I know as well as everyone else the delays which can occur in the Home Office.
The report of the Select Committee on European Legislation reminded us that the handling of cases is an important part of the Asylum Bill. The report states:
"the Asylum Bill is mainly concerned to provide a right of appeal in asylum cases."
We should remember that it is not just a restrictionist measure, but states that when people come to this country and apply for asylum, there should be a proper and more effective system of appeal than the one that we have had.
As one who has previously argued for better appeal rights for asylum seekers, I am glad that the Bill provides that. I accept that some people would like it to go further and believe that the appeal rights are not sufficient. One can argue that, but asylum seekers will gain in terms of human liberty for asylum seekers under the provisions provided, which is why I support the Bill.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and other Government Members who said, when dealing with the Bill, that they were willing to be flexible and respond if it is suggested that there are inadequacies and elements within the package which are not sufficiently fair to any group of asylum seekers. A number of important changes have been made, all of which are to the credit of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The Government have been taking exactly the right steps on the issue, but what about the European Community's position, the subject of today's debate? My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained in his opening speech that the Community has competence over the rights of free movement and residence for EC nationals, which is accepted. There is a more difficult question about the families of EC nationals, as they too have rights which are governed by EC rules.
When the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) spoke of the objective tests that a Labour Government would apply, he was somewhat cloudy on the issue. We all know that the primary purpose rule is difficult to interpret. I was at the Home Office when it was introduced and I do not think that I had any illusions then, but I realised that it would cause difficulties. Anybody with a substantial number of immigrants— particularly Asian ones—in their constituency will know that it is not easy to interpret the primary purpose rule.
The idea that the Labour party, if in power, would set the matter on an objective basis is a fanciful and pie-in-the-sky idea. At the very least, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), the Front-Bench spokesman, should tell the House exactly what is meant by objective tests and how they would work. We must ask questions about that.
Apart from the establishment of a common list of visa countries and a standardised format, most of the important questions have rightly been left to the realm of political co-operation outside the treaty. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) queried whether that could be maintained and whether the European Court might not throw the whole thing out of the window. I do not think that it is realistic to ask Ministers to state what they would do if that were to happen—we devoutly hope that it will not—and it would be injudicious on their part to do so. It is right that matters

53
such as asylum policy, border controls and the immigration of third-country nationals should be dealt with by political co-operation. Such issues are better left in the realm of national competence.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been right to insist that we retain frontier controls. To abandon them would bring enormous risks. We know all too well the dangers of terrorism today. We also know, as we look around the European Community, that there would be some pretty weak links in the chain. Without particularising the matter, we could not rely on some countries to have effective border controls, and we are absolutely right to take a cautious view.
I also believe that we should be cautious about accepting the notion that any non-European Community national with a right of residence should be able to work anywhere in the European Community—the point raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). He asked why people from third, non-European countries who have the right to live here and who may have lived here for a long time should not have the freedom to move anywhere or seek work anywhere in the European Community. That view is being expressed by the Commission for Racial Equality, too.
The answer is that the circumstances of these different groups of non-Community nationals vary enormously. The reasons why ours are here are particular to our own circumstances—to do with the history of the British empire. Our non-nationals are from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan. They came here for reasons to do with the empire and in many ways they have retained their special character. It would be wrong to say that what has been suitable for us should necessarily be accepted by all other European countries as suitable for them. Their histories differ from ours—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Budgen) says helpfully that the same applies in reverse. The history of north African migration is particular to France, and so on.
It would be a mistake to adopt the view advanced by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. The notion of subsidiarity is relevant in this context. If, for the sake of argument, someone comes from Pakistan and lawfully settles here, he will after a period be able to acquire British nationality. That is open to him. The proper way for a man or woman to achieve what the hon. Gentleman desires is to do exactly that: to live here for a period, to be settled in this country, to have a commitment to this country, and then to acquire citizenship.
I know that there are some difficulties because certain countries—India, for instance—choose not to allow dual nationality. That is really not our fault; we cannot help it if the Indian Government insist on forbidding dual nationality to their citizens. Perhaps Indians should, at a certain stage, have to commit themselves to living in Europe even if that means relinquishing their Indian citizenship and then acquire United Kingdom citizenship —and in the process acquire the rights that pertain to a citizen of the United Kingdom. The stance that we are adopting on this is perfectly tenable; to move away from it in the direction advocated by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow could cause difficulties.
The Government are proceeding on the right lines in this respect. It is enormously important that there should be no question of playing the issue as an election card—it would do nothing but harm if, in some mysterious way,
54
issues of race or immigration became puffed up at election time. The Government are perfectly entitled to bring back the Asylum Bill after the election if it does not reach the statute book before then. I would support such a move, but time has shown that it is possible to handle these issues with a mixture of firmness and sensitivity.
Perhaps I am parti pris, but looking back on the period since 1979 during which we have handled the matter in Government by the frequently mentioned combination of firm control and a positive commitment to building up good race relations, I think that our method has worked. It is to the credit of the Conservative Administration since that time that we have pursued those policies. It has not always been easy, given the many emotive pressures involved, but it has paid off. There are still blots on the landscape, such as the vicious and deplorable racial attacks, but overall the policy has worked. We have a fairly good degree of racial harmony in this country, and it would be fatal to do anything to damage it.
5.44 pm
Mr. John Carlisle: It is a privilege to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison), who had a distinguished career in the Home Office as art Under-Secretary of State—
Mr. Budgen: Minister of State.
Mr. Carlisle: Yes, he was promoted halfway through. He was enormously helpful to my constituents and those of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We respect his views and the knowledge that he brings to our proceedings. I am pleased to follow what may have been his valedictory oration to the House, in which he has served as a distinguished Member for many years.
On a note of slight dissention from my right hon. Friend's views, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) will agree with me that this issue will be talked about in the forthcoming general election campaign, especially in constituencies such as mine, where, in the constituency town although not in my actual constituency, about 20 per cent. of the inhabitants are of ethnic origin, albeit third or fourth generation.
This matter worries a lot of people, and it is one on which the two parties of opposition and the Government are miles apart. That was well highlighted in this afternoon's speech by the right hon. Member for Birmingham. Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who once again failed to answer the relevant questions put by Front and Back-Bench Conservatives.
The representative from the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), saw fit to grace our proceedings—[HON. MEmBERs:"Where is he?"] My hon. Friends are right to ask. He came in 16 minutes late with a lame excuse for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He stayed for part of my right hon. Friend's speech and then disappeared; yet I have no doubt that on doorsteps over the next few weeks, as we go to ask the country for its support, many Liberal Democrat candidates will be expounding policies which are obviously a matter of shame to the hon. Gentleman, who is not here to defend them.
I remember the contribution by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland to the Second Reading debate

55
on the Asylum Bill; many of us who were here will recall that it was the longest diatribe we had had the misfortune to listen to—
Sir John Wheeler: And the most boring.
Mr. Carlisle: Certainly, and the longest in centuries.
The fact that none of the hon. Gentleman's party is here to defend policy or to comment on this important issue is an insult to the House and to the electorate, who I hope will remember this fact when these matters are brought up, as they inevitably will be, on people's doorsteps and in discussions of national policy.
The two major parties are certainly poles apart, which is why most of us welcome the opportunity of this debate, which has once again highlighted the fact that Labour has no answers to the questions that might arise if the European Court went against the Government on this issue or on immigration in general.
Many of us remember—it was not that long ago—how a Labour Government granted not one but two amnesties to illegal overstayers. Regrettably, there are probably still several thousand of them even under the strict immigration rules of this Government, but they must be taking some comfort from the idea that, if a Labour Government are returned, they will receive similar treatment this time.
I remember asking the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook on Second Reading of the Asylum Bill what Labour would do about an amnesty. He ducked the issue again. Probably the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), who is shaking his head, will offer us some clarification on whether he will rule out any form of amnesty for illegal overstayers or for those who have been caught by asylum procedures. I note that the hon. Gentleman remains rigidly stuck to his seat, but we look forward to some reaction from him.
This issue is so important because over the years it has changed the character of many of our towns and cities. To some extent, it has enriched their cultures, but many people understandably still fear that if the numbers increase substantially—I am sad to see that they did in the past few years, having dipped a bit in the mid-1980s—then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said, the excellent race relations in our towns and cities could worsen. I am proud of the record of my constituency town, incidentally. In this case, this explains why the fear that will be expressed on people's doorsteps is ever present.
We are absolutely right to resist any attempt by the European Commission or the European Court to relax the immigration laws for which we have fought long and hard and which have been consistently opposed by both Opposition parties.
Mr. William Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said, this incursion into our laws by the European Community will have to be resisted because it would cause immense damage and disruption in the United Kingdom? Does my hon. Friend recall that not long ago Chancellor Kohl suggested immigration quotas in the Community to absorb additional immigration into
56
Germany? However, Mr. Genscher has pursued a policy of dispersing such people to the rest of the Community. That is completely crazy and not at all communautaire.
Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that to our attention. He was not able to be here for the earlier part of the debate when the fear was expressed that even the new breakdown of frontiers for EC nationals will cause enormous trouble, especially if other countries relax their frontier controls and permit the entry of third-country immigrants. I am glad that the Government have a strong line on this issue.
Either the brief of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was so short or his knowledge of the asylum issue was so short that he spent most of his time on the Asylum Bill rather than speaking about the rules that are before the House. We are all aware of asylum abuse and the anger that is generated by abuses of the system. I am pleased to note that, when we return to government after the election, we shall correct the generosity of the system. The anger against asylum seekers is felt not only by members of the indigenous population but by those who have to come to our country from far off shores. That anger is directed against overstayers and illegal immigrants who have been permitted to stay here by previous Labour Governments. That anger is understandable, because those people are breaking the rules.
Regrettably, to a certain extent immigration is all about numbers. About 1,000 a week now apply to come to this country. Of those, 70, 75 or even 80 per cent. are found to be or suspected to be illegal asylum seekers. That makes the situation worse, and the country should be grateful and will remember in the coming election campaign that only the Conservative party has stood firm against bogus asylum seekers and has decided to do something about them.
The main issue before the House is the worry about immigration, and it is accentuated by Commissioner Bangemann's pronouncements because he was almost inviting those who are refused entry to seek some remission in the European Court. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East was right to say that we should know what the Government intend to do if judgments go against us. In the past, we have been given assurances with little authority—they were possibly whistling in the wind—that the court actions would not go against us.
However, we should have some sort of contingency plan. We will be asked on the doorsteps about what will happen if the European Court overturns all the frontier controls that we are trying desperately to hold. What will be the reaction of the next Government, assuming that they are Conservative? Of course we know what the reaction of a Labour Government would be, because it was outlined by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook in the debate and by him and his party in documents.
Labour would abolish the primary purpose rule. That is in the document "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change" and has not been denied in the debate. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central nods—perhaps in response to that or in response to something else. We seek clarification from him because the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will not clarify what Labour would do about the primary purpose rule. If that rule is abolished, the gates and doors will open wide to any itinerant traveller who

57
chooses to come to this country, and the number of immigrants will increase dramatically. For many of them, entry to this country is attractive.
Few members of the Labour party are interested in these subjects or willing to put their heads above the parapet. When I speak about such matters, there are usually Opposition shouts of "racist" or "nationalist". I stand purely on the basis of being nationalist and for the protection of my communities. Over the years, those communities have accepted itinerant travellers, genuine immigrants, people from different lands and cultures. They have been accepted with a good grace and we have had extremely good race relations. If frontier controls were reduced or abandoned, those relations would suffer, especially if the primary purpose rule were abolished, as I think that it would be by a Labour Government.
It was encouraging to hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary say that the Government will resist any lessening of frontier controls or relaxation of immigration rules. The Conservative party has a proud record, and it will be put to the test in the general election. I am confident that what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said will encourage all citizens to accept that the Conservative party intends to apply fair and strong immigration rules and is willing to say at times, as it may have to, that enough is enough.
5.56 pm
Mr. Roger Gale: I should like to place on record an observation that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook ( Mr. Hattersley) will have an opportunity to read. He said that the Home Secretary had been guilty of calumny in suggesting that the Liberal Democrats had an open-door policy on immigration. I understand why the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was unable to be present at any of the sittings of the Committee on the Asylum Bill, but if he had been there, he would have gained the same impression as those of us who were present throughout the sittings—that the Liberal Democrat party, which, sadly, is not represented in the Chamber for this debate, has no policy at all on immigration other than to say that anyone who wants to come here can do so because there is no way to stop him. If that is not an open-door policy, I do not know what is.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and his hon. Friend on the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), have performed a considerable U-turn since the start of the Asylum Bill to which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook devoted so much of his speech. He has described it as a nasty, racist measure hut, perhaps with the thought of a general election in mind, Labour Front-Bench spokesmen have suddenly espoused the Bill and wished it speedy progress.
Mr. Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman should have listened to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said, because he set out the grounds on which we still oppose the Asylum Bill. The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and I sat for many hours in Committee considering the Asylum Bill, and he knows that we expressed a number of concerns about it. My right hon. Friend was simply pointing to those concerns, which we thought the Government might be prepared to meet, as we both agree that some legislation is required.
Mr. Gale: I listened with great care to the right hon. Gentleman's dissertation on the Asylum Bill, and I heard no answers to the questions put to him by my hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central will shortly have an opportunity to speak, when no doubt he will answer those questions on behalf of his right hon. Friend. We shall listen with bated breath to his responses.
The Home Secretary said that asylum must not be a back door to immigration. We must decide whether asylum will be a back door to Europe in the context of the documents that we have been asked to consider. The Select Committee on Home Affairs, on which I have the honour to serve with my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), who spoke so well earlier in the debate, recently visited a number of countries in the European Community in the course of an inquiry into Europe's external frontiers. We first visited Brussels and we spoke with Herr Bangemann's directorate, the civil servants responsible for the policy.
I was left in no doubt that the European Commissioner responsible, and his team, regard the removal of the internal frontiers as an integral part of the single market. I was also left in no doubt that they regard any check at any internal frontiers on European Community nationals travelling within the European Community as unlawful. I believe that the European Commissioner will move, as Mr. Bangemann has said he will, heaven and earth to ensure that there are no checks at internal frontiers.
The explanatory memorandum submitted by the Government for the debate says that the Government intend
"to continue to apply a control to all arriving non-EC nationals … EC nationals are not subject to a substantive immigration control, but it will be necessary to ask them to show a passport or national identity card in order to distinguish them from non-EC nationals."
The European Commissioner believes that we shall have no right to do that. I do not understand how it will be possible to check the arrival of non-European Community nationals in this country, by whatever means, unless we are also able first to ascertain who is a European Community national.
My hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), said much earlier that he believed that we were on a collision course with the. European Commission over this issue. Having visited Brussels with the Select Committee and taken evidence, I am certain that he is right. The Commission is determined that we shall not check internally.
The Select Committee has also taken evidence from the Association of Chief Police Officers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North said earlier. Incidentally, the association has changed its view on identity cards, and I shall come to that later. Members of the association described to the Committee what they believe to be the likely effects of the removal of internal frontiers. It is abundantly plain that those upon whom we place the burden of the enforcement of law, and those of their colleagues who share that burden throughout the Community, believe that the removal of internal frontiers will have a devastating effect on the control of illegal immigration, trafficking in drugs and international financial fraud. There is no doubt at all of their view.
In the course of our inquiry, we moved from Brussels through Berlin and east Germany to Frankfurt an der Oder, on the east German-Polish border. We talked to

59
immigration and customs officials and the police. We walked into Poland and saw the 18-mile queue of lorries waiting to come into the European Community across the border that, from 1993, will be the United Kingdom border. On average, those lorries wait for eight hours; on a bad day, they wait 18 to 20 hours; and on occasion—we saw this happen—the customs officers will take a lorry to pieces searching for illegal contraband and drugs—there is an amphetamine factory just over the border. It is inconceivable that those checks can be maintained. European Community policy—the policy concocted by the Commission—was dreamt up before the Berlin wall came down, and it is wholly inappropriate to the needs of today.
We went from Frankfurt an der Oder to Genoa, in northern Italy, on the Italian riviera and spoke to police and customs officers there. We learned from them that, in the past year alone, the police had obtained 700 deportation orders for illegal immigrants but that only 80 of them were implemented, because the other 620 illegal immigrants could not be found. The Italians made it plain to us that they regarded immigration as part of a natural process that satisfied their need for employees. For many years, Italians have been emigrants as well. They regard visitors' visas as a light matter.
A traveller through Genoa into the European Community on a three-month Italian visitors' visa can disappear anywhere within the Community, and if the Commission has its way, he can do so without any check. He can come to the United Kingdom, he can head for the lights and the financial benefit of Germany, or he can go to France, Spain, or anywhere in the Community. When the visa has expired, how in heaven's name can the Italian authorities begin to find that person?
Mr. John Carlisle: When he was in Europe, did my hon. Friend or the Committee make any inquiries as to the medical checks on these travellers? He might recall a famous case a few months ago when some travellers from Bangladesh came through Europe to the United Kingdom. Two of them finished up in my constituency having jumped bail, and both were typhoid carriers. Did the Select Committee examine the possible medical dangers if there are no checks at the frontiers, or if, as is the case with the Italians, illegal immigration is encouraged?
Mr. Gale: The honest answer is no, we did not. We confined ourselves wholly to external frontier matters as they related to immigration. I accept what my hon. Friend says about health matters, but what we discovered was hair-raising enough in its own right.
The Italians to whom we spoke mentioned their economic need for illegal immigrants, who do the jobs the Italians do not wish to do at salaries that Italians would not accept. That is likely to become the norm throughout the European Community. Any attempt to impose on the European Community the statutory minimum wage that the Opposition intend to introduce will exacerbate that trend.
Mr. Carlisle: And it is unenforceable.
Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend is right. It would also increase the black economy, as those who wish to do so
60
will employ illegal immigrants for cash rather than employing legally on the open market, which is what most of us would like to see them do.
I came away from that visit of inquiry with a distinct impression of the need for an identity card to serve the United Kingdom, and preferably a Europewide standard identity card. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary showed his opposition to that suggestion. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will extend the argument and tell us why any Government should be opposed to the sort of document that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster. North defined in his excellent speech.
The Home Affairs Select Committee has consistently recommended the introduction of an identity card—initially voluntary, although one that might well become mandatory. It would be a facilitating document that could carry medical and personal documents if the holder so wishes. It would provide instant identity and serve as a travel document throughout the European Community.
Much has been made of the internal frontiers convention—another product of the European Community. The explanatory memorandum offered by the Government for this afternoon's debate says:
"The draft External Frontiers Convention, which has not yet been signed but about which written evidence has recently been given to the Home Affairs Committee's inquiry on migration controls … affords the prospect of improved collective defences against illegal entry to the European Community and of reduced visa formalities for genuine visitors and persons resident in Member States."
Does that mean "improved collective defences" along the entire River Oder, over which we flew in a helicopter and saw mile after mile of open frontier that anybody could cross without let or hindrance? Are there to be improved defences for Genoa along the entire coast of northern Italy, into which any boat can sail carrying immigrants from north Africa with impunity? Are there to be improved external defences around every Greek island, or around the shores of the United Kingdom, France or Ireland?
That concept does not exist. The compensatory measures upon which Community policy has been based do not provide for that which is needed. The policy was dreamt up before the fall of the Berlin wall. To remove the internal frontiers of Europe now would be every bit as dangerous as removing the watertight bulkheads of a ship while there was a gaping hole in the bow.
No doubt some of us will be accused of racist overtones or undertones. The Select Committee on which I serve has been and seen, and I fear for what 1 have seen. The European proposals that we are considering will cause immense damage to race relations in the United Kingdom and throughout the European Community.
6.11 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: First, I apologise to the House for being absent from the Chamber for most of the debate. 1 was attending a meeting of the Select Committee on Social Security. Perhaps I should apologise to the Minister for returning, because he does not seem awfully pleased to see me.
Mr. Peter Lloyd indicated dissent.
Mr. Corbyn: Obviously, I misjudged the Minister. As I have said, I had to attend a sitting of a Select Committee, so I could not he in my place in the Chamber for much of the debate.
I am glad that there is a debate on asylum and immigration policies throughout Europe, for it is time that one should take place in a calm atmosphere. Popular newspapers have been discussing the subject over the past few months, and much of that material seems to have rested upon unattributable anecdotal evidence about the alleged misdemeanours of a few who are seeking political asylum. This "evidence" is blown up and becomes part of common parlance. In other words, it becomes common currency. It is repeated at the Dispatch Box by the Home Secretary, who then says that he does not want to stir up feeling on these matters. However, he continues to repeat the "evidence".
I recall that, on Second Reading of the Asylum Bill, The Daily Mail chose as a front-page story the allegation that somebody seeking asylum had defrauded British Telecom of £120,000. It occurred to me that that newspaper might have done well to report that the chairman of British Telecom is paid £550,000: that would have put things into perspective.
There has been a stream of stories of that sort—perhaps, in a sense, to give credibility to the Asylum Bill, which I sincerely hope will be lost. It is my wish that the general election will arrive and spare us that awful legislation. We are not discussing the specific terms of that Bill, but I think that we should put on record once again our continuing opposition to the measure.
The Asylum Bill would not give proper rights of appeal to those who are refused political asylum. It would introduce a twin-track policy. It would introduce fingerprinting of all those who seek political asylum, including their children. When pressed on that issue, the Under-Secretary of State was unable to say what would be the minim urn age at which a child would be fingerprinted. The Bill would ensure that those who sought political asylum could not obtain permanent housing until their cases had been resolved. That means that the children of asylum seekers in London, and especially in the part of it that I represent, would be in bed-and-breakfast hotels or other substandard accommodation. A lack of temporary accommodation means exactly that.
The consequences of the provisions to which I have referred are compounded when we remember the deliberate punishment of asylum seekers that was meted out by the Prime Minister when he was a junior Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security. The right hon. Gentleman introduced the concept of 90 per cent. payments only of income support for those who were asylum seekers. There is no logic behind that policy, but it is set out in social security legislation.
Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the issue of permanent housing was discussed during the passage of the Asylum Bill. I wonder what he tells those who are on the council waiting list—I have no doubt that there are a considerable number in his constituency, as there are in mine—who would have to wait even longer for a home because asylum seekers, under his policy, would be put in front of them at the head of the queue. I wonder what he says to those who are on the waiting list who see him at his advice centres.
Mr. Corbyn: I tell those who are on the housing waiting list in my constituency—I hope that the hon. Gentleman does the same—that everybody should be housed according to need. I say that those who are homeless should be housed. I tell them that there is no discrimination when it comes to housing. I say that allocations are made on the basis of need, irrespective of where their parents come from, where they come from or where their children come from.
I explain that the borough within my constituency needs a capital building programme of about £80 million a year if it is to deal with serious housing shortages within the area, and add that it has never received more than 25 per cent. of what is needed from central Government. Authorisation is needed before it is possible to build. I try to make people aware that continual pressure on the authority to sell council houses exacerbates the housing problem. Those people who sleep on the streets of London did not sleep on them 10 years ago. They are there now because of cuts in the house-building programme, the deregulation of private-sector rents and the sale of council-owned property in areas of high housing stress. That is what I tell the people who are on the waiting list. I believe that it is the honest answer, and I shall continue to give it.
There are many other aspects of the Asylum Bill to which my colleagues and I take the strongest possible objection, and I hope that those in the other place will be able to amend it. As I have said, however, I hope that we shall hear no more of the Bill. It was guided by a deliberate misuse of statistics by the Home Secretary at last year's Tory party conference—not by good purpose or good intent—and a wish by the popular press to wind up the asylum issue. We need to have an informed debate about political asylum.
It is necessary also to debate the rise of racism throughout Europe. It is extremely serious that, across Europe, there is a rapid and frightening growth in racist and neo-fascist activities and parties. In Germany, between August and December 1991, there were 800 recorded attacks on the dwellings of non-European nationals legally living in the country—guest workers or whatever one wants to call them.
The level of Nazi-style activity in parts of former East Germany is frightening. Many brave people have stood up against racist violence and racist attacks in Germany, and it is sad that the outrages still continue. It was highly appropriate that last year, on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, there was a demonstration outside the German embassy. We demanded that the German Government should take much stronger action against the perpetrators of racist violence.
It is frightening also that one of the supposedly more popular politicians in France, which suffered so grievously from Nazi aggression between 1939 and 1945, should be that awful character Jean-Marie Le Pen, who unfortunately visited Britain last year. He represents all that is vile about fascism and racism throughout Europe.
The growth of racism is not confined to France and Germany. There is a growth of racist parties in Austria, and the recent general election in Sweden was dominated by a sort of anti-asylum-seeker tide. If we try to appease these forces and tides, they will not go away. Racist violence does not disappear because someone says, "We

63
should understand people's feelings." There has to be an understanding that any appeasement of racism has a ratchet effect and racism increases.
We are not without the problem in this country. Racial violence is, unfortunately, quite common in our major cities. In this country, a racial attack takes place roughly every 30 minutes. That is one too many in any circumstances. We need to end the implicit approval of racial violence that too many people show.
We are also talking about the rights of people in Europe. There are 15 million non-European nationals living within the European Economic Community. They do not have the rights that the rest of us enjoy. They live in western Europe, they pay their taxes in western Europe, and they contribute to the economic well-being of western Europe. They are positive and supportive members of the community, yet they are denied the right to vote and the right of free movement within western Europe that is implicit in the rights of EEC citizens.
Dr. Godman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the European Community, in the shape of the European Commission, by failing to take care of the rights of those people, is creating an underclass of permanent residents of the European Community?
Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is right. The Community is creating an underclass through its refusal to grant civil and political rights to many of those people. Also, there is a failure to understand the position of people who, in legal terms, are illegal immigrants. There are people who live in the major cities of western Europe and of this country who lead a twilight existence. They are afraid to go anywhere or to do anything for fear of being deported. They are grievously exploited by unscrupulous employers who know that they can exploit their current situation. There must be an understanding that, if it is to be a civilised continent after 1992, something must be done about the underclass of people who are so abominably treated throughout Europe.
I deal with a large number of cases relating to immigration and asylum law in my constituency. Some of the unhappiest people who come to see me are those who came from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh—often many years ago—whose children and partners, usually the wives, are left behind at home. They go through the awful misery of the entry clearance queue, which can take years and years to be resolved. There is the misery of living on remittances sent home while somebody works extremely hard in this country and is denied the right of family reunion. That matter should be addressed far more vigorously by the British Government. The right of family reunion is clearly within the European convention.
There are also the rights of family union of asylum seekers. I raised that matter with the Home Secretary during an intervention. At the moment, a group of Kurdish asylum seekers are camped outside the Home Office, demanding the right of family reunion. Most of them have been here since 1989, when they fled oppression in Turkey and sought asylum in this country. Their applications are being proceesed. In the meantime, their families are extremely vulnerable at home. The plight of
64
families who may not themselves merit asylum within the terms of the 1951 Geneva convention or indeed any other legislation at least deserves consideration.
The 1951 Geneva convention was drawn up in a different atmosphere in a different time. It was drawn up because large numbers of people were seeking political asylum in various countries. They were usually from what is now eastern Europe or the former Soviet Union. The movement of people in search of political asylum has changed. It is now third-world countries that are having to support refugees who have sought asylum. Often, their own regimes drive people out. People have been driven out of Somalia, Zaire, Ethiopia and other African countries. In the past, people have been driven out of Chile and, more recently, El Salvador. There is a range of countries that people have to leave in order to seek their own safety.
We must recognise the right to seek political safety. We also have the responsibility to ensure that they are able to get to that safety. Many of them, tragically, do not. We have a duty to play our part in ensuring that people seek political asylum. We also have a duty to pursue a foreign policy objective that does not give succour and comfort to the most oppressive regimes.
Throughout the time that he was in power before the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was not heavily criticised by the British Government—no way. People were fleeing Saddam Hussein from the time he came to power. I am glad to say that some of them managed to obtain political asylum in this country. Saddam Hussein was given arms, aid, ammunition and credit by western European Governments, and he was not alone in that. We should seek to be a little more rational and reasonable.
One of my constituents from Turkey sought political asylum in this country. He was threatened with deportation, and he never went hack; the reason he did not go back was that he committed suicide. He took his own life rather than go back. His name was Siho lyogouen. I hope that, in memory of such people, who felt that they could not cope any more, we will have a slightly more humane attitude to asylum seekers than the Asylum Bill or many Conservative Members appear to have.
6.25 pm
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to say a few words about a subject that is very important to my constituents. I feel some sadness in taking part in a debate for the last time with my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison). There is no doubt that, in 1974, when I was first elected to the House, there was a widespread feeling, certainly in my constituency and in many others, that there was a comfortable consensus between the Tory and Labour Front Benches, dominated most of all by Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who treated Lord Whitelaw, as he has become, with kindly condescension—a kindly condescension which, on the whole, Lord Whitelaw accepted.
It was a large part of my political life to make it plain that Wolverhampton and the west midlands demanded tighter controls on immigration. Those who suggested that there should be tighter controls on immigration were regarded as most disagreeable and uncivilised racists. Although it was always thought to be a political necessity, it was always thought to be extremely vulgar to suggest that necessity. In the course of those activities, I spent

65
much time criticising my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, who was at his most distinguished when he was Lord Whitelaw's understrapper at the Home Office. Having spent much time criticising my right hon. Friend, I am bound to say that even though it may be that some of the loopholes have been left unblocked, my right hon. Friend's overall objective has been achieved.
My right hon. Friend did not come to the problem with the same interests and prejudices with which I came to it. He came, most of all, from a liberal standpoint, but he recognised at an early stage that good race relations depend upon tight controls on immigration and that such tight controls must be understood to be in position by all parts of the community, both by the indigenous white population and also by the new immigrants. It is a tribute to my right hon. Friend's political career that, to a great extent, the policy that he has put in place has worked and that tension has much diminished.
One of the difficult matters that my right hon. Friend had to decide concerned the arranged marriage, the relationship between this country and India, the important historic ties that all of us felt—my family had soldiered in India for some generations, and I think that I understand them as well as anybody—and the difference between the attractions of the love marriage and the arranged marriage, which is often a more stable relationship than the so-called western love marriage.
There are the problems which occur among young Asian girls who are torn between their strong family religion and culture and the new culture in which they are brought up at school. There is the agony of those westernised girls who believe that they can have a love marriage, but who find themselves forced into an arranged marriage, sometimes at financial advantage to their families. Those are all difficult problems but, in general, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury struck the right balance. I like to think that we helped him to achieve it, by prodding him all the way. That balance has more or less stuck.
It is perhaps rather dangerous to suggest, as Labour does, that there can be a major change in immigration law, because that gives the impression to the indigenous community that there will be a relaxation when there will not. Alternatively, it is hypocritical and unkind to the Asian community for Labour to make such a suggestion. In general, that community has accepted the existing arrangements, and to give the impression that it will be much easier to gain entry to this country by an arranged marriage is dangerous.
All those questions involve difficult judgments in which conflicting principles must be weighed. That task is essentially one that should be accomplished by domestic legislation, which should take account of the country's conditions, and the conditions in which it ruled other parts of the globe. Legislation needs to reconcile different religions and different systems of government. That is neither an easy nor a precise art, but the present arrangements are more or less sustainable and have the effect of much reducing racial tension.
The EEC proposals illustrate the way in which our continental neighbours seek not, as I put it earlier, to muddle their way through on a step-by-step basis with a sovereign Parliament doing its best in the circumstances—being well aware that one Act may be inconsistent with another—but to proclaim great principles that they hold to be both absolute and immutable.
66
In paragraph 57 of the Commission's communication of 23 October 1991, Commissioner Bangemann states:
"There is also a pressing need to adopt common principles concerning the reuniting of families, taking account of fundamental rights such as are already enshrined in various areas of case law. The right to live with one's family is a fundamental right which cannot be denied by authorities."
Where does the primary purpose rule fit in there? What is a family? Is there such a thing as a fundamental right to join a family that may have been created by an arranged marriage? Does an arranged marriage have the same status in this country as it does in India, for example? Those are all issues on which the House ought to reach a decision. They ought not to be decided by the Commission. It is grossly arrogant for the Commission to present paragraph 57.
I hesitate to say this, but our system of muddling through, and of trying—in a decent and honourable, if perhaps illogical way—to reconcile great and difficult principles has not done too badly. We do not have quite the same reputation and history as Germany, for example, and in many respects we have a rather better history of muddling through difficulties than the French. For a Commissioner to tell us that there are certain immutable principles which ought to be applied to agonising decisions in all circumstances is grossly arrogant. It is dangerously arrogant because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) pointed out, there is—and I put it as high as this—a conspiracy between the Commission and the European Court of Justice whereby the EEC's proposed federal powers could be further extended. Let us have no more of that nonsense.
This country's cohesion and sense of community depend first of all on preserving tight but fair immigration controls. We may not have made a perfect job of that, and I dare say that there have been occasional cases of injustice. We shall need to keep muddling our way through in response to changing social conditions, but we must avoid above all the Commissioners' arrogant impertinence.
6.35 pm
Mr. Alistair Darling: As ever when we discuss European instruments, today's debate has been attended by some of the Government's most assiduous anti-Europeans. To give the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) his due, he attends all such debates. Today he said that immigration control was likely to go if the logic of the documents was followed to its conclusion. That is simply not true. No EEC member is advocating such a course. The opposite is happening throughout Europe. There is likely to be increasing co-operation, and more and more controls and procedures will become common, because that is the logic of the Single European Act, which a Conservative Government guillotined through the House five years ago.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman at least study the statements made by Mr. Bangemann, a copy of which I can let him have, in which that Commissioner urges individuals to challenge Britain's rights of control? It is clear that the Commission itself will be taking action after next January.
Mr. Darling: I have read those remarks, but the hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that, if Europe follows the single European market, obviously more and more

67
immigration and custom controls will become common. That does not mean that individual member states cannot maintain regimes to suit their particular requirements. We argue that, and so do the Government. There is common ground between us in that regard.
If there is to be a single European market, the logic is that there will be fewer frontier and other controls, but individual member states will be able to maintain their own immigration regimes to meet their own requirements. Every other member state recognises that. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southend, East acknowledges also that, in continental Europe in particular, there is a certain logic to reducing barriers between member states so that it will be easier to cross from one to another. There are immigration controls at Europe's external boundaries, but that does not mean that our own immigration rules and regulations cannot be maintained as we see fit.
As there is convergence in some cases and the application of individual rules in others, it will be open to the British Government to maintain our view that there ought to be frontier control around the United Kingdom, while at the same time accepting that there are implications in our membership of the Community.
This debate embraces both asylum and immigration. There is a difference. Asylum concerns the way in which we treat those who come to this country because they fear persecution, whereas immigration determines those laws and regulations that we impose in deciding who should and should not be allowed to enter this country. I emphasise that difference, because the two are often confused—particularly by Conservative Members.
First, let us look at the question of asylum. I think that we all accept that a major problem exists, in that a growing number of people are seeking asylum not only in the United Kingdom, but throughout the European Community. The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) mentioned that. Having heard his account of the trip undertaken by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, many hon. Members may want to become members of that Committee. It seems to be a case of "Join the Home Affairs Committee and see the world," given the hon. Gentleman's description of travels throughout Europe and helicopter excursions to see the extent of the problem.
Mr. Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Darling: I am sorry if all his travelling has aroused the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will wait for a moment.
I accept—as, I believe, do all hon. Members—that the EC in general faces a migration problem. Pressure will be exerted both by those who seek to escape the economic misfortunes which have befallen them, and by those who seek to escape persecution, starvation or some other threat. The question is not whether the threat exists, but how we should deal with it. That is the difference between the two sides.
Mr. Gale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, although I am not entirely certain that everyone would consider that standing freezing on the east German border constitutes a rest cure. The German Government treat any illegal immigrant—economic or otherwise—who arrives in the republic and asks for asylum as an asylum seeker, and pay benefit. That means
68
that, as well as receiving money, such people can travel to any country in the European Community without any further checks.
Mr. Darling: Two points arise from that. First, the Germans are in the process of changing their asylum regime, precisely because of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Secondly, if an individual is given the right of abode within a certain EC state, that does not guarantee the right to move around Europe as a whole. That is the main thrust of the debate.
Mr. Gale: There is no frontier.
Mr. Darling: There is a frontier around the United Kingdom, which both main parties—I cannot speak for the Liberal Democrats—want to maintain. Anyone wishing to enter the United Kingdom must be identified. EC members in continental Europe have chosen a different party: they have opted for reduced frontier controls, preferring to rely on identity cards. The hon. Gentleman favours the same option—although, to give him his due, he would like both frontier controls and identity cards.
Everyone accepts that a problem exists, and that it needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, as was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison), if we want to stop the problem at source, we must consider the nature of the regimes which cause people to move. Some regimes are so brutal that populations are terrorised into seeking to escape. We must also not forget the issue of economic development. That applies not only to the developing world, but to the countries mentioned by the hon. Member for Thanet, North—the former members of the eastern European bloc. Unless they are given economic assistance and encouragement, more and more people will be forced to try to escape from starvation or other privations, and to seek a better life. Immigration and asylum control can deal only with the tip of the problem, not with the root cause.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has made clear our position on the Asylum Bill. I cannot understand why the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was so defensive about the concessions that he made in Committee and subsequently—I should have thought that he would be only too pleased to claim credit for them. Certainly, the Government made concessions, some of which were forced on them.
In the case of the plan to scrap legal advice and assistance for those seeking asylum, for instance, they had no alternative because the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service simply could not have dealt with the provision of such assistance; the Government have now been obliged to climb down, and to ensure that it will be available. There were other concessions, however. For instance, there was the insertion into the Bill of an amendment having regard to the provisions of a United Nations convention, and further concessions relating to the rules.
I remind the House that the draft rules—both in terms of procedure, and in terms of the substantive immigration provisions—have to be read part and parcel with the Bill. During the four weeks in which we discussed the matter in Committee, those rules were probably mentioned more often than the Bill itself: without them, the Bill would not work.

69
The Under-Secretary of State should not be so reluctant to accept that concessions were made. I appreciate that some of his right-wing colleagues may wish to take their revenge, and he may not consider it very helpful of me to refer to the substantial concessions that he made. None the less, they were made.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook has made it clear that, if the Government want the Asylum Bill to go on to the statute book, they need only move a little further towards meeting the other objections expressed by the Opposition and by groups outside the House. Certain amendments will need to be made to a Bill which both sides agree must be introduced—for there is no doubt that an asylum Bill of some sort will be necessary to deal with the growing number of applications. The Government need only talk to us, and decide whether they can meet the outstanding objections set out by my right hon. Friend.
What has happened to the Bill? It would be interesting to find that out from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. If the Government set such store by the legislation—I believe that it was described as flagship legislation in the autumn—why have they let it run into the sand in the House of Lords? They are responsible for Government business here and in the other place. If the Bill is so important, why was it just left in the House of Lords?
I understand that the Committee stage does not even start until the end of next week, just four days before we expect the Prime Minister to announce that he is going to the country. It is very odd that a Bill in which the Home Secretary took such an interest in July, and at the Tory party conference, has apparently been allowed to die the death in the House of Lords. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will tell us when we can expect to see it return —if, indeed, it is to return.
The second strand of today's debate has been the question of immigration procedures. I repeat the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook about the way in which we discuss such matters. The hon. Member for Southend, East and others have complained bitterly about the way in which the EC draws up regulations and expects member states to follow them. I find it just as invidious that such matters should be dealt with by means of discussions between the appropriate Ministers and the EC.
In one of the most recent documents to emerge from the Commission in Brussels, attention is drawn to the fact that much criticism has been made of the way in which discussions have often been made in secret. Information about the discussions which took place in the Schengen and Trevi groups of Ministers has tended to come out by accident rather than by design. It would be far better if Ministers were prepared to make statements in the House after entering into agreements on behalf of this country, so that they could be questioned and, if necessary, challenged. Certainly, my party will undertake to do that in future.
I believe—this is directly relevant to the discussions that have taken place—that, if we are to discuss the visa regime, two points should be borne in mind. First, I think that it is more likely than not that the use of visas will increase in the EC, rather than decreasing; but, if we are to have visas, it is surely essential for them to be granted far more quickly than at present, so that urgent visits can be carried out without people having to wait several months to find out whether a visa will be granted.
Secondly, if a visa is granted, I feel that it should carry
70
the right of entry. At present, an individual who obtains a visa and comes to the country is frequently refused entry, possibly for one of the reasons that were canvassed at the time of the initial application. Surely it would be better either to exercise control at the frontier, or—if we are to use visas—to make it clear that, if a visa is granted, the country will be expected to honour the issue of that visa.
As I said earlier, we intend to maintain frontier control. Given that this is an island, there is a certain logic in such action. As and when the channel tunnel starts to operate, however, we may—I use the word advisedly—have to review the position. If the logic of the tunnel is to work, it would be absurd to empty the train of passengers when it arrives at Dover, Waterloo or Stratford, if the nations and regions of the United Kingdom are to benefit. The Government will have to consider that eventually—although, thanks to the present Government's lack of progress and preparedness for the tunnel, it may not arise for some years.
If we abandon frontier controls, the logic of the introduction of identity cards will become overwhelming. Identity cards are unnecessary and will create more difficulties than they will solve. Individual freedom should not be infringed any more than is necessary. I should have thought that the Conservative party, which introduced the poll tax, might think long and hard before introducing another measure that would be as much resented as the poll tax was. That may be why the Home Secretary, who had a hand in the poll tax if I am not mistaken, has at least shied away from that proposal.
The hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) advocated the carrying of identity cards. I do not want my whole life to be reduced to a magnetic strip on a plastic card. I do not want to carry an identity card, because it is not necessary for me to do so. Those who advocate identity cards should think long and hard before continuing to do so.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook made an important point on family unity. A Frenchman or a German has more rights to family unity in this country than an Englishman, a Scotsman or a Welshman has. I remind the House that it was not long ago that the Government introduced a measure to allow EC nationals to come here not only with their spouses, but with their dependants. Few Conservative Members were present, but I remember the legislation going through the House. It is ludicrous that British citizens are disadvantaged in that way.
The position of third-country nationals should be considered. I am not sure what the solution is. It is odd that someone who has lived in this country for 30 or 40 years, but who has, perhaps for reasons of sentiment, kept his original passport—such as a Jamaican passport—can be stopped before leaving this country to go to France, for example. The right hon. Member for Aylesbury said that the remedy was to acquire British citizenship. I accept that, but I believe that, if there is no objective difference between that individual now and that individual once he has acquired citizenship, it is logical to consider making his life easier without his having to take that step.
When this country assumes the EC presidency later this year, it should take the opportunity to consider certain matters. If the common frontier regime is implemented with a common information system, under which someone who is stopped at Athens will, in effect, be refused entry to the whole of western Europe, counter-balancing rights

71
such as freedom of information legislation across Europe must be given to citizens so that people can see what information is held on them.
Sir John Wheeler rose—
Mr. Darling: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait a moment.
Data protection legislation is also essential to ensure that information is not wrongly held on individuals which discriminates against them. If there are to be controls, there must be corresponding rights.
The right hon. Member for Aylesbury commented that the debate has been conducted without rancour and said that he hoped that the matter would not be party political, especially during the election. He should tell that to Conservative central office, to the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and to the Home Secretary. All these matters would be dealt with far better on the basis of consensus and without party politics. That would benefit many people in this country and in the rest of Europe. There is common ground if only there is a will to find it. We have made it clear that we are prepared to consider a satisfactory regime on asylum which would suit all of us. I hope that the Government are equal to that challenge.
Sir John Wheeler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Hon. Members: He has finished.
6.55 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): Before I respond to the specific points raised in the debate—which, although it was no doubt fully in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at times took wing quite beyond the two documents of which we are taking note—I will reiterate the general points that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made about the provenance of the documents.
He said that they were communications from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament. They give the Commission's views on matters which are not within the competence of the treaty of Rome and which cannot, therefore, be proposals for Community action or the basis for Community decision. They were designed as discussion papers for use in preparing for the Maastricht summit. Although the Commission has no responsibility in asylum and immigration matters, there was a strong lobby for transferring those matters from national Governments to the competence of the treaty of Rome, and thus of the Commission and the European Court.
One of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's signal successes at Maastricht was to ensure that these matters, apart from the list of visa countries, remain with national Governments. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and others should take some comfort. Family reunion policy has not gone to Mr. Bangemann; it remains with national Governments. The new treaty will confirm that immigration and asylum continue to be matters for intergovernmental co-operation, although discussion and decision will be more coherently structured in the interior
72
and justice pillar which is being created. That means that Governments will decide by unanimity. They will thus remain responsible to national Parliaments.
Although decisions will continue to belong to national Governments, with no obligation to concur with measures that they judge not to be in their countries' interests, there is general acceptance that in the matter of immigration and asylum, all the countries of Europe face, in different ways and to different degrees, the same pressures and difficulties. It makes sense to consider them together and, when appropriate, to act together. I am glad to say that that seemed to be the view of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), if I understood him correctly.
There is a programme of work, endorsed by Governments at Maastricht, on which the Interior and Justice Ministers will embark. The comprehensive agenda is summarised on pages 4 to 10 in the Immigration Ministers' report to the Maastricht summit. That is a heavy programme of work and it is unlikely to be completed for some years. At this stage, it is not possible to say what changes the decisions will bring in train to our current rules and practices.
The spirit in which we enter the discussions is pragmatic and positive. We do not seek, and we will not agree to, harmonisation merely for its own sake, but we believe that there is advantage to us in a common approach to common problems. We shall be anxious to find agreement with our partners when it is helpful for us to do so.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) asked about the progress of the Asylum Bill. Its Committee stage is down for 13 and 17 March. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there must be gaps between various stages in the other place in which the normal business can be brought forward. It is possible with the agreement of both sides somewhat to concertina the process, so there is just time for the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to ensure that the Bill is on the statute book before the general election, if they put their deathbed repentance into practice.
I enjoyed the claim by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that he and his hon. Friends have forced fundamental changes to the Asylum Bill. If that enables him to support the Bill at this late stage, I shall be happy. He showed, as usual, an imperfect grasp of what is in the Bill. I realise that he has to fill his speeches with reports of famous victories. If he cares to puff himself up like a bullfrog and call a clarification a concession, that is up to him. It looked only risible to us, but it may impress some of his hon. Friends and some journalists who have not followed the Bill.
I noted that the right hon. Gentleman appeared to want to weaken the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, the primary purpose rule and the Asylum Bill. Everything that he advocated would reduce the effectiveness of our immigration controls. There was nothing in what he said that gave any confidence on that score.
I was interested in what my hon. friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) said about identity cards as a guarantee of freedom. I merely remark that no European country which has had identity cards for long finds that they are particularly effective in dealing with illegal immigration. Other countries have their own means and their different practices. But they all have greater problems than we have.
The hon. Member for Greenock—
Dr. Godman: Greenock, not "Grennock".
Mr. Lloyd: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to Greenock. The Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) was worried about the position of non-Community nationals in the EC. That is an issue to be addressed by the interior and justice pillar. We want to achieve an arrangement by which those people can at least move around as visitors from the Community if they have established residency in a Community country. We believe that that will be a great advantage and that our minority groups should enjoy that right. However, of course, in Britain they have the opportunity to become British citizens when they have been here for the requisite period.
It being Seven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [21 February].
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8810/91, relating to the right of asylum and 8811/91, relating to immigration and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Home Office on 27th February 1992; endorses the Government's view that harmonisation of substantive immigration and asylum policies among the Member States of the European Community should be taken forward inter-governmentally outside the Treaty of Rome; and welcomes the wide recognition of this principle at Maastricht.

Sittings of the House
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]
[Proposed subject for debate: Report from the Select Committee on Sittings of the House (HC20].
7 pm
Mr. Michael Jopling: The topic for the debate tonight is the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House.
Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your advice on how wide the debate can go? An Adjournment Debate allows fairly wide discussion. I wonder whether the debate is limited simply to the points in the report.
Mr. Speaker: An Adjournment debate is wide, but it is, of course, limited to the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House.
Mr. Jopling: The Select Committee was set up last July and the report was laid before the House a week last Friday. I begin by expressing my gratitude to the members of the Committee, who were extremely hard-working and co-operative. We had 17 meetings in the short time that the Committee was in existence. We have several extremely busy people on the Committee, including the chairman of the 1922 Committee, the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure. We also had two extremely helpful ladies who told us about the problems of lady members. We received a great deal of evidence, for which we are grateful. We were supported by an excellent team of Clerks, led by Mr. Sweetman.
One of the first matters which the Committee had very much in mind was that, when considering altering parliamentary procedure, it is important to seek to do it on the basis of consensus. Many hon. Members will recall that the lack of consensus was probably the reason why the Crossman experiment failed so dismally—I remember it well from when I first entered the House. So I am pleased to report that we have an agreed report. Several votes were taken in coming to that conclusion, but the House will notice from the report that in not one of those votes was the Committee split entirely along party lines. So there was a great deal of agreement, and at the end the report was unanimous.
The first step that we took was to issue a questionnaire to Members. We had a large response—probably the largest of all time. Strong feelings were expressed. It reflected the basic background to the work of the House, which we included in our report. It is that the House of Commons sits for more days and more hours than any other legislative body in any of the large democracies.
In the strongest expression of view, 83 per cent. of those who responded to the questionnaire said that they wanted fewer late night sittings. We all hear continual complaints about the fact that Parliament sometimes sits all night. People say, "How can you reach sensible decisions at 4 am?" Therefore, the Committee's central conclusion is that the main business should end in future at 10 pm. We would like the Government to declare their intention to do that at the start of each Session. Under our proposals, some business could continue after 10 pm, but we hope

75
that that will be rare and that normally the only business after 10 pm would be Divisions arising from the business up until 10 pm, and the half-hour Adjournment.
Most Members were happy with the existing balance between the time allocated to the Government, the Opposition and private Members. I hope that the report reflects that continuing balance. If the recommendations of the report are implemented, as I hope, there might be one exception to that balance: the report is very much a charter for the Back Bencher. We have proposed that we should extract various pieces of private Members' business —namely, the Consolidated Fund Bill, private Members' motions, the three-hour recess debates and the final day recess Adjournment debates. Some of that business goes on before 10 pm and some goes on after 10 pm. Some of it goes on all night. We believe that it should be extracted and put on during prime time on Wednesday mornings in a sitting beginning at 10 'am and ending at 2.30 pm, when Question Time would start in the normal way.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Has the Committee considered the implications of the sittings of the new European Committees, which always sit on Wednesday mornings and already face competition from other events?
Mr. Jopling: That is a good argument for never having morning sittings, and we considered it. But we felt that Wednesday morning might be an appropriate time for private Members' business, because there would be no need for heavy ministerial presence or heavy whipping, and at the same time and there would he the minimum disruption to the line of route.
Mr. David Clelland: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jopling: No. The Committee has recommended that speeches by those introducing debates should be no longer than 20 minutes, and I do not intend to get caught on that one.
The Committee examined the possibility of moving the whole parliamentary day forward to start at 11.30 am. We decided against it, for very much the reasons that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) just mentioned. It would be a mistake to start at 11.30 am, with questions from 11.30 am to 12.30 pm, statements from 12.30 to 1 pm or 1.30 pm, at a time, particularly on Tuesday and Thursday mornings, when up to 200 Members may be engaged upstairs in the Standing and Select Committees.
Mr. Clelland: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jopling: No, I will not give way. I may give way a little later, but I must get on now.
It was the view of the Committee that that great opportunity in prime time for private Members to raise matters that concern them, together with the 24 hours under the new procedure which we believe will be necessary in future for private Bills, almost exactly matches the present period provided in the once-a-week four-and-a-half-hour sessions.
The Committee's proposals largely maintain the remaining balance between Government and Opposition time in the business of the House. Of course, there will be
76
a considerable loss of time if we do not sit after 10 pm. Therefore, the Committee suggested that, to compensate in part, we should shorten some of the set-piece debates. It recommended that the Queen's Speech debate should be shortened by one day, the Budget debate by one day, the debates on the armed services by one day, other Government debates by two days and the total of Opposition days by another two days. That would reduce those set-piece debates by seven days.
Therefore, paragraph 61 states that 71 hours of business would be lost if the House did not sit after 10 o'clock. The Committee has suggested a number of ways in which that can be made up, principally by more widespread timetabling of Bills after Second Reading. I hope that hon. Members will distinguish between timetabling and guillotining, which is a different matter, is by order of the Government, and would remain.
We propose that timetabling should either be arranged by a new Committee—set to take care of it—or that each Standing Committee could allot time for all stages of the Bill. Ultimately, the progress of Bills would remain in the hands of the Government.
I must draw hon. Members' attention to the part of our report where we state that we would deplore it if the Government of the day used the device of timetabling to put more Bills into the system.
Mr. Clelland: I should like the right hon. Member to expand on two matters. First, I believe that he is saying that one of the reasons for not having an 11.30 am start would be the complication of having Question Time when many hon. Members are in Committee. Surely that could take place at the normal time of 2.30 pm, even if the main business in the House started at 11.30am. Has the Committee considered that? Secondly, in an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that morning sittings would clash with Committees, but they meet in the afternoons at 4 o'clock now, and that does not seem to prevent us from carrying on with business.
Mr. Jopling: Yes, but in general afternoon Committees meet when essential business on the Floor of the House —Question Time and statements—is over. We considered the hon. Member's other proposition, but we arrived at this consensus and I hope that the House will approve it.
Other time-saving measures would be: first, to refer affirmative statutory instruments upstairs automatically; and secondly, to limit statutory instruments and European documents to one and half hours, regardless of the time at which they begin. Thirdly, we suggest wider discretion for the Speaker to apply the ten-minute rule Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, the 10-minutes rule."] I am sorry, I meant the 10-minutes rule on speeches.
Finally, Ministers should be encouraged to make shorter speeches, and we recommend the abolition of the second Adjournment debate.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jopling: I must get on. The hon. Gentleman kindly gave evidence to the Committee.
The Committee was conscious of Members' responsibilities to their families. During our deliberations, we heard a good deal about the point of view of women, and we thought a great deal about it. The Committee was

77
anxious to implant more certainty into the parliamentary year. For that reason, we decided that we would recommend that, early in the Session, 10 Fridays should be designated when the House would not sit, so that Members could make firm appointments in their diaries to visit schools or other institutions which do not function on Saturdays, and would know that they were not likely to have to cancel such appointments, as such cancellations are often not understood.
We also recommend that, on the Thursday preceding Fridays when we do not sit, business should end at 7 o'clock. I believe that that would be for the convenience of the House. I know that many hon. Members cannot get home if they do not get away by 7 o'clock on Thursday or after a vote at 10 o'clock. If they have to go home the following day, the morning is practically over before they get back to their constituencies. I believe that that change would be very much in Members' interests.
We recommend other changes which would make the parliamentary timetable more certain. The Leader of the House should announce at the start of the Session firm dates for the Christmas, Easter, and Whitsun recesses. We believe that a date should be set for rising in the summer, around mid-July. If necessary, we could return during September and October to complete business lost in July. The Leader of the House should start an experiment to announce two weeks business in advance on Thursdays to give us better warning of what is to happen.
Ms. Harriet Harman: I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned family responsibilities, because that is one reason why there are so few women in the House. Does he recognise that, while the report is a step in the right direction, if we are to make the House more representative of women, we must have more radical reform?
Mr. Jopling: The Committee was somewhat disappointed that, although around 69 per cent. of Members responded to our questionnaire, unfortunately only 59 per cent. of the ladies responded, which we found rather strange.
The Committee has tried hard not to erect buffers in parliamentary procedures, such as an absolute rule that business would end at 10 o'clock or at any other time, or a firm decision to rise on a specific date in July, because we were aware that, if one puts up a buffer in terms of time, one provides a clear challenge for the Opposition of the day to drive the Government into those buffers.
To sum up, the Committee has devised rules to allow the House to proceed with its business as effectively as it does now, recognising the rights of both Government and Opposition, within a modern, sensible time scale. That is the core of our report, which follows fairly closely the advice that we were given helpfully by the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, to whom we are grateful. It follows closely on what they advised us individually.
I hope that the report will be acceptable now and after the election, when I hope it will be discussed again quickly, and I commend it to the House.
7.18 pm
Mr. Stanley Orme: I welcome the report as a member of the Select Committee. The proposals are extremely modest. I am not a revolutionary. We must be
78
careful when we consider the procedures of the House and consider taking one brick out. If we are not careful, without that brick we may bring the place down.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Show me the brick.
Mr. Orme: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall do just that.
The report and hon. Members' experience show that, with each new Parliament, each new group of Members is dissatisfied with the procedures of the House or how it is run.
These proposals are modest, and include two or three central points. One is that Members do not see any value in sitting through the night, as we have often done night after night. Our electorate think that we are made to do it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It does not serve any political purpose at the end of the Session. Moreover, as we know, the Government get their business through in any case. We considered that, and have recommended that we should finish at 10 pm on most evenings. That should be the norm, although sometimes it will have to be extended. That is one of the central recommendations of the report.
Linked with that is the proposal that we should know the length of a Session and the dates of recesses. We should have advance information. We should finish in mid-July. That is of particular importance to Members with young families. That is another central recommendation.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the recommendation of an experiment with morning sittings on Wednesday is worthy, and we should take it into account. We considered bringing the whole parliamentary day forward to start at 11.30 am, but there was not a consensus within the Committee for it. I assure her that some of us argued for such a proposal.
We concluded that, where possible, on Thursdays we should finish at 7 or 7.30 pm. It is proposed that that should happen on 10 Thursdays throughout the year, and that on the following Friday there should be no business. The media do not seem to realise that the work of a Member of Parliament is changing.
Mr. Skinner: Where are they?
Mr. Orme: I agree with my hon. Friend: the media are not here.
Constituency pressures are increasing rather than decreasing. Consequently, members are expected to deal with an increasing number of constituency cases. It is not always possible to do so at the weekend, as schools, businesses, factories, shops and so on are not always open. It is important to have Friday for that. We are not saying that Members should have more time off; we are saying that Members should deploy their time more intelligently. Frankly, our time is not employed intelligently now.
The timetabling of Bills is a controversial issue. We need a more intelligent approach to Standing Committees on Bills. Over the years, I have spent time battling my way through those Committees, and we need to change our approach. Sometimes we spend hundreds of hours in Committee, and to what useful purpose? At the end of the day, the Government of the day get their legislation through, however much it is opposed. The Opposition

79
have a right to oppose it as strongly as possible. That happens now. We need to give serious consideration to Standing Committees.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Of course there is an abuse of the Standing Committee system. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that occasionally, in particular when outside bodies give us expert opinions, a Government can be highly embarrassed, or potentially embarrassed, in Committee? Does he further agree that wholesale timetabling, as distinct from selective time-tabling, would reduce that? As the report states that timetabling will tilt the balance to the advantage of the Government, does my hon. Friend think that Back-Bench Members or the public would think that that would keep powers in this House rather than in Whitehall?
Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and we discussed the matter in detail in the Committee. There is no easy answer. Therefore, we have suggested that timetabling might be considered by the Standing Committee itself: if it is prepared to timetable the Bill, it could do so. I should like Select Committees to interview witnesses before such debates. The difficulty about that suggestion is that the Government of the day, irrespective of who they are, are opposed to it. There is a conflict between Back-Bench Members who, rightly, want these matters discussed, and the Government, who say, "No, no. We are not having that. We want to get the business through."
Mr. David Blunkett: Further to that point, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is of no advantage to the Opposition or to pressure groups dealing with them to debate anything until 4 am or 5 am? Perhaps I am slightly influenced by the fact that I have had two doses of that on two major Bills this Session. My hon. Friend has much more experience than me, so he has had to put up with this for a great deal longer. Is it not now time that we say to new Members before they become accustomed to the place that they show their radicalism and change our procedures from those of the 19th century to those of the 21st century?
Mr. Orme: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention. I hope that I am not taking a no-change attitude on account of my experience. Indeed, I want to see change, and I believe that the pressure for change will be greater than ever in the next Parliament.
On that basis, I recommend the report to the House. It is possible to implement its recommendations before the general election, but I hope that after the election these modest proposals will be put into effect. Let us see how Parliament can carry these proposals forward next Session.
7.27 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on the way in which he chaired the Select Committee and on the report that he has produced for the consideration of the House.
First, let me answer the question raised by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) about lady Members. We spent a lot of time in Committee considering
80
how to address the need to encourage more ladies to become Members of the House. One of the points that was made very definitely to us was that morning sittings would not encourage young mothers into the House. They are much more able to have time with their children in the morning than in the evening when their children are in bed. We considered that the present hours of the House might well be more helpful to young mothers than a major change.
Secondly, as is obvious from some voices in this House, a small number of Members are well able to frustrate the working of the House, without any reform. Too often a few voices have stopped reform when a large majority of Members, not attending this debate, are in favour of the report and would like to see its recommendations implemented.
Before I consider the report, I wish to deal with two matters to which it does not refer. By its terms of reference, the Committee was precluded from examining the size of the House of Commons. We are the largest parliamentary assembly or congress in the free world. I accept that Germany has had to bring together in the Bundestag members from east and west, but it will reduce that number by the emergency resolution on the amalgamation.
There is no doubt that the House sits more days and longer hours than any other Parliament. I wonder whether it would not be more convenient for the country and the House if, after the next election, the House were made up not of 651 hon. Members but of only 450.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Why?
Sir Peter Emery: Because many of the problems that arise would come to nothing if there were fewer hon. Members. It may be difficult to get chickens to vote for chicken pie, but if Parliament decided to order the Boundary Commission to achieve that in 10 years' time, through wastage, positive thinking could bring that about.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: My hon. Friend suggests 200 fewer hon. Members, but how many people know who their MEP is? I do not, and, do not need to. Constituents want their individual problems to be dealt with and that is an important job of an hon. Member. If there are fewer hon. Members, those individual problems will be dealt with less well.
Sir Peter Emery: I am not surprised that my hon. Friend does not know who his MEP is, but that is another matter. My hon. Friend has not taken into consideration the fact that, when the House was made up of 450 hon. Members, hon. Members were frequently able to deal with the constituency size that resulted. Bill van Straubenzee was a good example of such an hon. Member.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Bill who?
Sir Peter Emery: The Select Committee on the Sittings of the House did not give enough thought to the fact that the work load of a Member of Parliament has vastly altered. The amount of constituency correspondence and the demands on the Member to be in the constituency has altered so much since I first came to the House in 1959. I was then the Member for Reading and worked in Parliament. Today, an hon. Member is meant to be the Member of Parliament in the constituency.

81
The demands of the work load of the House have changed considerably, and our sitting hours make it very difficult for an hon. Member representing a constituency a long way from Westminster to spend time in his constituency on a Friday. That is why the Committee recommended that the House should not sit on at least 10 Fridays. We shall have to consider the sitting hours of the House again before long when the House reassembles after the election.
The report contains 13 recommendations, and the majority of them have been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. Of the 13 recommendations, seven were recommendations made to the House by the Select Committee on Procedure over the past three years. They include the recommendations on the allocation of time, affirmative resolutions for Standing Committees, those on statutory instruments and European documents, shorter speeches from the Front Benches—something that the House might accept—length of the parliamentary calendar, greater latitude for Mr. Speaker to use the 10-minute limit, and second Adjournments.
As an aside to the Lord President, I suggest that the reports of the Procedure Committee should be debated far more quickly than they have been in the past. I give my right hon. Friend the greatest praise because he has done more to implement the reports of that Committee than any other Leader of the House for a long time. My right hon. Friend deserves credit for that.
Is the House willing to consider some reform? To suggest that the reforms proposed by the Committee are a major revolution is nonsense. They are just a small move forward. One thing that I have learnt as Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure—Chairman for longer than any other hon. Member since the great war—is that it takes considerable time to change our procedures. We move slowly. Such matters need to be considered and thought out with great care, but most of the Committee's recommendations have been around for a long time.
I believe that it is right and proper to move in that direction, and I believe that the opportunity to do so will arise after the next general election. I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House to give a commitment to reconsider this matter immediately the House returns after the election. I also ask the Leader of the House to ensure that the Clerk and the Clerks' Department have ready for us all the alterations in the Standing Orders that would be necessary for us to proceed. If my right hon. Friend, whatever position he may subsequently hold, urges that this matter be dealt with swiftly after the election, he should know that the members of the Procedure Committee will give every support to try to ensure that the changes are introduced.
7.36 pm
Mr. John Garrett: The House of Commons sits for more days in the year and for more hours in the day than any other legislature in the western world. The American Senate and the Canadian House of Commons sit for half as long, while the Parliaments of France, Germany and Italy sit for one third as long as we do.
One matter not addressed in what I consider to be a timid and disappointing report is why we sit for so many hours. It has been held that we scrutinise more detailed
82
legislation than any other legislature. The report does not consider what increase or diminution in hours is likely in future because of, for example, the transfer of legislative powers to the European Council. I assume that that transfer of powers must be accompanied by a movement of powers of scrutiny to the European Parliament. Those issues were not put properly in context.
The report contains a number of worthwhile proposals. I agree with the timetabling of Government Bills, which would put an end to the absolutely fruitless guillotine debates. The guillotine was used 22 times between 1945 and 1977. In the 11-year reign of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) it was used 66 times and she had the nerve to lecture us not so long ago about the supremacy of Parliament. We did not see much of that when her boot was on Parliament's neck. I also agree with the earlier announcement of recesses and the proposal to rise in mid-July. I believe that we should finish even earlier and come back earlier in the autumn.
The 10 sitting-free Fridays are tokenism. How many hon. Members attend the House for more than a handful of Fridays anyway? The Friday concession is a diversion from the real issue of whether Parliament should work normal hours.
Parliament was much more robust about such matters 25 years ago. The Procedure Committee of 1966 considered different ways in which the hours of the House could be reduced. In the end, the Committee settled for moving some business to two mornings a week. The Leader of the House, Mr. Richard Crossman, set out a number of proposals for change, including trial morning sittings. I must say that Richard Crossman was a real Leader of the House, unlike some of the recent holders of that title who have seemed to behave like major-domos of the Cabinet. The result was that the House decided to meet on Monday and Wednesday mornings from 10 am to 12.30 pm.
Mr. Crossman intelligently observed that opposition to the proposals came from hon. Members who saw the experiment as
"the thin end of the wedge which, if driven home …. might exclude the part-time MP from the House altogether."
There are probably more part-time MPs now than there were then but the matter is delicately skirted in the report. On 14 December 1966, Crossman said:
"Up till now, if we are frank, our time-table has been designed to suit the convenience of those part-timers who earn their living outside in the mornings and the whole-timers, often without these economic advantages, have had to lump it ….is it not time we gave some consideration to the needs of those who keep the House of Commons going during the morning hours when the part-timers are earning their living?" —[Official Report, 14 December 1966; Vol. 738, c. 492–93.]
As the House knows, Crossman's experiment failed because filibustering by Conservative Members kept the House up late at night, as it had been before. Despite the morning sittings, the extent of late night sittings increased. As Crossman pointed out, the Government gained from the experiment. In 46 short morning sittings, they secured 20 Second Readings, 12 Committee stages, 18 Report stages and Third Readings, 24 orders and four considerations of Lords amendments.
It is always alleged that there was not enough business for the Crossman morning sessions, but that simply is not true. They were destroyed by Conservative Members who wanted to earn their livings outside the House in the mornings.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Garrett: No. I have sworn to Mr. Speaker that I shall speak for only 10 minutes.
The same matter was raised by the so-called "epoch-making" Procedure Committee of 1977–78. In that Committee, which introduced the present arrangements on Select Committees and on which the present Home Secretary, the present Chancellor and Mr. Enoch Powell served, I moved an amendment to that epoch-making report. I shall quote it because it is always worth recycling good material:
"We consider that the work of an assiduous Member of Parliament has increased so greatly that it should now be seen as a full-time job and that the arrangement of Parliamentary sittings to enable members to pursue outside employment on the excuse that they need to 'keep in touch' with the everyday world of the Courts and the City is contradictory to our idea of a modern and effective Parliamentary system … The present hours of the House are also a deterrent to legislative efficiency, and are probably harmful to health and disruptive of family life. We therefore propose that the general rule should be that the House should meet in the mornings, afternoons and evenings up to 7.30 pm and not at night. We are convinced that the present pattern of sittings is quite unnecessary, that it is left over from a more leisurely age when Parliament was dominated by the tradition of the gentleman amateur."
The vote on that amendment was a tie, with Labour Members voting for it and Conservative and Liberal Members voting against it. The Labour Chairman—a lawyer—used his casting vote to defeat it.
We shall never be an effective legislature while so many hon. Members have outside careers. I leave aside the conflict of interests that can arise, particularly given the growth of parliamentary lobbyists and public relations consultants. Until we have full-time Members of Parliament, we shall never have adequate accommodation, equipment and facilities.
I agree with my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House that there should be morning sittings from 10.30 am, that 7 pm should be the end of the main business on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, and that we should not sit on Fridays. I expect a Labour Government to offer the House a vote on those matters. Actually, a vote is not necessary, because Crossman left behind a Standing Order that could still be activated to convene the House at 10 am.
A further matter is the gruesome business of dying or very ill Members being inspected by Whips for signs of life —[Laughter.] It is true. They are brought into the House by ambulance and inspected by Whips to see whether they show any signs of life before they can be counted as able to vote. The Procedure Committee recommended 32 years ago that that practice should end.
I should like hon. Members to read—I do not have time to read it now—a letter from the Leader of the House to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, in appendix 11, page 169 of the Select Committee's report. It is entitled "Proxy voting for seriously ill Members". They will see that it is a masterpiece of double-talk. I cannot conceive why the Leader of the House could not agree to proxy voting for terminally or seriously ill Members. To require them to be brought in by ambulance and have their pulses felt by Whips to see whether they can vote is simply grotesque. I do not know how the Leader of the House could write such a letter.
84
All that bears out the conclusion to which I have come in the past couple of years—many of the powers of the Leader of the House over our domestic arrangements should be transferred to the Speaker. We are too much under the Government's thumb, and this is another example of it.
7.46 pm
Mr. Paul Channon: Anyone who was in the House at the time of the Crossman experiment—many such hon. Members are here this evening—will agree that the description of it by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) was a travesty of the truth. The Crossman morning sittings were an utter disaster from start to finish. Moreover, the proof of the pudding was in the eating—subsequent Labour Governments never attempted to revive them, because they knew that they were a total disaster. The lesson to be learned from that is not that morning sittings are necessarily disastrous but that, when procedural reforms are rammed through against the wishes of a large minority in the House, they simply will not work.
As someone who did not sit on the Committee, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) because, when I read the list of Committee members, I thought that it was a miracle that he got them to agree unanimously to the report. Naturally, there were some Divisions in the middle of the Committee's proceedings, but the report's unanimous acceptance is an astonishing achievement.
My message tonight is that the House would be mad if it did not just say yes to the report, even it it thinks that it is a transitory measure. One day a Government may wish to make a more radical reforms. That will be fair enough, but the present reform is generally agreed by a large majority—certainly by a unanimous report of a Select Committee and, I suspect, by many hon. Members, including those who are not here this evening. Whoever is in power after the next general election should try the reform as an experiment, see what happens and then review the matter after a decent period, because the report is full of common sense.
We are in danger of talking about our own convenience in this debate. Surely the whole point is that we must combine our convenience with providing effective scrutiny over the Government. Our opinions are likely to change depending on whether we are in government or in opposition. I have known hon. Members' opinions to change radically when they have changed sides of the Chamber. One wants to be as objective as one can about how one would react on the other side of the House. I consider that the report is a good idea. In recent years, late night sittings, to which most hon. Members are opposed, are much less frequent. We have far fewer all-night sittings, which is a result of the House regulating itself, as it often does with great success.
When trying to reform the sittings of the House, there is a direct conflict of interest between two groups of hon. Members: those who live near to London and want to get home in the evenings and those who come from miles away and want to get home to the north or the south-west, having been stuck here all week. The latter are less interested in whether the House rises early. A compromise that would suit both parties now, even it it does not last, would too good to be true. Already, as a result of the

85
conflict between the two shades of Members, we have seen that in recent years parliamentary business is now far more concentrated on Tuesdays and Wednesdays than it was when I first came into the House. People complain about Divisions on Mondays and Thursdays now, whereas they were commonplace in the past. Indeed, we sometimes had Divisions on Fridays—
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: These days, we sometimes have Divisions on Fridays.
Mr. Channon: As my hon. Friend says, we occasionally have them now, but people mind. Nowadays, most hon. Members expect business to be concentrated into a long Tuesday, and a long Wednesday, if necessary. The practice in the House has changed considerably.
The most crucial proposal of all is the timetabling of all Bills. That is a good proposal, and I would think so even if I were in opposition. I can think of almost no occasion on which the Opposition have been able to stop a Bill by talking and talking. Perhaps the only exception was the Bill to reform the House of Lords, when the Labour Government of the day could not obtain a guillotine. I can think of no other example when a Bill was stopped by people talking, either in the Chamber or in Committee, for so long that the Government gave up. The proposal would meet the balance of advantages much better.
Governments are also against that proposal. They have been against the timetabling of all Bills, often because they think that they can get the legislation through the House quicker than a timetable would allow. In the not too distant past, the Select Committee on Procedure suggested the timetabling of Bills, but its proposal was turned down by large numbers of hon. Members. Some were Government Members, and I cannot imagine why they had such a sudden interest in the matter that evening.
Such a proposal would mean that the Opposition would have to change their tactics, but they have already. They would have to concentrate on the earlier half of the day—Question Time and Prime Minister's questions—which is exactly what happens at present. That practice has been very much encouraged by television.
It is clearly stated in the report that most Members think that the present length and balance of recesses is about right. However, I note that the Committee makes the happy suggestion that we should rise two weeks earlier in July. It also implies—I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said something different today—that it would be impossible to come back earlier in the autumn, so where would the two weeks be made up? Would they simply disappear? I should like to have some information on that important issue.
I agree with the suggestion of rising earlier in July. I think that it is intolerable for hon. Members, particularly Scottish Members, should be forced to take the recess so late that they have no time at all with their children during the school holidays.
Mr. Jopling: If my right hon. Friend would be kind enough to look at paragraph 85 of the report, he will see that the matter is mentioned here.
Mr. Channon: It states that it is for the House to decide, but it continues with other arguments as to why that would be pretty well impossible. I shall not weary the House by
86
reading the report, but it is an important issue that should be cleared up. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is right.
We all have different opinions, but the point that I feel most strongly about is that it is ridiculous that, in a modern Chamber, we do not know on a Wednesday afternoon what we shall be debating the following Tuesday. How can that be sensible? I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to let us have more notice of the business of the House. I am sure that he will try to do so—he may have already said that he will. It is terrible that Members do not know whether they have to be here or whether they can fulfil a constituency engagement or meet some other appointment.
Mr. Tony Banks: That applies to the general election.
Mr. Channon: That may be true, but it only happens every four or five years. I am talking about something that happens every week. The system works well in another place. However, I urge my right hon. Friend not only to allow us more notice of recesses—which would be good, and to our convenience—but, for the convenience of the House, to give notice of what the business may be two or three weeks in advance. Of course, in an emergency the business would have to be changed, but I suspect that that would happen infrequently.
As the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said, this is a modest report, but it has been accepted by a Select Committee representing all shades of opinion in the House. I suspect that many hon. Members accept it. Whichever party wins the election should experiment with the system for a year, see what happens and return to the subject after that period.
7.56 pm
Mr. James Wallace: I endorse the comments of the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). The proposal is modest and was no doubt achieved through compromise, and give and take by both sides. I accept what he said at the outset—that it is, perhaps, a transient report, but that we should implement it.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and the Committee on reaching an agreement so quickly, and I congratulate the Leader of the House on bringing the report before us so quickly. I would very much regret it and consider it a wasted opportunity, as well as a waste of time and effort, if we were not to implement some or all of the report's proposals if it can be shown, as it has so far in the debate—although I am sure that there is a long way to go—that they command widespread support throughout the House.
I find it difficult to object to many of the substantive proposals of the Committee, to which I gave evidence, bearing in mind the proposals that I submitted on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. We submitted the proposal that, on Mondays, the House should not start earlier than it does at present, because of the difficulties of Members getting here on time. We also suggested that, wherever possible, the House should try to finish its business by 7 pm on Thursdays. That proposal was substantially accepted, particularly in relation to those Thursdays when there was to be no sitting on the following day, Friday. We

87
recommended that, even on other Thursdays, every effort should be made to allow Members to leave that evening if possible.
We suggested that Friday sittings should be abandoned, to allow Members more time to be in their constituencies, when offices, factories and schools were open. Alternatively, we suggested adopting the Australian method, whereby alternate Fridays and Mondays are taken off to give extended weekends. The Committee has not gone as far as that, but the proposal to announce at the beginning of the Session the 10 Fridays what will be clear will give people the opportunity to make appointments in their diaries on those Fridays. That proposal will be welcomed by many hon. Members.
At present, for good reasons, there are often great pressures on hon. Members to be here on a Friday, and equally good reasons for them to be in their constituency on the same day. If some forward planning could help us to resolve the problems of those competing pressures, it would, I hope, enhance the quality of work that we are able to do on our constituents' behalf.
I also proposed that, wherever possible, we should aim to finish between 7 and 8 pm. I understand the pressure from London Members to have a 9-to-5 day—
Mr. Tony Banks: Not all of them.
Mr. Wallace: I think some of them suggested it, although I accept that the hon. Gentleman personally has not made that proposal.
Those of us who cannot possibly return home in the evening accept that working to a reasonable hour is not, in itself, unreasonable, but peoplle object when we sit until 2, 3, 4 or 5 am. It brings the House and its work into disrepute. Apart from anything else, I do not believe that, with the best will in the world, we can do a good job at that time in the morning.
Perhaps we do not like to admit it, but we all know that, if we are discussing a Bill on Report, the initial amendments and new clauses are given a fairly thorough debate, but by 11 pm, anyone trying to make a serious contribution that lasts for more than 10 minutes will be told to sit down so that we can complete the business quickly. The later amendments seldom attract the same attention as the earlier ones, although they should do. I welcome the Report's intent that there should be a cut-off point at 10 pm. However, I am afraid that, at present, it will be only an intent—albeit a formalised one.
As I understand it, the process will take the form of a resolution of the House and a statement of intent on the part of the Leader of the House. But, as we all know, it is the easiest thing in the world for the Government to table a motion to allow business that is not exempt to carry on beyond 10 pm. We shall have to exercise strong self-restraint and discipline if the intent is to be translated into something that works and allows the business of the House to finish at 10 pm, followed by a half-hour Adjournment debate.
To that end, we must face up to the timetabling of primary legislation—from which, I suspect, Opposition parties hold back on the basis that time is often their only weapon. There is no doubt that that is more often the case in a hung or balanced Parliament, but it is rare for the weapon of time to stop a Bill, perhaps with the exception
88
of the legislation on reforming the House of Lords. It is a sad reflection on our democracy if the only effective Opposition weapon is time.
It would be far too radical for the Select Committee or the House to consider immediately or in the immediately foreseeable future the proposals worked out by the Scottish Constitutional Convention in the event of a Scottish Parliament. We could examine how procedures for a Scottish Parliament could be adapted to make Parliament work in ways that would enhance the principles of accountability, balance, efficiency and participation. It would clearly be impossible to translate them into use for this place. That is more a reflection on this place and the way in which it has developed and worked over the years than on the proposals of the constitutional convention.
Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman is discounting the effect of open discussion of certain points in Bills. The sheer physical act of stopping a Bill has to do not only with power here but with letting people outside know what is happening so that they can respond. That is the purpose of the Opposition continually raising points about Bills; it is an enormous power, which should not be abandoned lightly.
Mr. Wallace: It is perfectly clear that certain parts of most Bills can be identified as important. The trouble is that, when guillotines are brought in, some parts of Bills lose the automatic right to be considered at all. Twice in this Session, the Government have tried to timetable Bills from the outset—the Local Government Finance Bill and more recently the Further and Higher Education Bill. My party has supported that idea for some time, but it must be put into effect with the consent of the House. There is no point in debating only what the Government want debated. The process must take due account not only of the official Opposition but of all the minority parties and of Conservative Back Benchers.
If a Select Committee on Business of the House is to be set up, it must ensure a proper balance and not operate in the usual narrow channels that we have to put up with when timetabling Bills.
I have noted the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I am not sure what the thinking behind it was, but I agree with the idea of pre-legislative scrutiny in a Select Committee—we already have provision for such a Committee in our Standing Orders. That would offer a far more effective way of allowing Opposition and other Back-Bench Members to scrutinise legislation properly.
We welcome the idea of announcing business two weeks in advance; that too does not require changes in our Standing Orders. Perhaps the Leader of the House will be tempted to tell us what we will be doing two days from tonight—many of us would be interested to know. The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) tried to introduce firm recess dates, with mixed success, while he was Leader of the House. That certainly assists planning.
As a Scottish Member, I welcome the commitment to bring the summer recess forward to mid-July. A week earlier would be even more welcome, but it is an important move. The issue has been discussed every year that I have

89
been in the House. The Leader of the House has shown some sympathy with the idea, and it is pleasing to see a firm recommendation to that effect.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) mentioned a suggestion which I hope that your successor, Mr. Speaker, will act on in the next Parliament, having convened a meeting of all parties to discuss the matter. It has not happened since 1979, I think, but I remember witnessing the problem as an interested outsider. It certainly did not enhance the image of Parliament when we heard about ambulances queuing up in New Palace yard containing sick Members who could then be nodded through the Lobbies.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South also mentioned that our business will be increasingly scrutinised and debated in the European Parliament, but he singularly failed to say that more of the business of this House should be debated in Parliaments to be set up in Scotland, Wales and possibly in Northern Ireland—not to mention the regions of England. Such a move would relieve the House of a great burden of legislation with which it now has to deal.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: This evening I have heard one whingeing Member after another. If any of us dropped dead tomorrow, 300 to 500 people would be clamouring to take our place. If this place is so bad, why is that?
Mr. Wallace: That is not a particularly good point. Just because people want to become Members of Parliament, to debate legislation and scrutinise the work of the Executive, that does not mean that we should not be able to do it more efficiently. Earlier, the hon. Gentleman questioned whether, with larger constituencies, Members of Parliament would be able to offer the same service. Scottish Members, for instance, would give a far better service if issues such as Scottish health, Scottish education and Scottish transport were dealt with by Members of a Scottish Parliament sitting in Edinburgh, and if this House became a federal House dealing with macroeconomics and defence and foreign policy.
The hours lost and gained under these proposals do not seem to add up. Only decentralisation of power from Westminster will ultimately relieve this place of the overload from which it undoubtedly suffers at the moment.
8.5 pm
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) that there can be no question but that this House is too big. I share his view that 450 Members would be about right, and I am sorry that the Select Committee did not have more time to deal with that. The role of welfare officer takes an increasing amount of Members' time, and so long as the House provides adequate secretarial and other support, much of it can be dealt with without any deterioration in service—as a brief glance at the United States Congress will show.
Another crucial point with which the Committee was not required to deal, but which is germane, is the amount of legislation that we pass every year. I do not have the figures at my fingertips, but I understand that the Bundestag passes about one tenth the amount of our endless stream of laws each year, many of which we cannot even remember the following week. I hope that at some
90
future date the whole question of how we handle legislation will come under the scrutiny of a Select Committee. Much of our legislation is produced by lawyers for lawyers. If Ministers were a little stronger when managing their Departments, I suspect that we could do perfectly well with rather less legislation.
On the subject of Wednesdays, may I put in a small plea for Select Committees? When first I had the honour to be elected Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, we discussed at length when we should meet. I was tipped off that it would be much better, from the point of view of attracting attention to my Committee, if we did not meet on Wednesday mornings. We tried for some months not to, but with Standing Committees on Tuesdays and Thursdays, not to mention all the other pressures of this place, like every other Select Committee we inevitably finished up meeting on Wednesday mornings.
I have no strong feelings about Fridays. The 10 o'clock vote on Thursday prevents me from getting home on Thursday night, and the idea of the seven o'clock finish on Thursday is very attractive. On the other hand, I do not believe that Friday business often adds to the disruption of Members' lives. Friday business is a problem when private Members' Bills are controversial; as I understand it, the Select Committee did not suggest that such Bills would not be discussed on Fridays, so I doubt whether the suggestion is as meritorious as it might seem on the face of it.
I am a strong supporter of the proposal to timetable all legislation, and I was particularly pleased to hear the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) support that view. Although I had just entered the House when the Parliament (No. 2) Bill was going through, I can count the years that I have spent listening to utter waffle being delivered by hon. Members merely to clock up hours in some hopeless gesture of opposition which proves ultimately futile. We do a great many silly things in this place, but that is surely one of the silliest. Even the public think that it is silly, it has been silly for many years and it is time that it was brought to an end. I therefore commend the suggestion of the Select Committee.
I am worried about statutory instruments, especially those which arouse much cross-party opposition. I have on the Order Paper a prayer with more than 85 signatures against a statutory instrument. It has not been debated in the House or in Committee, and I do not think that the Government propose to find time for it. That is wrong. There should be some sort of unwritten rule about the number of Members who can pray against a statutory instrument and a requirement that time be found for it upstairs. The public do not understand that we legislate largely by statutory instrument and not by laws. Hon. Members would be surprised by the number of issues that statutory instruments change in a year.
Mr. Tony Banks: I support the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. Would he support one of mine—that, if an early-day motion, of which there are many, attracts, say, 200 signatures draw from all parties, it should have the opportunity of some debate? If not, what is the point of collecting so many signatures as an expression of opinion?
Mr. Wiggin: I accept that a prayer is in the form of an early-day motion. The difference is that an early-day motion chooses its subject, while a prayer prays against legislation. The early-day motion procedure has been

91
totally abused. If we all took them much more seriously, the Government would start to do so, but that is another matter.
The principal topic of my speech is the summer recess. I had an Adjournment debate as long ago as 1973 on the subject and I have since brought up my family with the difficulties of an extremely tiresome month of July. Last July was as bad as any. July is hot and London is full of tourists. We become bad-tempered and the Government are pushing against the end of the Session; yet year after year we insist on sitting through July.
Why should we sit in July? We do so because, if we rose at the beginning of July and come back in the middle of September, we would be forced to adjourn again for the party conferences. So what? The party conferences are so large that they have to be held off season in seaside towns, and by mutual consent the time for them is fixed. Are we really so uncivilised that we suspect that a Government would insist on driving on through the Opposition's party conference? I do not think that that would happen, and if we wrote into our Standing Orders that it must not happen, that would solve the problem.
Many Scottish schools go back at the end of the first week in August. The whole of London could well do without us, those who support us and Whitehall. If it is practical to rise in the middle of July, it is practical to rise at the beginning of July. I hope that the Leader of the House will not say that the Finance Bill causes the delay, because the Treasury have made it quite clear that, provided that the Bill is introduced sufficiently early, it can be through before the beginning of July. It is a question of timing. I cannot understand why we should have to go through the heat and misery of July when we could perfectly well rise and come back in September.
I have attended many of these debates and have found that we always debate our own affairs better than anything else because we feel strongly about such matters and speak from the heart. The Leader of the House has heard unanimous agreement from many hon. Members. May we please have some action?
8.13 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: The report will not be decided by this Parliament. I therefore wish to address the incoming Parliament, of which I hope to be a Member. It would be wrong to let this occasion pass without paying tribute to the last survivor of the 1945 Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot)—or Ebbw Vale, which is how I still think of his constituency. My right hon. Friend is the last Member who served in a Parliament which brought here hundreds of new Members who were dissatisfied with the way in which Parliament worked. That led to Herbert Morrison's reforms.
Fortunately, this is an Adjournment debate, and therefore wide-ranging, so almost every issue has been raised. We should be clear when talking about ourselves that the House is a strange place, in that the arguments divide in quite unusual ways. The television reports debates between left and right. There are Government and Opposition, Front Benchers and Back Benchers, London Members and other Members, men and women Members and, of course full-time and part-time Members. But no
92
one has mentioned the electors. We are here to represent people. We may not like to be here in July when it is hot, but there are many people with problems and, as I am sure many hon. Members agree, those people want their problems raised in Parliament.
This is an insulting Chamber. We refer to the Strangers Gallery when it should be called the Electors Gallery. We have not yet accommodated the changes which occurred in 1832 or, indeed, in 1918 when women got the vote. We still refer to them as ladies. Anyone who wants to see the real division in society should go to the House of Lords, where the lavatories differentiate between peeresses and ladies, lest ladies think that they may go into the lavatories reserved for peeresses. That is a division. We have women Members and we represent women—the assertion that "ladies" have made representations on this or that is insulting.
I will try to relate the proposals to the change in the functions of Parliament. I was elected in 1950—I believe that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and I are the oldest survivors of that election. I have broken service, so I shall have to invent some new category—great-uncle of the House, perhaps—after the election. When we arrived here, this was the centre of an empire and we ran a huge chunk of the world. When I was born, about 20 per cent. of the world's population were governed from this Chamber. I remember the campaigns, and there were colonial questions twice a week. Many questions were put down by Fenner Brockway and others, including me.
Britain does not have an empire any more—we are a province. Most of the legislation which affects us increasingly comes through Brussels, and Jacques Delors cannot be bothered to sign it in every language. We are observers of legislation that is never presented to the House. I have views on that, but I shall not go into them now. We have lost the power to determine what we do.
During my lifetime and that of most other older Members, there has been an enormous growth in the power of the Executive. I once worked out the figures and published them, but I have forgotten them. The growth of public expenditure from 1925 until now has gone up by, I think, 6,000 per cent. Yet Parliament still has the same number of Members. The democratic deficit in this country is that Executive power has grown and to some extent Parliament has become a spectator.
The Select Committees do a good job, but there should be far more opportunities for Members to raise matters of urgency. I once moved a motion of censure against your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, because he refused me a Standing Order No. 9 debate about the bombing of Oman. The House is reluctant to discuss current matters. We have not discussed the Gulf war since before it began, and it was difficult to get a debate on the miners' strike. We prefer to go through our regular business rather than discuss matters of concern.
I see this place as a forum where argument is put. I would not mind us meeting every morning as the House of Commons debating society, so that we could discuss the issues brought to us by our constituents. It is almost impossible to explain to a constituent with a problem why it cannot be raised on the Floor of the House. People say, "Tony, why not raise my problem in Parliament?" A few days ago, I was asked why the Prime Minister gets a standing ovation when he sits down. The questioner did not quite understand that Members stand in the hope of

93
asking the Prime Minister a question. People thought that the Prime Minister was so popular that on Tuesdays and Thursdays everyone rose to his every reply. I tell them that that is a sign of the urgency felt by hon. Members who need to raise matters of concern.
Radio and television have changed Parliament. I shall be candid—I say this outside the House, so I will say it inside the House. What is the point in being a Member of Parliament when decisions are taken in Brussels and the Executive gets away with it? The point is to represent people—to come here and argue their case. We have a secretarial allowance so that we can represent people, although it is inadequate for the volume of mail that we get. We have the opportunity to get a speech in the only newspaper not owned by Rupert Murdoch—Hansard, which is still a publicly owned newspaper. It is not edited—I am a great Hansard man—and I can photocopy speeches so that people can see what has been said. We can get on television without pleasing the BBC or being cut off by Robin Day—not that one's contribution always gets on the air.
These are not minor matters. It is of no surprise that even the existence of an early Parliament was a threat to the Royal Executive, because while people were discussing in public what he was doing he had to be careful. That is what we are here to do.
I will go over my recommendations so quickly that even you, Mr. Speaker, in your last remaining hours as Speaker, will not rebuke me. If this were a proper debate, I would make several changes. We should be a federal Parliament. The argument for a Scottish Parliament—and others—is overwhelming. We should have a fixed-term Parliament, to get away from all this absurdity of a Government changing the election date so as to manipulate the economy. I believe that 50 per cent. of Members of Parliament should be women. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said that he thought that the number of Members of Parliament should be cut by half. I pledge to give him my full support on polling day if we could experiment with his party to see whether we would do better if it had only half its current number of Members.
We should have amendable statutory instruments instead of the absurdity of First Reading, Second Reading, Committee stage and the rest. All we should do is look at a measure, decide whether we want to amend it, and pass it once we have done so. That would greatly save time. We could do without the ludicrous debate that we shall have later tonight on Church of England legislation. What are we discussing? It is an absurdity that we should be staying late to discuss arrangements for funerals and the retirement of archdeacons and canons.
I am in favour of timetabling, but for an interesting reason. It is that when one has timetabling—
Dame Elaine Kellet-Bowman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Benn: If the hon. Lady will allow me, I should like to continue.
Timetabling allows the Opposition to decide what to debate, and that must be right. We should allow the circulation of undelivered speeches in the Official Report. That would get rid of the abuse of early-day motions. They are simply a means of putting one's opinions on paper
94
because they cannot appear anywhere else. The United States Congress allows the circulation of speeches, and I believe that that is a good thing.
Ministers should circulate on the Order Paper the answers that they are giving to questions as well as the questions. We would then be able to make more use of them. I am in favour of proxy votes. It is an outrage that sick people should be dragged in and that Members on business abroad should be brought back. I remember a Minister having to come back from Tokyo because we thought that there was to be a vote. We must be serious about this. There are other things to do besides play the voting game.
We should have proper secretarial facilities and proper offices. There should be creches not just for the children of women Members but for those of others who work in the House—far more women than men work in the Palace of Westminster. Facilities for staff are appalling, and should be improved. I do not know how many people do as I do, and wander through the bowels of the House. Has any other hon. Member been below Annie's Bar? I was there the other night—it is like wandering around a 19th century battleship.
After 41 years here, let me say this: this place is an old museum. I bring school parties round. The school children know you very well, Mr. Speaker. They love you. They know that you wear a wig, but they do not know what goes on in this place. If one asks them, they say, "We like the decorations. We saw the statues. Who was that over there? Who was Mr. Gladstone?" But they do not know what we do. I often wonder how long it was before the Beefeaters realised that they were not part of the defence force. They must for years have gone on at the Tower of London, marching up and down with their halberds or whatever they carry, thinking that they were defending us. We still behave as though we were a modern, democratic assembly, but we are not: we are a museum, but because it is a museum with a kindly chairman we can sometimes make our case and sometimes the message gets across.
I hope that the anger of the new generation does not subside as quickly as the anger of every previous generation. I see new Members furious with all these things. A year later, one sees them with a party saying, "That is where King Charles I dropped his glove, and that is where Cromwell did this or that." They are so easily corrupted by the club atmosphere. If that anger is not retained and used to turn us into a modern Parliament, we shall have betrayed democracy. My speech is addressed to the new Members. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to make it to the generation who will come here after polling day—many of whom, I hope, will be replacing Tory Members.
8.25 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I have found the Standing Orders of this Chamber, like those of any other legislative body that I have come across, as incomprehensible as they are unfathomable. My colleagues who were given the task of reviewing our sittings have done a worthy job, but the outcome of their deliberations is based a design that trims or tickles around the edges of the problem, and their report has been written with the interests of the legislature in mind rather than those of the people who work in it—us, the Members of Parliament.

95
I make a strong plea for the hours of the House to be regular rather than having this popping in and out at different times on different days. Like the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I address my plea to the new Members. Our eight-hour day could be set between 11 in the morning and 7 in the evening. Those hon. Members who feel incapable of safely occupying their evenings thereafter could surely use their time in their offices doing work or even perhaps watching a bit of television so as to find out what the rest of the world and the rest of the country are interested in.
For most people, politics is peripheral to their lives. Thank goodness, they do not spend all their time wondering what we are up to. It is important that, as human beings, we keep in touch with what the rest of humanity is interested in. By the time we have spent Friday, Saturday and sometimes even Sunday working in our constituencies, there is not much time left for those with families—both men and women—to know what the rest of the world is doing, to enjoy the ordinary small pleasures of life and to spend time with their families. An 11 o'clock start would give early birds time to get up and do three hours work in the office before the House sat, while a 7 o'clock finish would allow late owls to work into the night while not keeping the rest of us out of bed.
I remind the House of the Peter principle, that work expands to fill the time available. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) made a strong case for limiting the amount of legislation that is passed by limiting the hours available to do so. Almost every piece of legislation that is passed robs some group of citizens of part of their basic freedoms. We are normally regulating to restrict people's activities in some way or another—certainly a great deal of socialist legislation did so. I am pleased to say that the Conservative Government are trying to liberate us from much of that, but we do not need to be here into the small hours of the morning to do that.
Our constituents do not know that we have been up until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, and they start ringing us at 8 o'clock, expecting us to be bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. They do not expect us to sound thick—in voice, if not in mind—because we have only just woken up after another late-night session.
I am concerned especially about the recommendations that bear on private Members' time, such as ten-minute Bills and Friday sittings. I have been a Back-Bench Member for five years, and I quite welcome the possibility that I shall never rise to the dizzy heights or fall to the depths, of the Front Bench. Against that background, I consider it extremely important that private Members' time should be safeguarded. The ten-minute Bill procedure is most important to all Back-Bench Members, and sometimes to our constituents and others. Under the procedure, no one can stop us taking 10 minutes of the time of the House. No one—not even your venerable self, Mr. Speaker—can interrupt us. Those who feel from time to time that they are not getting a fair crack of the whip—they might feel that they are not able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye—can make their point by the simple procedure of tabling a ten-minute Bill. It is a procedure that I do not disparage.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that he thought that the ten-minute Bill
96
procedure as rather a waste of time. I have not often found myself at one with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), but he recognised the importance of the facility for private Members, and I am grateful to him for that. I think that all Back-Bench Members welcome the opportunity that the facility provides. Why should there not be three ten-minute Bills a week—on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays?
We all know that we do not have to attend the House on Friday, but Friday sittings can provide important opportunities for us to air subjects in which those outside the House are much more interested than they are in the issues that we consider to be important. For example, there was an important debate on the Alton Bill. For many reasons, Government often will not want to allocate time for subjects that are debated on Fridays, but we are given the opportunity on Fridays to express our interests by using some of our relatively free time to express our support for and interest in various issues. We can show the citizenry that we are taking a subject seriously. Often the issues are subjective and concern the lives of individuals. In other words, they are not related to the rather mechanical legislation that we so often deal with.
We shall come to decide exactly what we shall do apart from regulating time and giving Members more time to be with their families, if they can return home. That is an important consideration. It is to be hoped that there will be more time for us to live like normal people. If they want to, the chaps can go to their gentlemen's clubs. Those who want to work late in their offices will be able to do so. Those who want to take on second jobs can do so in the evenings. I know that the lawyers might be upset, but it is possible to do a little bit of moonlighting if that is what an hon. Member wants to do.
It is most important that the House should safeguard the opportunity for private Members to speak on subjects that may not be currently of interest to the Government. Many of my ten-minute Bills have been ridiculed and derided by my right hon. and hon. Friends, but my post bag tells me that they have received a warm reception outside the House. I have a terrific post bag. I have had the opportunity to persuade my Front-Bench colleagues, against their better judgment, as they see it, to change their minds. I would not be so immodest as to boast of what I have said while presenting ten-minute Bills—things that have moved centre stage and are likely to appear in the Conservative party manifesto for the general election—but that is an example of what can happen.
That is extremely important for Back-Bench Members. We can say to groups of citizens, however small a minority they may be, "I shall introduce a ten-minute Bill on that subject for you." They love it. It is their chance, through us, to have a say in this place, irrespective of whether it is liked by the Government or the Opposition. I beg the House to hang on to the small amount of time that is available to Back Benchers. It is our time, and I hope that no one can take it from us.
8.33 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: It is interesting—this perhaps demonstrates the priorities of the Leader of the House—that we are talking about our position and our conveniences rather than important issues such as commercial lobbying. There are two reports from the

97
Select Committee on Members' Interests and I recall that I drew the attention of the Leader of the House to the issue of outside interests pressurising this place.
I am pleased that the Select Committee wishes to retain ten-minute Bills and that it will not take notice of the Leader of the House or of my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the shadow Leader of the House, by seeking to place a limit on business questions. I share the view of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) that private Members' time is important. Similarly, I think that Fridays are important. I do not share the view of the Select Committee that we should abolish 10 Fridays per Session. That would significantly curtail the likely amount of time available to private Members.
There has been much comment about the waste that is attached to all-night debates. That is not always so. I can recall an all-night debate in 1981 when we were discussing a Consolidated Fund Bill. The House sat throughout the night, largely at the initiative of the Opposition. As a consequence, the Government did a deal which had the effect of removing old people's dwellings from the compulsory purchase procedure. That is one of the most significant gains for the Opposition over the past 10 years or so. It was achieved because of the Opposition's work. All-night sittings do not always take place just for the sake of it. We often sit all night to try to achieve an improvement or a change, or a curtailment of legislation.
In 1981, both the Government and Opposition Front Benches found it inconvenient that Back-Bench Members wished to talk at length about old people's dwellings and compulsory purchase orders, so Consolidated Fund Bills were, in effect, abolished. We now have a series of timed Adjournment debates. The change was designed to remove the opportunity of a further successful initiative.
If a Bill is subject to a timetable, irrespective of whether it is called a guillotine, the initiative shifts to the Government. That is because hon. Members on the Government Benches can take part in the debate and use up time. If time is sucked up by those Members during the hours that are provided by a guillotine or timetable motion, that leads inevitably to the advantage of the Government and is to their satisfaction. The Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), did not explain the difference, to anybody's satisfaction, between guillotining and timetabling. By and large, they are identical devices. I have strong reservations about the timetabling recommendation.
When I gave evidence to the Select Committee, I recommended that a voluntary arrangement—there was one when the Broadcasting Bill, as it then was, was considered—should be followed. The voluntary arrangement for the consideration of the Broadcasting Bi11 was agreed in exchange for an extra day's consideration on the Floor of the House. If it is said that timetabling is necessary because of the imperfection that is achieved in allocating time for various sections of Bills during the various stages, it should be remembered that an important section of the Broadcasting Bill was not reached.
Sir Gerard Neale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cryer: I shall not give way. Several hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, and I do not want to speak for too long.
The hon. Member for Billericay made some generalised suggestions, including the proposal that we should sit at 11 o'clock—a convenient time after a cup of coffee—and rise at 7 o'clock. The reality is that this place has a responsibility to those outside. Ministers are given powers through primary legislation to produce rules and regulations, which we call statutory instruments. Many of these instruments provide criminal penalties—in other words, people can be sent to prison. Individuals can be deprived of their liberty following the decisions of Ministers.
All Governments use statutory instruments, and if there are complaints about the amount of legislation that is being introduced and enacted, it should be understood that this Government have produced more than most. That has been the position since 1979. I have provided evidence for the Select Committee, and I shall not rehearse it: it is to be found in the second volume of the Select Committee's report, at page 101.
There has been talk about prayers as well as statutory instruments. Last year, about 115 prayers were put down, and only 25 were debated. Those who say that we do not have enough time to debate prayers are right. It is no good talking about reducing the sitting hours of the House for our convenience when it is supposed to exercise scrutiny, when Members want to scrutinise and when we currently fail to achieve that objective. That is so whether the wish to scrutinise is a whim of Members or the wish of those outside this place.
We must examine more ways of debating statutory instruments on the Floor of the House. The Committee's proposal is that all affirmative instruments would go automatically to a Committee upstairs unless the Government put down a motion. At the moment, Back-Bench Members can require an instrument to be dealt with on the Floor of the House—and why not? That is a very useful and important initiative in this place, so that we can stop them going upstairs into Committee, where, by and large, scrutiny exists, but it is not the most successful.
There are between 1,500 and 2,000 statutory instruments, such as the one I have here. It is 74 pages long, with seven schedules and 123 clauses. The explanatory note takes three pages. It is the Uncertificated Securities Regulations 1992, and is potentially quite important. It is an affirmative measure, so it will have time on the Floor of the House, but there are hundreds more like that every year. There are negative procedure instruments which are supposed to be subject to a prayer but, in practice, a negative procedure instrument is hardly ever debated in this place. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments deals with all of them, and some are up to 3 in thick—thicker than many primary Acts of Parliament.
That is a matter in which the House is seriously deficient. Until it has a method of properly scrutinising its own prayers, when they have more than a 50 per cent. chance of being debated, we cannot talk about reducing the hours of this place, because the position remains unsatisfactory. I emphasise that we are not talking about paltry bits of legislation just to fill the odd loophole: we are talking about major pieces of legislation which often

99
impose criminal penalties on our citizens. We should have the right to make sure that there is adequate time for debate.
The idea of curtailing Thursday evening debates is all right for Londoners, but, by and large, several hon. Members cannot get home for tea and come back the next day. We should not talk about curtailing Thursdays, not least because of the argument that I outlined about the lack of time devoted to statutory instruments.
Fridays are important. Some hon. Members say, "If we have 10 Fridays off, we can go to our constituencies." Fridays are terribly flexible. We are not like factory workers or teachers who must be at work or in a classroom by 9 o'clock. We are in a privileged, flexible position. We are not accountable to anybody. We do not have a gaffer stood over us. Our gaffer is the electorate, and it is coming up shortly. If hon. Members want to be away for the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill on a Friday, the electorate will tell them whether that is satisfactory. What is wrong with letters telling us to be here on Fridays? If there is a debate on London transport, for example, people in Bradford do not expect me to be here.
As hon. Members know, I attend the House pretty well—I am among the best—but we are highly flexible on Mondays, if there is a one-line Whip, and on Fridays. In any case, we are not here for at least 20 Fridays a year, because we are in recess. We already have a highly flexible position. I appreciate that many hon. Members want to go to their constituencies, but there is already a good opportunity. Therefore, I do not agree with the recommendation to get rid of Fridays.
There is an idea that changes would be better for Parliament, but I do not believe it. It is a question of the attitude of the political parties and of showing much greater encouragement. For example, the Labour party national executive could have expected all the women on the national executive committee to vote in every by-election to put a woman on the short list. That has not happened several times, so we can hardly say that a political party which is calling for more women in Parliament is consistent in its attitude.
The same is true, I am convinced, of the Conservative party. There is not the will in the administration of the Conservative party to ensure that women are elected to Parliament. Men or women, there will be the problem that Parliament is in London, and if hon. Members must travel from the provinces, they must travel 200 to 400 miles. The idea of shorter hours is okay for people who live in London, but it is not so good for people who live in the provinces.
It is not a matter of occupying ourselves in the evenings—there is lots of work for all hon. Members all the time. The idea that Parliament can abandon its responsibility for scrutinising legislation, for one thing, and for giving people the opportunity to hear their points of view expressed in debate, is important. The criterion for me and many hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is what we represent for the people who sent us here. It is wrong to put our convenience first. We should be asking, "Can we deal with our constituents' problems—the problems of the nation—in the hours we have?" The real answer is that we cannot, so the idea of curtailing the hours is not practical.
8.45 pm
Sir Dudley Smith: I rarely agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), but I sympathise with him on the scandal of the scrutiny of statutory instruments. Obviously, something needs to be done about that matter, otherwise our procedures will become totally unwieldy.
I cannot claim to be as long-serving as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), but man and boy I have been here for 30 of the past 32 years and I hope still to be here, with any luck, in the next Parliament. In that time there have been enormous changes, but the one big thing that has not changed is the ridiculous hours. People outside regard as extraordinary the hours in which we conduct our business.
One of the things that has changed is Government business, which has expanded during my time in this place. Over the past 20 years, it has changed beyond recognition. There is far too much legislation. Much of it is ill digested, as we know, bearing in mind the tremendous number of amendments that must be made to major Bills, giving great opportunities to the Opposition—I say that quite fairly—to debate and to extend the proceedings. Governments of any colour should get their legislation more or less right before they bring it before the House.
I welcome the report, which I read with great interest. It will carry us not just a little step but a big step forward if it is implemented. My worry is that it will not be implemented in the spirit on which it was presented. I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say whether there is a definite commitment to it by the Government. If, unexpectedly, the Labour party wins the election, I should like a similar commitment from the Opposition spokesman. When parties take over, they legislate very strongly indeed. I cannot imagine Labour Members easily giving up the chance of having open-ended commitments on many Bills. I believe that the Conservative party will remain in power—this is not a political debate—but my worry is that, if it stays in office, the Executive will still run the proceedings in the way that it wants.
I detect in the report the dead hand of buraucracy, not least in paragraph 84, which is about the summer recess. The Treasury does not like it. It says that we cannot have a fixed date in July and that the date must be brought back. Perhaps, as has been suggested, that is because it wants the Finance Bill to be passed earlier. The Treasury rules many things in this place and it has put its foot down in this case.
The other point in the report which irritated me tremendously is that those who organise the two main party conferences are absolutely against any change. The built-in bureaucracy of the Labour and Tory parties' conferences would not consider any possibility of the date being moved. I do not believe in such things. As we are making significant changes in the House, our own party machines should respond accordingly. If the worst comes to the worst, and changes cannot be made, I see nothing wrong in Parliament adjourning for the fortnight that would cover the two main party conferences.
I may be naive, but perhaps my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can enlighten me as to what is meant by primary legislation. Is it every Government Bill that comes before the House and receives a Second Reading? If so, it would break the rule of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling),

101
and all such legislation would sail on past the 10 o'clock barrier on Report and Third Reading. Perhaps I am wrong, and primary legislation means only the most significant Bills in a particular Session—perhaps only one or two. However, as I take it, with all the legislation that is to come, a number of Bills may break the 10 o'clock barrier.
It has to be said again that the House needs sensible organisation in terms of a timetable. There is general agreement that there should be fewer late nights. We also need better debates. I disagree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South, because I believe that, when legislation is timetabled, our debates are better. Both sides are treated equally, instead of Government Members being told to shut up in Committee. The feelings of right hon. and hon. Members are more genuinely reflected in timetabled debates.
It would also be sensible to schedule less sensitive business out of prime time, when it can be considered, if not voted upon, by those right hon. and hon. Members who are particularly enthusiastic about it.
There is no secret about Fridays. When I sat as Member of Parliament for a London constituency for six and a half years, I attended the House every Friday and usually took part in debate. Now I rarely, if ever, attend the House on a Friday—not because I am playing hookey but because that is the only day on which I can see people in the constituency at their place of work during the working week. They expect me to be there. They are not at all interested in Friday debates, unless they concern an extraordinary Bill such as that which the House considered the Friday before last.
I welcome the proposal for shorter debates on the Budget and the Loyal Address, but I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to consider why those particular debates are so popular. I believe that it is because they are not subject to the Whip, and right hon. and hon. Members take the opportunity to get away, unless they intend to participate.
I want all Government Bills to be timetabled, and I am sure that that will happen in due course. I am certain that, with the co-operation of Members of both Front Benches, we will have fewer late nights, and that that will work out well. I hope that there will be not an experiment but a definite commitment that will be added to as the years go by. I hope also that I am wrong, and that ultimately the Executive will not prevail and cut the Select Committee's proposals to a minuscule level.
8.52 pm
Mr. William Ross: The Select Committee's report seems to set out to give right hon. and hon. Members more time to spend in their constituencies and to make their lives easier, by means of a briefer parliamentary day and shorter sittings. It also holds out the hope of longer notice of recesses, of which I certainly approve.
No one questions why right hon. and hon. Members need to spend more time in their constituencies. Reference was made to the tremendous expansion in the volume of Government legislation, but I believe that right hon. and hon. Members need to spend more time in their constituencies because the House is doing more and more of the work that should be the responsibility of local government.
102
We do not have a proper local government system in this country. Its structure has broken down, and Members of Parliament are the victims of the backlash. It may be that right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies are more keenly aware of that than most, because Northern Ireland has no real local government. Instead, as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, its business must be dealt with by the Order in Council procedure, which is an abomination. Nothing can be properly scrutinised or rationally discussed in that way, and the sooner we are rid of it the better.
Most Northern Ireland business could be transacted by what we in Northern Ireland call the theft clause—such as that incorporated in the Theft Act 1978—whereby Northern Ireland can be included in British legislation by a short statement to the effect that its provisions extend to Northern Ireland. We have asked for that to be done during successive Conservative Administrations, and during the last Labour Government as well, but we did not get anywhere. There would be an enormous saving in the time of the House if that simple procedure were adopted. That could still be done, and it should have been done long since.
Another way of lifting the burden of parliamentary business would be to let local government deal with local matters. It is difficult to do that in a unitary state, although it was successfully achieved under the Stormont devolved system. However, it worked only because it was run by unionists. The Opposition consisted of nationalists. That same situation will inevitably be reached in Scotland, whether the Scots like it or not. If one has a devolved institution or more powerful local government, there is a responsibility to work with the Government of the clay, regardless of their political complexion.
If much of the minutiae is delegated to local government, that will free right hon. and hon. Members to put more pressure on the Government. I am not sure that the Government want that. Governments do not like Members of Parliament breathing down their necks. It is our fault that we have become bogged down in detail. The sooner we shift it on to other shoulders, at a different level, the better.
Earlier, reference was made to the United States Congress. Congressmen are permitted to employ as many as 18 full-time staff, but they each represent as many as half a million people. No right hon. or hon. Member has half a million constituents. Few of us have 100,000 constituents. I did so once, and have just over 75,000 constituents now. That is quite enough, thank you. If we go on as we are, we must either shift some of our business on to local government or have a much larger staff. I do not see that the House could ever justify the vast increase in staff that would be needed.
It is difficult to make life easier for right hon. and hon. Members because the House has arrived at its present procedures after long experimentation and experience, during which the best way of performing the tasks that are the responsibility of the House have been refined. I do not take very kindly to hon. Members who complain about the conditions of employment that they find here. We are all here by choice. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) said that, if he or any other hon. Member fell off his perch, there would be 400 or 500 other people after his job. We all know that is true. No one has to stay here. Every right hon. and hon. Member could

103
choose to leave tomorrow, permanently. None of us has to stand for election again; we could apply for the Chiltern Hundreds and leave.
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Is it not important for the House to be as representative as possible of the population outside, and should not we therefore act in ways that will encourage a representative and not a peculiar group of people to become Members of Parliament?
Mr. Ross: I was just coming to that. Coming to this place is not an easy option for any man or woman; so why are we here? We are here because we strongly believe in certain things. We are here to put our points of view, and to argue for what we think is right—and we must make a harsh choice in order to do that.
Life would be much easier for me if I were back running my farm in Northern Ireland: I would not get up every morning knowing that I was a target. It would be much easier for all hon. Members to return to their offices, or to other nice, safe nine-to-five jobs. As I have said, we are here because we believe in certain things; that is the simple, straightforward reason why we became Members of Parliament. There is an old saying in Northern Ireland—if you make your bed, you lie in it. It is a bit like marriage. Having come here of our own choice, we should accept the conditions, work the system and make the best of it.
I believe that there are good reasons for the long-drawn-out debates, the all-night sittings and the rest of it. The aim is to put pressure on the Government, whichever party is in power: we are not here to make life easy for them. A large chunk of the report, however, seems to be intended to make life easy for the party managers. Every Back Bencher and every Opposition party should oppose the proposals for that reason.
The Leader of the House was nodding a few moments ago, but he did not like what he heard when it was brought home to him. I am sorry about that, because I believe that what I am saying is entirely accurate. We should use the opportunities that are presented to us, and I am happy for us to keep the House open all night every night to put pressure on the Government. Like every other hon. Member, I had to make sacrifices to come here, and I am prepared to put up with the conditions. Hon. Members who have not the guts for it should get out of the frying pan.
9 pm
Mr. Michael Spicer: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on the hard work that he and his Committee put into the report. I am afraid, however, that I have strong reservations about a number of points—some of them along the lines of those expressed by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross).
We should judge the proposals on two criteria. First, what do they mean for the ordinary Member of Parliament? There are two ways of looking at his needs. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) cited the need for "slots" enabling hon. Members to intervene on urgent matters. Morning sittings could well
104
provide extra time for those, but hon. Members also need to be able to join in on the big issues of the day. The debate on European matters which took place before Christmas is one of the most recent examples: I believe that only about half the number of hon. Members who wished to speak in that two-day debate were allowed to do so.
I think that I am right in saying that 11 days were allocated to the great debates on the Corn Laws in 1846, so that every hon. Member who wished to speak could do so. I feel that that principle should apply to all big debates. Every hon. Member who wishes to speak on one of the many major issues that arise should be able to do so, on behalf of his constituents. Unless a great many days are set aside for such debates—as used to be the case—the only way to fit in every speaker is to carry the debate past 10 pm. In most cases, such debates will probably need to be open-ended. That is my first reservation: I believe that ending debates at 10 pm could further curtail the time available for Members of Parliament to speak on major issues, and I do not see why such a hard and fast rule is necessary.
My main reservation, however, goes much deeper, and relates to an issue touched on by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East. Our Parliament, although not exactly unique, is rather different from most Parliaments around the world—and very different from, for instance, the American Congress. Here, we have not a division of powers between the Executive and the legislature, but an integration of powers. There are good historical reasons why the Executive controls the legislature, as in effect it does; there are sound constitutional reasons why that has come about over hundreds of years. In any event, by and large, that is what happens. If there is to be an independent or quasi-independent role for the legislature in our constitution—I do not accept that we have yet lost all our influence and power to the European Parliament, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, although I accept that we must fight back to preserve and strengthen this Parliament—the only weapon that those involved in legislation have at their disposal is time.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said that one of the great attributes of the report was that it gave a degree of certainty. We do not want that; if we are legislating, we want the opposite. We want to be able to surprise the Executive on occasions. The whole purpose of Parliament is to some extent destroyed and demeaned if we have a Parliament which sits from 9 am to 10 pm. Presumably, we shall later have push-button voting to make ourselves even more modern. People have said that the proposals are a first step in the right direction. I presume that push-button voting will be the next good step in the move towards everything being clean, clinical and working perfectly. For whom? For the Executive—that is what making things more efficient means.
I argue strongly that if we are to have any type of independent Parliament, which is especially difficult under our constitutional system, there must be the capacity for hon. Members, either represented by their Whips or as individuals, to be able to negotiate with the Executive from time to time. The only basis on which negotiation can take place is on the aspect of surprise related to time. Time cannot be a totally predetermined commodity in Parliament.
Mr. Tony Banks: Did the hon. Gentleman hold those views when he was a Minister?
Mr. Spicer: I have always held those views. I spoke about them publicly when I was a Minister. I have been in opposition and in government, and I have been on the Back Benches and on the Front Benches. Throughout my 18 years in the House, I have held the view that Parliament must have independence, although that is difficult under our constitution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has worked hard on the report. The proposal, which he identified as the core proposal, for the House to sit from 2.30 pm to 10 pm, is the one about which I have most reservations, for the reasons that I have given.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. So far in the debate, I have called hon. Members who were not members of the Committee. I wish to call some who were members of the Committee. I understand that Front-Bench Members will seek to rise at 9.40 pm and will take 10 minutes each. If hon. Members who are now rising limit their speeches to, say, five minutes during the next half hour, all of them are likely to be called.
9.7 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: A Whips Office is a very fearsome place. When I first came here, I was told that Whips should always be regarded with great care because they were the business managers. Their job was to get legislation on to the statute book or, in the case of the Opposition, to do whatever they could to snarl up the legislation. I regard that as a proper role, and I understand it. Those who seek to take from individual Back-Bench Members the powers that have remained fundamental for everyone in the country for many hundreds of years do so at great peril to our civil rights.
The point that most concerns me about the report is the fact that so many Front-Bench Members, both Government and Opposition, find it quite acceptable to cut the amount of time left for legislation and to move the number of days available. There seems to be an assumption that Back Benchers speak only on private Members' matters or concern themselves only with ten-minute Bills. Those are all important, but Back Benchers also speak on legislation when there is an important subject and a long debate.
Those who suggest that power should seep down to regional authorities and up to the European Parliament have a duty to tell the House how well those authorities do their existing work. It is clear that the European Parliament does not exercise even the powers that it has at present to audit the behaviour of many of the most expensive of the Community's institutions.
I believe that, if the report is implemented, we shall lose a great deal of private Members' time. If we want to change the way in which the House operates, let us seriously consider increasing the powers of the Select Committee, increasing the powers of individual Members to have a direct effect, and making it possible for them to involve themselves at every level.
Richard Crossman, who spoke all the time about the need to experiment with the House, did everything he could to shut down the Select Committees that he had helped to set up. That is a lesson that we should not forget. We should not always think of Front-Bench Members in
106
terms of what they tell us they intend to do. We should think about what they have done and what they will do if they obtain extra powers.
Back-Bench Members in this place, whether male or female, tall, thin, quiet, overwhelmed, from a Northern Ireland background or from any other part of the United Kingdom, are the ones who matter most in the House. They are the people for whom the place was created. Their power derives entirely not from anything that Front-Bench Members organise but from those who elected them. The electors are the people who will be most damaged by a curtailment of the powers of private Members.
9.11 pm
Sir Gerrard Neale: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has had considerable experience in the House on both the Back Benches and the Front Benches. She certainly speaks with considerable authority.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who is not in his place, said that he was against the timetabling of Bills. However, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and his colleagues on including it in the report. There is a fundamental difference between timetabling and guillotining. Timetabling means that, from the beginning of the consideration of a Bill, the time for considering the whole Bill is bracketed, whether it be 100 or 120 hours. With a guillotine there are 100 hours of debate on one clause or one and a half clauses, and the rest is whistled through in no time. That seems a bad way of dealing with Bills, so I support the principle of timetabling.
The point that I wish to make has been picked up by several colleagues, who referred to the word "certainty". The point is linked with that made by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) about constituency representation. I come from a constituency in the far south-west. For the most part, members of the public have a healthy view of politics. As my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) said, politics is not an immediate part of their lives. People do not much care what we get up to between Mondays and Thursdays. If we want to sit all through the night, it is something that Members of Parliament do. But if they arrange a month or six weeks ahead for us to attend a meeting on a Friday, they expect us to keep our commitment to be there. In my experience, they do not respect the iffing and butting that they hear from the majority of us.
Irrespective of their party, Members of Parliament come from various walks of life in which they previously gave commitments to attend meetings. But when they become Members of Parliament, they get into the way of, being much less determined and using the way in which the House works with lack of certainty. That is not only unfortunate but unfair to those we represent.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will accept the report's recommendation that he should give more than one week's notice of the business of the House. In this day and age, it is ridiculous that we cannot plan better than that what goes on in the Chamber. I think I speak for hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say that, if we are to hold surgeries, quite apart from other meetings, as I do in many villages in my constituency—I know that some colleagues do not do so

107
—they must be advertised in local newspapers and we must give notice of the times. They have to be dealt with ahead of time. It is ridiculous that we cannot plan our proceedings better. It causes considerable stress to the people that one arranges to meet in one's constituency, and to one's family. Lady Members of Parliament feel more strongly about that issue, and have alerted us to it more effectively than we male Members care to accept.
It is important to have more certainty, and the Committee should be congratulated on tackling the problem by suggesting that there should be 10 Fridays when we do not sit, and early closing at 7 pm on the preceding Thursdays. Perhaps that is not the best way to deal with the problem, but the Committee has given the matter considerable thought and has come up with a unanimous report. The House should accept that. I hope that, if nothing else, those on both Front Benches will press the Leader of the House to give more notice of future business, and to accept the Friday and Thursday early-closing suggestions.
9.16 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I shall try to follow the example of Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg rather than that of Fidel Castro, in terms of my contribution—
Sir Peter Emery: How long did Lincoln take?
Mr. Banks: Two minutes.
I do not like the idea of giving up Fridays. There is no need for the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Sir G. Neale) to be here on Fridays, as we rarely vote on that day. I understand that the reason why Conservative Members like the idea of giving up Fridays is that it means a waste of time for some of them, due to some nervousness on the part of the Government Whips, who keep so many of them here on a Friday in case something embarrassing crops up.
Fridays are valuable for Members representing London constituencies, as it gives us an opportunity to speak. Quite a friendly crowd turn up on Fridays to debate matters which are not of great import, but which give us the chance to do what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said we are here to do—to represent the interests of the people we are elected to represent.
There is no reason for hon. Members to be here on Fridays if they do not want to be. I do not like missing the opportunity to raise matters in the House. This is a peculiar place, as we probably all understand. It is one of the few places where one is penalised if one works harder. If we turn up regularly, as one or two of us do—I recognise a few hon. Members around the Chamber—we always see the same people, although there are 650 Members. I have always found that intriguing. I still from time to time bump into Members that I do not recognise.
The fact is that, if we come here regularly and work hard, we are told when we want to speak—by someone who occupies your seat, Mr. Speaker—that we have spoken x number of times. Why the hell are we supposed to come here, if it is not to speak and to vote? Yet some hon. Members stroll into the Chamber after six months of doing whatever they have been doing, and whoever is in the Chair calls them because they have not spoken for six
108
months. They have no right to expect to be called by you, Mr. Speaker, if they have not been in here for six months. Those of us on what might be called the Stakhanovite wing of the party should not be penalised in quite the same way.
I have always supported the idea that whoever occupies the Chair should have the discretion to say, "We're running out of time; don't be greedy." It is surprising how selfish Members of Parliament are. They have prepared a speech and they are going to deliver it, come hell or high water, notwithstanding the fact that a large number of other hon. Members are sitting around waiting to speak. I have always found that one of the most unreceptive audiences is made up of people who are waiting for one to stop speaking so that they can start.
9.19 pm
Mrs. Marion Roe: As requested, I shall be brief. First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on his chairmanship of the Select Committee. Our comprehensive analysis of the brief presented to us has produced a balanced report, and I hope that the House will fully support our recommendations. To our critics, I would just say that it is not as easy as it looks.
For many years, there has been a notion, which was repeated this evening by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), that the sitting hours of the House have deterred women from seeking election because they fear that the long hours and late nights will interfere with and undermine their time with their family. It is not just women who suffer from that; male Members of Parliament also find our working hours burdensome. They have equal difficulty in arranging family life to fit in with the long hours that we are expected to work at Westminster and in our constituencies.
Some have suggested that, by moving the sitting hours of the House to fit the usual timetable of a working week, from 10 am to 7 pm, mothers would be able to get back to their families and spend some time at home in the evening, so the family would benefit. That is not a cure-all. They forget that very young children are usually in bed asleep in the early evening. As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said earlier, that being the case, it would surely be better for the young mother to be with her infants during their waking hours in the morning. As I have raised three children without the help of any nannies, I am probably qualified to make points on this matter.
The fact that more women are now presenting themselves for candidates' lists shows that there is no shortage of initiative and talent. Better education and wider career prospects have encouraged women to seek wider opportunities in political life. It is for the selection committees to give them a fair hearing. Let us make no mistake: being a Member of Parliament, whether male or female, is a very demanding job and will continue to be so even if the recommendations bring about changes in working practices in the House.
The recommendation that the main business should generally finish by 10 pm will be welcomed by everybody. It must be a step in the right direction.
The proposal that 10 Fridays should be designated at the beginning of the Session as non-sitting days, and the suggestion that we should finish business by 7 pm on the preceding Thursday will be of enormous help to Members, male and female, with distant constituencies—certainly in

109
terms of family life. To finish business on Thursdays as often as possible by 7 pm will enable many Members to be with their family for a longer period. That must be right if Members are expected to participate in constituency work at the weekend. Even when children grow up, parents need to be around. Greater certainty of recess dates will also provide benefits for family life by reducing pressures on time that can be spent at home.
Some will argue that the recommendations do not go far enough. I am afraid that disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman): I believe that the recommendations are sensible, workable and sensitive to the needs of the Government, the Opposition and Back Benchers, as well as to our constituents and our families.
9.23 pm
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: When I served on the Committee, I was particularly concerned about two issues. Democracy is not as strong here as we in the House sometimes try to pretend. Many people are sceptical about our democratic rights. I wanted to see how we could become more effective in the House and more representative of the population. Both are important elements of democracy. My main anxiety was that the Committee was so constrained in what we could consider that it was difficult to address those two issues.
The main way to achieve more representative government with more people interested in how and what decisions are taken is to have much more devolution. That is also a more effective way of getting more women and working-class people involved.
Anyone who wants to come to Westminster as a representative knows that he or she will not lead a normal life. If one wants a normal life, the last thing that one would do would be to put oneself forward as a Member of Parliament. However, although we are part of a system that means that normality is not an option, we still have a responsibility to know, understand and be part of as much of the life of our constituents as is humanely possible, given the constraints of the job.
In considering how Parliament could become more effective and representative, I listened carefully to those hon. Members who have experiences other than my own. I confess that my views are prejudiced by the fact that I have been a Member in a Parliament in which the Government have had a huge majority which they have been prepared to use ruthlessly. That means that l have not experienced the position in which a Government have had a tight majority and the Opposition have been able to use time as a weapon. In my experience, if the House sat for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, we would not have an effective Parliament. It is not the length of time that is important; it is the way in which we use time most effectively, which will allow us to scrutinise legislation properly.
I should have liked the Committee to consider other matters, but its terms of reference were specific. However, I believe that the Committee took some steps forward and that it came down much more on the side of those hon. Members who have constituencies and families outside London. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks): if his constituency and home were 250 miles from London, he would not enjoy Fridays in the same way.
110
We have a full-time job, but we have responsibilities in Parliament and in our constituencies. I employ people who work in my constituency. As an employer, I have the responsibility to meet my secretaries and assistants at least once a week. I should be able to do that without insisting that they should be as lunatic as me and work on Saturdays and Sundays as well. Being in the constituency on a Friday has become important to me. I want to do that without neglecting my responsibility to Parliament.
The Committee heard numerous views that it wished to accommodate. I was impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and agree that our rights are critical for democracy and civil rights. However, sitting all the hours available is not the most effective way in which to defend those rights. If the House cannot organise itself effectively, what right do we have to pretend that we can organise the rest of the country?
9.27 pm
Mr. Michael Stern: I have two brief comments to make. The first is about Members being forced to vote or being encouraged to vote when they are seriously ill. Some suggestions have been made to ameliorate the problem, and I very much reject the attitude—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House hinted at it—that there is no such problem. That problem is not confined to those periods when normal arrangements break down or when the Government have a tight majority.
There have been occasions when the Conservative party has been the Government, with a normal and natural majority, and when there was pressure on hon. Members to risk their health by sitting in ambulances or in overheated taxis in New Palace Yard simply because of ineffective whipping or because a wrong view had been taken about the nature of the business. I remember it happening to me. I had the pleasure of sitting in New Palace Yard with a high temperature, when my doctor had insisted that I stay in bed, in order to form part of a majority of 126 on two separate votes.
Mr. Tony Banks: More fool you.
Mr. Stern: I agree, but unfortunately we are all, from time to time, at the mercy of the vagaries of those who are appointed to advise us on the nature of the business. The attitude so far evinced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on alternative systems of voting for sick Members is simply not good enough and needs to be reconsidered.
The second point that I wish to make concerns a group of Members who have not been considered so far in the debate. May I make a shameful admission? A few of my best friends are members of the Government. Although long sittings are inefficient from the point of view of ordinary Members, we should remember that they are not necessarily efficient for the good government of the country. When we play our party games here, we can make matters much more difficult for members of the Government to carry out the job which we ask them to do and for which they are paid. That is the role of the Opposition and of Back Benchers. I hope that, in considering the length of sittings, we shall also consider the

111
fact that there is a group, who, although sometimes spoken for by Front-Bench Members on both sides, are entitled to consideration as Members of the House.
9.31 pm
Mr. John McFall: I was privileged to serve on the Select Committee as a recently elected Member in 1987 and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on his chairmanship. I learned a lot from sitting on the Committee.
It has already been said that any change recommended by the House usually results in an increase in Executive powers. I am worried that that may happen as a result of this report. We have a democratic deficit, as illustrated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who called the House a museum. After sitting on the Committee for many hours and listening to experienced and inexperienced Committee members, I could not agree more. It is the hardest place in the world to change.
I tabled an amendment concerning sick Members. The Committee has received a reply from the Leader of the House on that issue, but his reply was nothing short of disgraceful. He has clearly not given his attention to the issue. We must consider whether we are a civilised Parliament and, if so, whether we should allow people to sit in ambulances in New Palace Yard. It is a grotesque spectacle that has never been dealt with before. The experienced members of the Committee were more against my amendment than inexperienced members. Perhaps that tells us that this place should be demolished so that we can start again, because it is extremely hard to get anything done here.
The amendment asked whether we could put our trust in a medical person, who has the trust of the House, to ensure that no sick or dying Member came to the House. Need we repeat the mistakes of the 1974–79 Government, when three hon. Members were brought to the House in that condition? One was the late Frank McElhone, who was forklifted on to a plane in Glasgow airport and brought here so that he could lie in a room and be passed as fit to vote. That action is inhuman and barbarian, and it must stop. I am glad to note that my amendment was passed, albeit with a slim margin of seven votes to six.
The holidays in July are another issue of concern to me as a Scottish Member. Last year on 29 July, as a member of the Select Committee on Defence, I was questioning the Secretary of State for Defence. One month previously, on 29 June, my family had their holidays and I had no time with them. I am expressing not just my point of view but that of other Scottish Members. If we have any interest in the welfare and well-being of Members and Members' families, surely we must do something about that aspect.
I was keen that we should have at least two weeks' notice of business. To be honest, I think that we should have more notice than that. A women's guild in my constituency sent me a letter last June inviting me to address the guild on the evening of Thursday 13 February this year. I wrong back to thank the guild for the kind invitation, but said that I could give a definite answer only
112
the Friday before. That system must be changed. Can we make some advances so that we truly represent our constituents?
I accept the timetabling aspects of the Committee's proposals, which represent a good move, but the value of the Floor of the House for debate has been debased. We seek to scrutinise legislation and pin down the Executive. My experience over the past four or five years is that the Floor of the House has proved an inadequate place for me to air the cares and concerns of my constituents.
If this timid report is to do anything, it will advance change a little bit, so we should accept it. But as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said, we are here to represent the electorate, who are insufficiently represented. The report makes only a small advance, and we must remember that.
9.37 pm
Mr. Roger Moate: I wish to make just three points. First, the Committee skilfully produced a report which cleverly reflects the views expressed by the House, particularly the concern about late hours, as well as more obvious follies.
Secondly, much to my surprise, I have come round to the view that limiting speeches to 10 minutes is an acceptable and sensible approach. That rule should be applied as the general rule, with a number of exceptions. It should certainly be widely used in a large number of debates.
The third point involves a serious reservation. I am glad that this debate puts down a marker for the new Parliament, rather than trying to impose suggestions on the new Parliament. The broad acceptance of timetabling —the difference between timetabling and guillotines is marginal—has come as a great surprise to me. Of course we take advantage of timetabling, and are always grateful when a timetable is imposed. However, I regard the general acceptance of timetabling as one of the greatest abdications of a Back Bencher's power over the Executive, and see it as a reflection of Governments with large majorities.
I would always choose to be on the side of a Government with a large majority, given that option. Often Parliaments are not like that, however, and there are Governments with small majorities. In those circumstances, for the Opposition to give up the right to use time is an enormous sacrifice. The next Parliament could look different, were there to be a majority of just 20 or 30 for either party, and to give up such a power for the sake of certainty and timetabling is dangerous.
It is not just a matter of defeating Governments, which does not happen often. Through the use of time, one can secure concessions, and deals can be struck between small numbers of rebels on either side. I recall when Opposition Members and I helped to defeat a Government Bill. Unfortunately, it came back the following year, but we used our power. If we give up that right, I believe that Back Benchers and Opposition Members will probably be surrendering one of their greatest powers. That issue should be carefully considered in the next Parliament, not determined in this one.
9.38 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I wish to speak about a couple of the amendments which I tabled to the report, but which were lost in Committee. Like the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), I warn against the guillotine or timetabling.
On occasions, we all take advantage of our next engagement. If we are out in our constituency, and people buttonhole us with awkward questions, it is always nice to be able to say that we would love to answer them, but are sorry we have got to be somewhere else within the next minute or so, so that we can duck away—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] It is shameful, but I bet that we have all done it at least once, if not more often. The advantage to Ministers of guillotines or timetabling is that they can fill out the time.
Let us consider the performance of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) when she came to the Dispatch Box for 15 minutes. Sometimes people would say that she had gone on a bit answering this or that question, but it spun out the time and cut down the number of awkward questions that she had to answer. Guillotines and timetables let Ministers off the hook.
I do not support the idea of 10-minute speeches. Tonight's debate was a good example of self-discipline. I may have been called right at the end, with only a few seconds to go, but I prefer that to people being restricted to 10 minutes. They do not give way or take interventions, which spoils the debating atmosphere. If we are not going to give way, we might as well, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, hand in our speeches at the Table Office and not bother coming to the debate. The whole point of this place is that it is a debating Chamber.
The House is always at its worst when there is consensus between Front Bench spokesmen. It is important to ensure that the minority view is well represented. To try to squeeze it into 10 minutes when two Front-Bench spokesmen have had an hour in which to make their case is unsatisfactory. I warn the House: beware of the 10-minute rule and make sure that plenty of discretion is allowed.
Our effectiveness in this place has to do partly with time spent in the Chamber and partly with resources. I understand that that Top Salaries Review Body has been looking at Members' secretarial allowances and other resources, and I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to give us some news about what has happened to that review. We need some reform of our procedures, but we also need the resources to do our job more effectively.
9.41 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott: When the Select Committee was set up last July, I would not have given it much chance of having its report debated before the general election, not because I doubted the skills of the Members serving on it, but because I thought that the election would be much earlier. If by any chance the Prime Minister ducks out of 9 April, I hope that we shall have another debate on these matters so that we can make some decisions before the change of Government when we take over later this year. It would be nice to sort out some of the problems before that happens.
I welcome many of the Select Committee's recommendations, but I have strong reservations about others, not
114
least because, as I said when we set up the Committee, the report puts the cart before the horse, as several of my hon. Friends said. I can think of no other institution in the world which would discuss how long it ought to work before discussing what it was trying to do and how effectively it was doing it. Those are the prior questions that should be dealt with. It is not so much a matter of whether the horse should be better fed or the cart wheels oiled as of whether the horse and cart are the best means of getting from A to B.
We perform many of the functions that we are supposed to carry out in this House badly. Although that is not a popular thing to say, it echoes the description of this place as a museum by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). For instance, do we scrutinise the Executive effectively? The answer is no. Do we scrutinise legislation effectively? Emphatically, no. How good are we are at redressing the grievances of constituents? There is even a fairly large question mark over that.
Mr. Cryer: That is because there is not enough time.
Mr. Grocott: I shall come to that.
How effective are we as a debating Chamber, as a forum for debate? I regret to say that we are pretty bad at that, too. This may not be a popular opinion, but "Question Time" on the BBC is often a more effective debate.
Mr. Tony Banks: One has to get on it first—it is even more difficult than catching Mr. Speaker's eye.
Mr. Grocott: Some are luckier than others.
We should, as I say, ask ourselves how effectively we are doing what we are supposed to be doing. For example, many of the assumptions behind the report and behind the ideas of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) seem to rest on the idea that a Bill given two days for Second Reading, 100 hours for Committee and four days for Report and Third Reading will be twice as good as a Bill given one day for Second Reading, 50 hours for Committee and two days for Report and Third Reading. That may be true, but I have seen no evidence to suggest that it is the case.
Even with endless scrutiny, the House produces appalling legislation. I am sorry to bring in a sour and partisan note, but in that context I refer to the poll tax legislation. Conservative Members now understand as well as we do that that was appalling legislation, which brought great discredit to the Conservative party. I am pleased about that, but regrettably it brought a fair amount of discredit to this place because people say, "What a ludicrous Bill—how on earth was it passed?"
Mr. Cryer: It was passed because the Government have a big majority.
Mr. Grocott: Yes, the Government have a big majority, but we must seek better ways to scrutinise legislation, so that the worst faults are ironed out. Debating Bills for longer and longer is not the answer.
That deals with the issue of how effectively we perform our functions. The other question, which has been answered in many ways by the Select Committee, is how Members' time should be split between time spent in the House and time spent on constituency work. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield spoke accurately about the enormous growth in the Executive's power. Do

115
we deal with that simply by extending the sitting hours or should there be a better and more effective division of our time?
In that respect, the demands on Members have changed dramatically. I do not regret that, because I consider that time spent addressing meetings such as those described by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) is just as effective as, and more important than, time spent in the House late at night scrutinising legislation which ends up with no change whatever in its content. We must ask basic questions about what we are doing here and about the balance between time in this place and time spent outside.
I strongly support some of the Committee's recommendations, including the recommendation for more notice of parliamentary business. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton said that two weeks' notice is far too short, but it is a step in the right direction. The fact that we receive only a week's notice is in many ways an indication of the contempt that the House seems to have for the needs and rights of constituents. There is a feeling that the business of the House, however obscure, must take precedence over the demands of people outside.
I welcome greater notice of recesses and endorse the attention paid to Scottish Members and to Members from the north and the midlands. They make tremendous sacrifices to be here. The argument about school holidays applies to many areas, but especially to Scotland, and we should respect that. The suggestion that legislation should be timetabled is also important, but I accept the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who is a member of the Committee, that that risks giving tremendous power to the Government. After 9 April, I shall be much more sympathetic about giving tremendous power to the Government. However, I accept that there must be some balance in timetable motions, and the way to obtain that is to ensure that legislation is scrutinised by calling witnesses and following Select Committee-type procedures.
I disagree in many respects with the Select Committee's recommendations about the parliamentary day. We have heard again the arguments against late and morning sittings. This is probably the only job in the world—certainly the only job in Britain—where meeting after 10 o'clock is described as a late sitting. In any group of members that I represented as a trade unionist, 9 o'clock to 10 o'clock would be described as a late shift, as would 8 o'clock to 9 o'clock.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: This job is a lot easier than working down the pit.
Mr. Grocott: No one disputes that—of course it is easier. That is well established and understood, but as my hon. Friend knows, there are arguments for improving working conditions wherever work takes place.
Conservative Members have argued against morning sittings, using the excuse that Ministers would not have time to come to the House. Against that, I have a game, set and match argument. Fifteen Cabinet Ministers managed to come along on a Friday three weeks ago to ensure that the unspeakable could chase after the uneatable. If they can turn up on a Friday in such vast numbers, I am sure
116
that Ministers would be able to come along on any other morning when that was required, either to answer questions or to deal with debates. I see no good grounds for not having morning sittings, and I hope that we shall move towards that when the earlier recommendations have been implemented.
I endorse the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield. In many ways, this place is a museum. It is time that we recognised that the world outside has changed and that we should be better able to reflect its needs. I welcome the report as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough and I ask for further improvements.
9.50 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I warmly congratulate, yet again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and all the members of his Committee on the speed and thoroughness of their work. When I invited the House on 9 July to set up the Select Committee, I made it clear that I had received many representations from all parts of the House about the need for parliamentary reform, but that it was also clear that there was little agreement as to what reforms were necessary. That dichotomy has been reflected in the debate and draws attention to the excellent way in which my right hon. Friend's Committee has performed. It is to be congratulated on achieving a unanimous report in what is, by common consent, a most complex matter. Another complex job is arranging the business of the House. Anyone who has tried to do it will know that it is not as simple as it sounds to arrange and announce business weeks ahead, because many demands are made at the last minute.
I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) that this is a modest report. He did less than justice to himself and to his fellow Committee members. The report has covered a wide range of subjects. It is notable for being practical, as I would expect from my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, a former Chief Whip. Often, we make advances by practical steps that can be achieved and realised in performance.
We have had a good debate. I am delighted that hon. Members exercised self-restraint and enabled everyone who wished to do so to speak. It has been noticeable that there has not been agreement on several issues, and that draws attention to the difficulties that the House will face in reaching decisions on the report and recommendations.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) suggested that the report made things easier for the Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) questioned some aspects of the report from a similar point of view. I do not see it that way. The Committee was originally set up because of the pressure put on me from Members of Parliament on both sides of the House who wanted me to make parliamentary reforms in the interests of Parliament and of Members of Parliament. I should like to disabuse everyone of the notions that the Committee was set up to make the life of the Government easier and that it will necessarily do that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale spoke about the balance between the

117
Government, the Opposition and Back Benchers. Paragraph 7 outlines the principles that the Committee had in mind in looking at that balance. They include:

"(i) the Government of the day must get its business, and within that principle must ultimately control the time of the House;

(ii) the Opposition must have enough opportunity to scrutinise the actions of the Government and to approve or oppose its legislation as it thinks fit; and

(iii) backbench Members on both sides of the Chamber should have reasonable opportunities to raise matters of concern to them and to their constituents."

That sets out the aims that the reforms are trying to achieve. The Committee, in approaching its work and in the recommendations that it has made, has kept that balance in mind.
The other important part of the balance is the amount of time given in the House to each of those different interests. In my paper to the Committee, I analysed how that time had been divided in recent sessions. I do not make this point to criticise, because it is right that we should do so, but it is a fact that we give more time to Back Benchers than practically any other legislature in the world. That was made clear to me when I visited Australia and New Zealand recently.
When considering the hours and sittings of the House it is important that we endeavour to keep the balance between the Government, the Opposition and Back Benchers. That was very much a theme which I took up in my remarks, and I think that it is reflected in the report.
It is clear from the comments of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members this evening—this is very much a theme of the report, and it appears at the beginning of it —that we must take into account constituency duties, a work load that has increased. I think that we would all say amen to that. That has been emphasised by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) and others. I very much disagree with the view of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that by restricting some of our sitting hours to enable Members to attend to their constituency duties we are introducing a three-and-ahalf day week, or whatever. I believe strongly that it is right to say that constituency duties have increased and that we are all spending more time on them. The report reflects my belief.
It has been kindly said that the report follows my advice closely. It clearly follows the endeavour to keep the balance between the Government, the Opposition and Back Benchers. I am grateful that some of the personal points of view that I expressed have been taken up in the report. It is right, however—I defend the independence of the Select Committee—that it has rejected some of my views, and certainly I have reservations about some of the recommendations. Those reservations can be dealt with later when we come to consider in detail what we shall do about the report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) talked about the impact of the report and the need to consider the issues raised from the point of view of having more women Members. I am on record as having said on many occasions that I want to see many more women Members, and I think that my hon. Friend made many sensible comments in that respect, as did the hon. Member for Durham, North-West.
118
The fact remains that a Member's job will always be a heavy one. As the hon. Member for Durham, North-West said, it is not a normal life. Although we may make it easier for some women to participate in parliamentary activities through some reforms, that is only a part of the process.
One of the most interesting features of the debate—certainly until the later stages—was the degree of support for timetabling Bills in Committee. There is a distinction between timetabling and guillotining. A personal view that I expressed to the Select Committee is that timetabling enables the House to do a more effective job in its scrutiny of Bills. We all know that in the past the House and Committees have not done an effective job in considering a number of Bills. We have all been involved in that. Far too much time has been spent on the earlier parts of Bills, for whatever reason. One of the things that emerged most clearly during the debate was support for timetabling. I suspect that that reflects a change from the outcome of previous discussions on the issue.
An important matter that the Select Committee reflected strongly in its recommendations, and which I reiterate, is emphasised in paragraph 8. The passage reads:
"The House, frontbenchers and backbenchers, must be united in its determination to use these procedural reforms to secure both reasonable hours and effective scrutiny. Otherwise our proposals for the more effective conduct of business of the House will mean little or nothing."
I am convinced that that is right. As I said in evidence to the Committee, whatever may eventually be agreed on arrangements for sittings of the House, their success will depend on the co-operation and self-discipline of Members. Whether Members will regularly see the House adjourn in the evening will rest to a large degree with Members. I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) when he said that a small number of Members can frustrate the workings of the House. That is a view that we must have in mind when we approach the reforms.
I made it clear on 20 February that we shall go into the details later—I am not going into detailed recommendations tonight. I made it clear also on 20 February that I was keen that the House should have an early opportunity to express its view on the report as soon as possible. I believe that the House has welcomed the chance to hold this debate before we decide how to move forward on the specific recommendations. I felt that it was important that the House should have an early opportunity to express views, and this opportunity has been valuable.
The fact that I set up the Committee shows that we recognise the need for parliamentary reforms and that we have accepted in principle a willingness to undertake appropriate reforms. I can cite examples in relation to European Select Committees, the Transport and Works Bill and many others in which, in this Session alone, we have carried through a number of reforms. There is, however, no commitment—that was clear tonight—to any of the recommendations in the report. There will need to be further detailed consideration of those recommendations. Differing views have been expressed. It will be a fairly complex process to reach agreement on all the reforms. The views of the new House, before we decide how to take the issues forward, will also have to be taken into account, but tonight's debate has been a valuable first step.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions)
Mr. Speaker: We now come to the Church of England Measures.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it on this matter?
Mr. Cryer: It is not on this matter, it is on another matter connected to the Palace of Westminister. The Government have been defeated on the Education (Schools) Bill, and that raises important issues. I wonder whether you have had an application from the Department of Education and Science to make a statement to the House about the Government's defeat in the House of Lords on what they regard an important privatisation measure. If Government support is crumbling on the wing down the corridor—the geriatric wing of the Palace of Westminster—and if it is crumbling everywhere, we should know about it.
Mr. Speaker: That has some relevance to the previous debate. I know nothing about what has gone on in another place.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: It was not a point of order for me. If the Government have been defeated in the other place, presumably we shall debate that when we consider Lords amendments.
Mr. Bennett: As the Leader of the House is present, I wonder whether he has asked you whether he can make a statement about any change of business, because we are under considerable pressure with various guillotines and other business that must proceed this week. It would be very helpful if the Leader of the House could tell us whether it will be necessary, in view of that defeat in the House of Lords, for there to be any change of business this week.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House was present throughout the previous debate, as I was, and will be as much in the dark as I am about what went on in another place.
10.2 pm
Mr. Michael Alison: I beg to move,
That the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
As its short title suggests, the Measure contains provisions on a wide range of matters, most of which are neither controversial nor exciting but will be extremely useful in their own ways. I do not want to detain the House by attempting to deal with all of them, but perhaps I may mention one or two. Schedule 1, for example, deals with parochial registers and records, some of which are very ancient. Quite apart from their importance to the Church, the documents are of great interest to historians and
120
genealogists, so it is important that they should be properly preserved and cared for. The amendment in schedule I will help to ensure that.
On a completely different subject, clauses 2 and 3 will help to ensure that the rector or vicar of a parish will normally be responsible, if requested, for the funerals of his own parishioners, even if their funerals are to be held in a cemetery or a crematorium which lies outside his own parish boundaries. They will also help ecclesiastical law to deal more adequately with the ever more widespread practice of cremation.
Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to the blessed and holy Member for giving way. This is a genuine inquiry, which is not my usual form of inquiry. Is it possible for me to be buried at the end of my garden if I so choose? Does the ground have to be consecrated? If I were to be cremated—[Interruption.] I am not anticipating anything unfortunate happening on 9 April. My parrot is buried at the end of the garden, so why cannot I be?
Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman can be buried at sea if he wants. There is a good deal of flexibility as to where the hon. Gentleman may prescribe that his remains should be disposed of—although long may that day be delayed. The limited purpose of the clause is to ensure that a vicar who wants to bury a parishioner with whom he had a particular association in another parish, away from his own, cannot be prevented from so doing by some obstreperous incumbent forbidding him to cross the constituency boundary, so to speak.
Dame Jill Knight: I remind my right hon. Friend that a Member of another place was convinced that, when he died, his remains should be fed to dogs.
Mr. David Harris: He must have been a Liberal.
Dame Jill Knight: My hon. Friend is right. We will pass over any suggestion that the noble Lord's wishes reflected his mental condition. Does the measure incorporate the regulation that forbade that Member of another place to be eaten by dogs after his demise?
Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend has managed, by a subtle side wind, to introduce the topic of the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill into this debate. I hastily ask for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in being invited to follow that line. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) that the narrow ambit of the measure relating to burials has nothing to do with the technicalities of the way in which the poor deceased's body may be disposed of, but entirely concerns the right of a parish priest to secure the funeral of someone who was a member of his flock in a cemetery or crematorium that lies in another parson's constituency, so to speak—and to prevent that parson from objecting to an outsider working on his territory.
I will attempt to take the House away from those rather sombre aspects of the Bill. The main intention behind clauses 1 and 11 is to save unnecesary paperwork, and thus unwelcome expense, when a rector or vicar resigns, or when a parish is temporarily without a rector or vicar for some other reason.
Turning to Church of England activities on a broader front, clause 6 will help it to forge closer links with

121
Churches abroad. That reflects current efforts to improve relations with other Christian Churches in Europe, but also in this country.
Right hon. and hon. Members who had an opportunity to examine the Bill will know that schedule 4 lists a number of provisions in statutes and measures dating back to at least 1803 that are being repealed because they are no longer needed. I am advised that, at present, the standard volume of ecclesiastical law, statutes, and measures occupies about 1,300 pages—and that only goes up to mid-1985, and does not include a good deal of recent legislation. The pruning effected by schedule 4 represents a welcome simplification of the law.
Three clauses relating to the appointment of deacons to various posts gave rise to some concern among some members of the General Synod and of the House's own ecclesiastical committee. The main background to those provisions is to be found in section 10 of the Act of Uniformity 1662, which provides that holders of certain offices in the Church must have been ordained as priests.
Clause 14 provides that, in spite of anything in section 10 of the 1662 Act, deacons may be appointed as rural deans. The clause says that it is for the avoidance of doubt, and that is exactly its purpose. Some ecclesiastical lawyers take the view that it is already lawful to appoint deacons to such posts, and that section 10 of the 1662 Act contains nothing to prevent it, as some experienced deacons have already been appointed as rural deans on that basis. On the other hand, some ecclesiastical lawyers take a different view, and it therefore seemed desirable to clarify the legal position.
The office of rural dean is a responsible one, but his role is essentially pastoral. It does not involve the supervision of priests in the rural deanery, or the carrying out of essentially priestly functions. As a matter of law, the rural dean's main task is to report various matters to the bishop, such as illness or distress among the clergy, or instances in which a church is in a poor or dangerous state of repair. I see no reason why that task should not be carried out by experienced deacons.
Clause 15 makes it possible to appoint a deacon who has been ordained for at least six years as residentiary canon of a cathedral. That represents a change in the law. The position of residentiary canon is a senior one, but mature and experienced deacons are already able to hold—and, indeed, do hold—senior posts in the dioceses: for example, as directors of ordinands, directors of education and directors of social responsibility.
Posts of that kind, however, are often linked to cathedral canonries, partly for financial reasons and partly because it is desirable for senior people in a diocese to have a spiritual home in the life of the mother church of that diocese. At present, deacons are excluded from the posts in question, which means that the best available person cannot necessarily be appointed. Clause 15 would open the way to the appointment of deacons both to residentiary canonries and to diocesan posts linked with them. It would also ensure that, when it is thought desirable to appoint a deacon but the cathedral's constitution and statutes mirror the existing law and require a residentiary canon to be a priest, the cathedral will not need to go through the lengthy process of having its constitution and statutes amended.
Nevertheless, the clause makes it clear that deacons who are residentiary canons will not be entitled or required to perform exclusively priestly functions, such as
122
celebrating holy communion or giving absolution. For that reason, there can be no question of all the residentiary cannons of a particular cathedral being deacons, as there would then be no one to fulfil the canons' sacramental duties.
Mr. Harris: Does not that highlight a major inconsistency? Obviously, the reason for the measure is the current existence of a number of female deacons. Is my right hon. Friend saying that a woman deacon can become a canon of a cathedral—can, indeed, become a director of ordinands—and still not be able to administer holy communion? Is that not absolute nonsense?
Mr. Alison: Whether it remains absolute nonsense is a question for the future. It is conceivable that the General Synod of the Church of England will decide to remove that disability: in future, a woman deacon who has spent six years as a diaconate may be able to become not merely a canon, but a fully officiating canon. That remains to be seen, however. It does not make it undesirable for a women who may already be the director of education in a diocese, or hold a similar senior post, to be given a place as a canon, provided that she has had at least six years' experience—even if she is not fully fledged and able to carry out the full priestly function. That holds out to women a further prospect of significant honour and advancement which the General Synod of the Church of England thought—and I am sure it was right—was entirely laudable and desirable.
Clause 16 deals with non-residentiary canons. The office of a non-residentiary canon is mainly honorary and is normally intended to give some recognition to clergy who have played a significant part in the life of the Church and the diocese. Deacons who have had an effective ministry for some time may well be considered suitable persons to appoint. Most ecclesiastical lawyers consider that the 1662 Act does not prevent a deacon from holding that office. Several deacons have been appointed as non-residentiary canons in various cathedrals.
The object of clause 16 is to set at rest the few doubts expressed about the legal position and to ensure, as in the case of residentiary canons, that, if a cathedral's constitution and statutes stipulate that the non-residentiary canons must be priests, the cathedral will not need to go through the process of having them altered. The clause makes it clear that non-residentiary canons who are deacons are not entitled or to be required to perform exclusively priestly functions.
Although the position may change, it is well known that most male deacons regard their office as a stepping stone to the priesthood. As a result, the real relevance of clauses 14, 15 and 16 is to women deacons. Some members of our Ecclesiastical Committee, of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) is one, were concerned that the clauses were an attempt to edge towards the ordination of women to the priesthood by the back door. I assure the House that that is not the case.
The offices covered by the three clauses do not, as I have explained, involve carrying out exclusively priestly functions. The supporters of the clauses in the Synod included some people who were opposed to the ordination of women to the priesthood but who thought it important to allow mature and experienced women clergy to progress to posts of responsibility in the Church which they could

123
properly hold as deacons, rather than leaving them to feel that the only way forward for them in their ministry was to be ordained as priests.
At first sight, it may seem surprising that a deacon would be able to hold those responsible posts, but could not be an ordinary vicar or rector. The office of rector or vicar of a parish is one of the most honourable and important offices in the Church, because it involves the cure of the souls of the parishioners and is the cornerstone of the parochial system which is such an essential feature of the Church of England.
The Measure was debated at length and in detail by the Synod, and it was passed by substantial majorities in all three of the Synod's houses. It contains many provisions which will undoubtedly be for the benefit of the Church of England and for those whom the Church serves. It was passed by our Ecclesiastical Committee with the recommendation that it was expedient.
10.17 pm
Mr. Frank Field: I welcome the Measure, especially clauses 14, 15 and 16. As hon. Members have just heard, we are beginning to build a career structure in the Church for women priests. It is not a substitute for the main Measure, which I hope will come to the House at some stage, to allow women to be priests, but it is a step in that direction. It will stand whether that Measure is passed by Synod and comes to this place or not. If Synod sends us a Measure to allow women to be ordained as priests, it will gain a huge majority in the House.
I make my comment with one proviso. People may have heard a debate in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and I took part last week. My right hon. Friend said that he had never voted against a Church Measure in this place. He also said that he was wholly in favour of women priests. However, he said that if the Measure came here linked to and indivisible from the compensation Measure, he would be sorely pressed not to vote for that Measure.
The debate allows us to send friendly signals to Synod. The House of Bishops has a chance of splitting that Measure, should it wish to send it to us, so that we consider the women priests Measure and the compensation Measure separately. I hope that it will consider the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield carefully. Although I believe that there would be a thumping majority in the House of Commons in favour of women priests, the House would not look so favourably on a measure to pay people up to £55,000 if they wished to exercise their conscience and leave. The House believes that people should exercise their conscience and leave without being paid such handsome sums for doing so.
The only other point that I wish to make is about the title of this Measure. It is an important Measure. It is not the main Measure about women priests, but clauses 14, 15 and 16 are important. Yet it is another example of Synod trying either our intelligence or our patience. It seems discourteous, to say the least, to dress up the Measure as a miscellaneous Measure. It is about developing a career structure for women deacons and it should have come over as such. Synod should have been proud to send that Measure to the House.
124
Several diligent Members of Parliament look carefully at what Synod proposes. If Synod thought that the Measure would go past without comment or opposition from those who oppose giving women a greater say in the church, that is a reflection either of its intelligence or of its folly.
For the reasons that I have given, I hope that this miscellaneous Measure will begin to provide a proper career structure for the valuable service that women deacons already give in the Church. For that reason alone, I hope that the House will pass the Measure. But I hope that Synod will take on board the points about compensation and about the silly behaviour of dressing up significant Measures with innocuous titles.
10.21 pm
Mr. Patrick Cormack: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on the last point. It is one reason why some of us who serve on the Ecclesiastical Committee were a little angry about the Measure. It is not what it appears on the outside. The hon. Gentleman and I are in accord on that point. The Measure is designed to do one main thing. It is designed to advance the cause of women in the Church.
Some of us who serve on the Ecclesiastical Committee were disturbed that the measure seemed to anticipate a further decision of Synod and, indeed, of the House. It would be fair to say that those who were disturbed included some who support the ordination of women and some who, like me, have grave reservations about that move. We are talking about posts of real seniority in the Church of England. There is no point in anyone denying that.
A rural dean is a position of seniority within our parochial system. It is unthinkable that a male deacon would ever be a rural dean. A rural dean is almost always an experienced parish priest who has been an incumbent for many years and is therefore reckoned to be well qualified to help to administer a group of parishes and to be in effect the presiding priest over a group of his colleagues. That is a position of seniority and it should not be dressed up otherwise. It should be occupied by a senior priest. I use the word carefully. That is not to say that if women become priests they should not become rural deans. Indeed, if they become priests it would be entirely proper that the position of rural dean and other positions of seniority should be open to them.
The same applies, one might say to an even greater extent, in the case of canons of cathedrals. It is a high honour to be a canon of a cathedral in the Church of England. Many of the most distinguished churchmen in our history have never held a more senior position—people such as Sydney Smith—and many have never aspired to any higher position. It would be unthinkable for a male deacon to become a canon of a cathedral.
I spell those matters out carefully, and I hope without too much emotion, because it is important that, while the House has a responsibility for these matters, we should face them fairly and squarely.
Some members of the Ecclesiastical Committee felt that the Measure was anticipating future decisions of Synod and of the House. First, we were disturbed that the Measure should have come to us with this seemingly innocuous title. We were then doubly disturbed to find that this measure was being proposed many months in

125
advance of the Synod making a final decision on women priests, and many months—perhaps a couple of years—in advance of the House being asked to endorse such a decision. I do not like it, and that is why, in company with my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) and some other members of the Ecclesiastical Committee, I voted against it on that occasion, and our votes were recorded.
As the hon. Member for Birkenhead has rightly said, now is not the time to debate in detail the ordination of women. I doubt not that there will come a time when the House will be asked to debate it. I suspect that, when this measure is debated in the General Synod in the late autumn of this year, there will probably be the requisite majority. However, this issue must be thought about and prayed about carefully. It is an issue which will divide people within the Church of England, and there are people whom I deeply respect on both sides of the argument.
Some people are utterly convinced that there is no bar to a woman exercising the priestly function. There are others who take a contrary view and who properly recognise that the words "priest" and "minister" are not synonymous. There are others who believe that it would be divisive to proceed with that within the Church of England at this time.
Among those who take that view, a considerable number believe that the cost of conscience has to be counted. It was a good thing that the hon. Member for Birkenhead introduced that issue into his speech. Above all, he is an honest and honourable man who does not seek to hide what he believes or what he wishes to achieve, and I honour and respect him for that.
In the months which lie between this decision and the decision that will be taken by Synod in November—and the decision that we may well be called on to take thereafter—I ask the hon. Gentleman to think carefully about what he has said, and about those men who will feel that they can no longer be at home within the Church of England, although many of them have given decades of their lives to it as vicars and rectors—men who have never been paid any great sum of money because we do not pay our priests very much in the Church of England, and men who will feel that they cannot, in all conscience, continue to exercise their vocation. Are they and their families to be punished for a decision which was never even in prospect when they were ordained?
We have to face that issue and deal with it with clarity and humility. Now is not the time to expand on that subject, although it was proper for the hon. Member for Birkenhead to introduce it and it is equally proper that I should respond, but I ask him and every other hon. Member in this Chamber to think carefully about that before we come finally to debate it.
I shall not seek to divide the House this evening because there is no point in so doing. It is clear to me that the majority of Members present this evening would feel that the measure is indeed expedient, although I do not think that it is, for the reasons that I have sought to explain.
I come back to where I began and where the hon. Gentleman finished his speech. It is important that the General Synod of the Church of England and those who lead it and seek to speak for it should behave wholly honestly in every way. That means saying what they are about and not dressing up significant Measures in spurious garments. That way lies further division and further justifiable anger as a result of provocation.
126
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who introduced the Measure with his customary elegance and moderation, will take that message back to his fellow commissioners and others in the hierarchy of the Church of England.
10.30 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I rise to speak in favour of the motion and the proposals in the Measure. Although I have been present at the commit tee meetings on almost all occasions, unfortunately I was unable to attend this time, but 1 would have taken the same view. It was a useful exercise in exploring the issues and hearing the evidence which, as the committee often finds, was helpful.
To follow on the speech of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), the Measure seems to tiptoe round the three controversial clauses, particularly the difficult issue of the ordination of women priests. I support the ordination of woman priests. I was interested to hear the answer of the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) to me the other day on the personnel implications. It advanced the important argument that the total number of people coming forward for ordination had increased, but that the number of men coming forward had decreased. It does not take the genius of a Newton to work out that the advantage to the Church of having women ordained would be considerable: it would give a plus rather than a minus final figure.
I have always taken the view that there are enormous numbers of people out there who wish to give service as ordained members of the ministry. I remember going to the first service of the ordination of women as deacons at Southwark cathedral and seeing a great tide of women coming through the gates to that new form of ministry. I was enormously impressed by that. I realised how we hold back, to our detriment, those who feel that that sort of ministry is their vocation. When the Measure comes before us, as we expect that it will within a year, it not only will have my support, but will enjoy widespread support on both sides of each House.
I agree with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that the issue of principle behind whether women should be ordained priests should be taken separately. Now is not the right time to get into the detailed debates that follow from that, but as this is probably the last chance that the House will have to discuss the whole issue of the preferment of women in the Church, it is important to see how the Measure relates to that wider issue.
The debate is topical because of the express concern of members of the Church about what will happen if the Synod votes for the ordination of women—the majority of dioceses have already said that they wish to do that. I understand the point of conscience, but there is a greater cause to which those ordained into the Church must subscribe. They must ensure that the maximum number who feel that they have a vocation are able to practise it in the cause of the gospel. Whatever the personal conviction, there are perfectly adequate ways within the same Church whereby people can continue their ministry without seeking to divide the Church, separate from it or cause difficulties to its ministry.
The Church has suffered from schism during two millennia and its message has been obscured by it. The Church of England will not do the country a service if large

127
numbers, or even small but significant numbers, of its ordained priests decide that they must go somewhere else to carry out their ministry as a result of a decision by the Synod. The Church of England may have reason to arouse criticism because of its establishment nature, but its great merit is that it is the Church of the whole nation. I hope that everyone who is ordained to serve in it will see the merit in retaining that unity after any decision, taken after due and prayful consideration, by the Synod of the Church.
Those who are considering how they will react should the Church vote for the ordination of women should remember that many of us want them to stay in the Church and not to divide it. We believe that their concerns can be accommodated by a careful, conscientious, considered and deliberate process between now and any decision by the Church. Some have asked that any such decision should be delayed for 10 years, but if that is not possible, I hope that they will not believe that they have an overriding duty other than to stay in the Church to which they have given so much of their lives.
It is anomalous that we should be considering the supplemental issue before the main one. However, in relation of rural deans, I appreciate that that is necessary for the clarification of the law, rather than the promulgation of new law. It is clear from the evidence that, at the time of the act of uniformity, the job of rural deans did not exist. They were a later creation. However, the Measure on rural deans has been introduced to avoid doubt.
I understand the view expressed by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South, and I accept that it is logical to think that the job of rural dean is given to someone of seniority and experience in that local part of the Church. The evidence, however, suggests that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in one respect. Rural dean is not a post of seniority, but one of co-ordination. The selection of a rural dean works on a rota of people in the deanery. Some of those selected are relatively new priests in the deanery and are relatively young. The post does not necessarily go to the most senior priests. It is a functional, administrative job which entails passing on information to the area bishop. It is not a supervisory or hierarchical job. There is a difference.
It is also an anomaly in 1992 to describe the person appointed to the post in a deanery such as mine as a rural dean. I know that the parishes of Bermondsey were in the country once, in the county of Surrey, and were a long way from the City of London and the city of Westminster. That is not so any more. The Church should look like it is up with the times. We could correct the title in the next miscellaneous Measure to allow people to be called urban or area deans in those areas that are no longer rural.
Hon. Members will have noticed that there are female non-residential canons—they are enumerated in the Measure. Indeed, we have one in Southwark diocese. The Measure seeks to add the opportunity for women to be residential canons, too. Although that is a different argument, it has merit. As there are many women in different forms of the ministry in the Church, it seems entirely appropriate that women—irrespective of their priestly or diaconal status—should be able to participate in the internal grouping responsible for the running,
128
management and ministry of the cathedral church. Therefore, allowing women—who cannot yet by law be priests but who can be deacons—to attain that office is an advantage both to the cathedral church and to the diocese as a whole. Women in the diocese would then have a role model representing them in an extremely important part of the diocese.
There are reasons that stand on their own and have merit to justify the two provisions. Those who proposed them thought so, and I believe their honesty and integrity. Bigger issues lie further down the track and we shall debate those with more heat and potentially more numbers in due course but, in the meantime, I expect that the House will wish to support the Measure. I hope that it does so and that it will allow the many small administrative changes and the two more noticeable ones to be made to the advantage of the whole of the Church of England.
10.42 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: A virtue of the speeches by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is that they seem to be new each time. Having something to say on every subject would like to be shared by many hon. Members who do not get a chance to speak quite so often—
Mr. Simon Hughes: I am a spokesman for my party.
Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman says that he is a spokesman for his party on that subject. I concede that.
The last tract that I read was given 18 years ago by the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, on "The Christian Concept of Sacrifice". I do not address that to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) because the persuasive case that he has made for this Measure has convinced everyone and gained the tacit acquiescence of those who have argued against or been doubtful about the provisions at previous stages. But Michael Ramsay said:
"if we're engaged in a ministry of paraphrasing we do need to conserve at the heart of it the thing which is being paraphrased; and unless we do, we may not be paraphrasing, but we may be talking a lot of rather superficial stuff which means a great deal less than what the real thing meant and means. For that reason my hope is that however much modern paraphrase language we come to use in our liturgies, hymns, preaching, and elsewhere, we will always retain at the heart of it the words that Jesus himself used on the night in which he was betrayed, the words, 'This cup is the New Covenant in My blood' or 'This is My blood of the Covenant, shed for you and for many', because the reality contained in those words really transcends all the attempts at paraphrasing as long as this world may last."
Michael Ramsey started that address to the Anselm Society of Canterbury by saying that one of his great teachers, Edwyn Clement Hoskyns, said many years ago that the concept of sacrifice had become spiritualised and etherealised and that we had forgotten what a horrible thing it really meant. Hoskyns said it
"it would be a good thing if once a year a bull could be sacrificed in the college court, preferably on a hot summer's afternoon, just to bring home to all our senses what a horrible thing was this sacrifice that lies behind so much of the imagery of Christianity."
Those words may go a little beyond the Measure, but they begin to illustrate that some of the cosy little talks among those who know how to spell ecclesiology—I confess that I am not among them—get away from the service to which most of us are called. One of the reasons why I have not been a very successful politician is because

129
I do not know how to get on bodies such as the Ecclesiastical Committee. If I am re-elected at the general election, could those who know how to get on that Committee tell me, because I should like to be on it, especially when Measure on the ordination of women comes up? [HON. MEMBERS: "Write—or pray—to the Speaker."] I am told that I should write to Mr. Speaker.
It seems that, although the Measure's innocuous title helps it to contain provisions to allow women and others—men, although they are not likely to remain deacons for six years or more—to do things that they are not forbidden to do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) said, I think that we all recognise that we are on the way to the General Synod considering the major point.
I hope that we shall hear less in the popular media that reflects the voice of the organisation "The Church in Danger". As far as I can see, the organisation was thought up by those associated with The Spectator weekly magazine. A significant, although not always declared, proportion of its members are retired from active stipendiary ministry—they are ministers on pensions.
Mr. Frank Field: That is ageism.
Mr. Bottomley: It is not ageism—I am just trying to describe whose who are not involved in compensation.
I also hope that when we consider the Measure on the ordination of women, which I hope will come through Synod and the Ecclesiastical Committee to the Floor of the House, we shall not look on the issue of compensation in that way. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South would accurately describe such matters as resettlement issues. The resettlement of people who feel that they have to abandon their way of earning their living is a separate matter. But perhaps such arguments can be addressed following the bishops' advice to the Synod.
I used to believe that it was worth waiting a bit for the ordination of women. On one of my unsuccessful attempts to stand for election at the General Synod—there have been two so far—I said that I thought that the balance of sacrifice was now being carried by the women, not by those to whom the ordination of women would be a personal pain, difficult or unacceptable.
However, I now look at the people who still object to the ordination of women—I am not addressing a personal remark to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South—and see that some of them overlap with those who object to a modern liturgy. I see the modern liturgy as one that makes the Church of England liturgy virtually identical with Roman Catholic liturgy, and, on those grounds alone, something to be very much welcomed. I also see people objecting to the ordination of some people who could be ordained if they were in slightly different personal circumstances.
I hope that the Bishop of London will not take this as a personal attack on him, but when he uses language that I cannot even understand, let alone agree to, it seems that we should take a different approach. We should recognise that the General Synod was set up to try to help ease the burden of legislation on ecclesiastical matters in the House, but also realise that the House should not just rubber stamp what may come forward but should call for it.
130
We should say that the sacrifice which has been borne by women and the Church has gone on too long, and most of us are like the two thirds of the readers of the Church of England Newspaper who, about three years ago, were clearly strongly in favour of the ordination of women. Half of one third—about 16 per cent. of the readers—were strongly against it. The strength of feeling of the minority who are opposed should no longer be able to dominate the overwhelming majority, plus the others who would want or accept it when it comes.
Mr. Cormack: I counsel my hon. Friend to be a little careful in his attribution of motives to other people.
More importantly, he should not castigate an organisation like "The Church in Danger" as being a particular group of people. He should look at the Members in both Houses of Parliament who are on that group. He would see that they are people of all ages and both sexes, with genuine concerns which any member of the Church of England should take seriously.
Mr. Bottomley: I accept that. However, I saw the unpaid advertisements—the come-ons—in The Spectator magazine week after week. I was tempted to join to find out what was being circulated among the members of the "The Church in Danger" organisation.
When "The Church in Danger" writes to the Archbishop of Canterbury I should be grateful if it would deposit a copy of the letter in the House Library so that people like me can read it. I pay tribute to the archbishop for giving us the copy of his response, which struck me as fair and reasonable. It would also help if those reporting the words of "The Church in Danger" mentioned not just that one member of the Cabinent supports what it is doing but that none of the others has signed up. The reporting of this matter has not been terribly balanced—
Mr. Gerald Howarth: As a younger member of "The Church in Danger," perhaps I could attack the accusation of ageism. My hon. Friend is well known in the House for his defence of minorities—in a secular sense. Is he saying that a minority in this case should be overruled or swept aside?
I should like to challenge my hon. Friend's reference to the Church Times—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Both hon. Members are straying a long way from the Measure. I very much hope that they will relate their remarks more closely to it.
Mr. Howarth: If I may continue, my hon. Friend should not judge the views of the Church of England—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Bottomley: I was referring to the Church of England Newspaper, not the Church Times. On the other matter, I stand corrected.
I have spent some time serving on the Archbishop of Canterbury's urban priority commission, a follow-up to "Faith in the City". No great objections to the ordination of women were raised in that body. I spent six years as a trustee of Christian Aid and found no difficulties with the idea on that organisation. When I served as chairman of the Church of England Children's Society I did not find that the issue came up much.
In short, in much of the practical work of the Church, the ordination of women is not an issue, because people

131
are getting on with their work. If St. Hilda of Whitby could do what she did, why could she not be ordained? My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South and I were in St. Faith's chapel earlier this evening; if St. Faith could be a saint and a woman, surely the ordination of women does not present difficulties.
I am grateful for your charity, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I support this Measure, and also the Measure that that is to come later; I hope that Anglicans and non-Anglicans alike will do all in their power to support and pass it when it comes.
10.51 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: I entered the Chamber solely to listen to the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members who have served on the Ecclesiastical Committee for longer than I, but I felt it right to say a word or two because I disagreed mildly with my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and more strongly with certain Conservative Members.
While we should try to avoid schism—paganism is far too rife in this country—we should also recognise that, despite all pleadings for unity and cohesion in the Church, there may still be some honest men who cannot go along with the decision to ordain women. I agree that they should not leave the Church loaded with largesse, but it would be wicked to send them along a bitter road without scrip or sustenance. We do not want to over-encourage their departure, but it should not be accompanied by impoverishment—
Mr. Frank Field: We should try at all costs to prevent these people from departing—they should be promoted in the hierarchy, and parishes should have the right never to accept women if they do not want to; there are not enough to go around, anyway. But at the end of the day, if they do not want to stay, having been encouraged to do so, they should leave.
Mr. Tony Banks: Let them eat manna.
Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend demonstrates his usual generous spirit.
The fact remains that there must be some understanding of the challenges faced by the Church and those within it. My view of the matter is different from that of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South. I attended the last meeting of the Ecclesiastical Committee at which the matter was discussed, and I certainly understand the hon. Gentleman's view.
Because of the developments of history and the change in the nature of society, the ordination of women is right. As a result, it would have been inappropriate for the House not to recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has recognised, that the debate is of relatively minor importance. However, signals will go out from the debate, and the House should send a signal that the future debate on the ordination of women should be preceded by the proper rectification of anomalies. The issue of canons and rural deans is an anomaly that may not have loomed large in the past, but in the context of the developing debate, it is important and it would not be wise to rule out women on the ground that they do not have the capacity to hold such positions.
132
I hope that grasp of the modernities of life displayed by the hon. Member for Southward and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will not be such as to expunge the title of rural dean from his area of London or any other conurbation. One of the advantages of the developing debate, with all the anguish and anxiety that it will engender, is that the media may well return to the above-average presentation of dramas based on adaptations of Trollope. Such presentations are among the finest achievements of the past decade of British television, and I hope that they will be repeated or developed.
Such presentations hold out the prospect of rural deans having a greater meaning in Britain's conurbations. That could be one of the less significant spin-offs of a debate that will bring heated argument to the country and probably to the House. On this occasion, I hope that the House will approve a Measure that is both consistent and necessary.
10.57 pm
Mr. Alison: I note that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is looking forward to his Adjournment debate, so I shall not detain the House.
The hon. Member asked where he might be buried. That is a matter of some local importance, and the hon. Gentleman will be relieved to hear one or two facts that are relevant to his contingency when it arises. He need not be buried in consecrated ground. He could be buried at the bottom of his garden, if that is what he wants, but I suspect that that might be a hazardous enterprise, because it could give rise to a whispering campaign alleging that the local Conservative party or an activist had murdered and buried him. That could lead to the hon. Gentleman being disinterred and put in the local authority cemetery. If he were buried in unconsecrated ground and his family subsequently wished it to be consecrated, that could be done. The hon. Gentleman's future burial is entirely indeterminate, but I suspect properly safeguarded.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made a helpful speech supporting the Measure, for which I am grateful. He criticised the General Synod in terms of the title that we are considering, the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure. The hon. Gentleman is being a little harsh, although he is not normally a harsh man. The measure started as the Service Chaplains and Miscellaneous Provisions Measure. The Synod then decided to take out the service chaplains bit of it, so it became simply the miscellaneous provisions Measure.
Much further down the line, when it had completed almost all its stages, the Synod decided to put in the three provisions on canons, and overlooked restoring the title that the Measure had originally had, the Service Chaplains and Miscellaneous Provisions Measure. The Synod might have done so if it had thought about it, and I am sure that it would accept the rebuke that the hon. Gentleman made, but this was not done in an attempt to mislead us or to get something through on the nod.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) made a considered and moderately expressed speech of dissent and warning. His eloquent and well-rounded speech will be noted and considered in General Synod circles. It is a foreshadowing of things to come, and we need to take considerable notice of speeches from that quarter and of that calibre.

133
I am not sure whether I can reassure my hon. Friend, but I can tell him that already, some rural deans appointed from the diaconate are men of considerable experience, so this is not entirely unprecedented. We are enfranchising women in this sector not because it will be the shape of things to come, but very much because it is the shape of things as they are as the result of the 1985 measure, which presented the Church of England with such a large number of women deacons.
It is worth noting, by way of counter-balance, that the Roman Catholic Church is moving strongly in the direction of introducing a diaconate expressly for married men, so as to encourage men to go into a limited ministry. It is possible that there will be a feedback into the Church of England, with a growing body of men who wish to limit themselves to the diaconate, thereby offering a limited service, in a way that matches what is happening in the Roman Catholic Church.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend not only for the tone in which he expressed his dissent, but for saying that he will not divide the House.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for his helpful and analytical exposition of the merits of the measure. We note his point about the change of the designation of rural deans to Bermondsey, although, with greenness in his veins, he may one day secure that Bermondsey becomes rural—that will be the day!
I note carefully the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), and the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has given us his usual helpful support. I am grateful for the positive note that he struck.
Against that background, I hope that the House will allow this Measure to go through.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Hare Coursing
11.3 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I should like to present a petition signed by over 114,000 citizens, protesting at the barbaric so-called sport of hare coursing. Live hare coursing takes place between September and March every year, and it is staged purely for entertainment. People who take pleasure from watching a harmless live animal ripped to pieces by dogs have to be sick in the head. The hare is not a pest. It does not threaten farmers or other creatures. Hare coursing comes in the same barbaric category as dog fighting, badger baiting, cock fighting, and so on. I am pleased to tell the 114,000 signatories to the petition, organised by the League Against Cruel Sport, and the followers of this organised torture against hares, that when Labour wins the general election, we shall introduce legislation that will banish hare coursing from our country.
To lie upon the Table.

Vivisection
11.4 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: Here we have two for the price of one. I present the second petition on behalf of over 15,000 citizens. It asks for the abolition of vivisection on scientific and moral grounds. Approximately 3·2 million animals were experimented on in British laboratories during 1990. This means 8,000 per day or 60,000 per week. The number of experiments that did not involve any anaesthetic at any stage rose from 63 per cent. in 1989 to 68 per cent. in 1990. In one statement, Ceiba Geigy estimated that 95 per cent. of drugs passed safe after animal tests were rejected after human clinical trials. Vivisection includes: suffocation, burning, scalding, drowning, mutilation, poisoning, surgery, irradiation, sleep-deprivation, sight deprivation, electro-shocking, freezing, injection of disease and genetic manipulation—and we think that we have it bad in this place. Cosmetic testing and many other procedures, such as the LG50 test, have been widely discredited. The world will be a better place when all vivisection is abolished, in terms of both human health and animal welfare.
I present the petition on behalf of the signatories.
To lie upon the table.

Law and Order
11.5 pm
Mrs. Llin Golding: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of 8,535 signatories on the breakdown of law and order. The petition was collected by members of the Newcastle-under-Lyme Labour party and by others outside the party, notably Marie Price. My constituents rushed to sign it. Is that any wonder, when crime has doubled since 1979?
Violent crime has doubled, burglaries have doubled and robberies have trebled. People have signed the petition because they do not want to be frightened to open their doors, to go out at night or to use subways. They do not want to be worried that their houses or cars will be broken

135
into when they leave them. They want action to prevent crime. They want the Government to take the petition seriously.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Government to take urgent steps to halt the breakdown of law and order. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table

Stratford School
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]
11.6 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: The problems of Stratford school in my constituency have received excessive national publicity. It is publicity that we do not welcome in the area, and the sorry mess could have been avoided in the first place if this malevolent and dogmatic Government had listened to the elected representatives of Newham—Members of Parliament and councillors.
I shall be brief because I want my Newham colleagues and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to contribute to the debate, and I have agreed that with the Minister.
Originally Newham council proposed the closure of Stratford school to conform with the Government's requirement to reduce surplus places in line with circular 3/87 from the Department of Education and Science. To enable the building of a new sixth form college and two new schools in docklands, Stratford had to close. The reorganisation plans were well supported in the borough by local industrialists, the London Docklands development corporation and others.
In an understandable attempt to avoid closure, the parents submitted a petition with enough signatures to trigger an opt-out ballot. The result of the first ballot was a majority of 10 against opt-out. As fewer than 50 per cent. of parents voted, a second ballot was required. The result of that ballot was an 18 vote majority for opt-out. Fifty-one per cent. were in favour of opt-out, but that represented only 33 per cent. of those eligible to vote. It was hardly an overwhelming turnout. However, an overwhelming majority of existing governors and staff were opposed to opt-out.
In October 1989, Newham's Members, together with councillors and officers, went to see the then Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Mordern (Mrs. Rumbold). We said that it was nonsense to grant opt-out for a school facing closure as part of approved education reorganisation. We warned the Minister about the likely chaos and divisiveness that opt-out would cause in the area. We were given a most sympathetic hearing and we assumed that good sense would prevail. In that respect, we were proved utterly wrong.
In the summer of 1990, with the Tory party conference looming, we understand that the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), started expressing dissatisfaction with the slow rate of opt-out. Junior Ministers at the Department of Education and Science were changed. Despite advice from civil servants against opt-out, the overwhelming opposition of Stratford governors and the absence of any real support in the local community, opt-out for Stratford school was approved by the Secretary of State for Education and Science in October 1990.
It was a political decision that was based on the needs of the Tory party and the dogma of the then Prime Minister. The Minister who is sitting behind the Dispatch Box, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), knows that the Tory party had nothing to lose in Newham, North-West. He did not care about the education of

137
Newham pupils or community relations in the area. He was interested only in delivering an opt-out in a solid Labour area to satisfy the half-mad bigot who was then leading the country.
One has to contrast the Stratford decision in Labour Newham with the decision over Walsingham school in Tory Wandsworth. Walsingham was also facing closure as part of a reorganisation. Both schools had similar pupil and electoral rolls. At Walsingham in Wandsworth, 96·1 per cent. of parents voted for an opt-out on a first ballot. In Newham, on the second ballot only 51 per cent. voted in favour of an opt-out. At Walsingham, no fewer than 64·8 per cent. of people on the electoral roll voted in favour. At Stratford, only 33·5 per cent. of those eligible to vote voted in favour. There was no question about support for an opt-out at Walsingham at any level at any stage among any of the people involved, but the Secretary of State turned down Walsingham's opt-out application. Could it have been on educational grounds or could it just be because Walsingham is in Tory Wandsworth and Stratford is in Labour Newham?
I should like the Minister to answer three specific questions. First, is it not a ff cd67act that his Department advised and warned him against the Stratford opt-out? Secondly, why was Stratford allowed to opt out and Walsingham refused permission to opt out? Thirdly, why has the Secretary of State refused to meet elected representatives in the House, the three Newham Members of Parliament, and councillors from the London borough of Newham? It is because the opt-out in our area has created enormous bitterness.
Pupils are returning home crying. Parents are telephoning my office to complain and then refusing to give their names or addresses because of fear of intimidation. The local police are genuinely worried about the possibilities of violence, and maintain a presence in the area. The school is regularly staked out by camera crews and journalists. To cap it all, various racist organisations are now sniffing around to see what trouble they can cause. It is an appalling mess, and the blame for creating the conditions rests entirely with the Government.
Schools in the public sector do not belong to a particular set of governors, parents or staff who happen to be there at any given moment. Those schools belong to the entire community that funds them. Stratford school must be handed back to the elected representatives of the local community, and that means Newham council. This opt-out has gone disastrously but predictably wrong. The real sufferers are the school pupils and their education, and that is intolerable.
At the very least, the Government should ask Her Majesty's inspectorate to go to Stratford to see what is going on behind those closed doors. The nation's press is crawling over the school. The last HMI inspection was a routine one on 4 December 1991. The Government are obviously embarrassed by events at Stratford. The shoddily drafted legislation which permits an opt-out has no built-in safety measures to deal with an opt-out which goes haywire, as it has done at Stratford.
I expect a Labour Secretary of State to place Stratford school back with Newham council. In my opinion—it is only my opinion—governors and senior teachers involved in the opt-out will have to be replaced at some point. Neither feuding governors nor teachers must be seen to
138
win. The only victory that we want is a victory for good sense, the educational needs of the pupils and the wishes of the local community.
The Minister has deliberately sought to create trouble in my constituency, and for that I will never forgive him. The people of Newham will now have to look to the election of a Labour Government to sort out the sorry mess at Stratford school. I look to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to give us the necessary assurances.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I believe that the hon. Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will seek to catch my eye. I understand that the Minister agrees, provided that hon. Members leave him sufficient time to reply.
11.13 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: This matter is a tragedy for the pupils of Stratford school because they come from the local community which contributes, through its poll tax via the council, to the Department of Education and Science, the money for the school. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, the school is the property not of the governors or the parents but of the public and the community which it serves now and will serve in future.
Stratford school is one of three secondary schools that were due for closure under the Newham plan for which Sir Keith Joseph, as he then was, asked. The southern part of the borough south of the A13 covers an area of land the equivalent distance from Earl's Court to Blackfriars and is an island that is accessible only by virtually three points across a main road which is the equivalent of a river—the Newham docklands. In that area we have two special schools, two nursery schools and no fewer than 12 primary schools, but no secondary school. The existence of surplus and larger numbers in the north of the borough prejudices the interests of parents and pupils in the area of Newham, South, the Newham docklands, which I have the honour to represent.
11.14 pm
Mr. Ron Leighton: There was never any great demand for the opting out of Stratford school. On the first ballot, there was a majority of 10 against; on the second, a narrow majority of 18 in favour—a wafer-thin 2 per cent., or only 33 per cent. of the electoral roll.
Nearly all the governors and staff were against. All expert and professional local opinion opposed the opt-out. All head teachers in the borough were against it, as were the community college, the chairman of the local training and enterprise council, and the three local Members of Parliament. All those with local knowledge and experience warned against the opt-out, saying that it would lead to an unmanageable situation.
Then along came the new Minister of State, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar). Following blind, ideological dogma, he went ahead with the opt-out, and Stratford quickly became a school for scandal, with one disgraceful episode following another.

139
Newham has many ethnic groups, languages, and currents. A professional local education authority is vitally necessary to hold the ring, keep a balance, and maintain the standards that the Government, for ideological reasons, destroyed in their blind opposition to democratic local government. They handed power to opportunists with hidden agendas and personal ambitions, and ever since there has been a catalogue of disaster and scandalous events.
After bitter disputes the school's chairman, Father Reilly, was ousted. One governor applied for the post of deputy head, which was advertised internally and without the knowledge of the head teacher. The governors then purported to sack the head, but she was reinstated by the Secretary of State—so much for local management. There have been public brawls in the school assembly, with words such as "liar", "fascist", and "racist" thrown about. The police were called to the school on a number of occasions, and there have been various legal actions alleging assault between those supposed to be running the school.
The Secretary of State was compelled to appoint two governors, who have now been boycotted by the others. Accusations have been made by both sides of intimidation and corruption. One principal added to the farce by declaring a 24-hour hunger strike. Can that be the way to run a school?
The Government must accept that they got it wrong. They must agree to sit down with Newham council to find a solution.
11.16 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: Stratford is about the ill-considered, partisan policy of opting out exploding in the Government's face. It is not a race issue. The Independent commented that the events at Stratford,
"unprecedented in the history of state governance",
were, in many features,
"the direct consequence of government policy."
The Times, in a leader entitled "Opted into Anarchy", said that the Secretary of State
"is hoist with his own petard."
As my hon. Friends pointed out, the Minister of State was warned directly of the consequences of allowing opting out. The governing body said:
"Grant-maintained status would lead rapidly to an unmanageable situation in which the school would be unable to provide a proper education for its pupils."
Those warnings were ignored by the Minister and, sadly, the governing body was proved correct.
What must be done? Ministers must face up to the seriousness of the situation, for which they alone are responsible. Their indolence and complacency is inexcusable. For the Secretary of State to say in a week when the school was in chaos that it was "operating satisfactorily" was bizarre.
A team of Her Majesty's inspectorate must be sent to the school immediately, and its report published as quickly as possible. If just 10 per cent. of the incidents reported had occurred at a local authority school, the Secretary of State would already have sent in Her Majesty's inspectorate with a blaze of publicity. Look how swiftly he
140
acted last year over Culloden school in Tower Hamlets—but the HMI has not visited Stratford school since 4 December, and then only as a matter of routine.
The Audit Commission—not private auditors—must institute a formal audit of the school. On the basis of Her Majesty's inspectorate and commission's reports, Ministers must be ready to issue directions to the governors under sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944, and to use any other powers that they have to produce stability in the school. If Ministers need additional powers at this stage in the life of this Parliament, they should talk to the official Opposition. In government, we would act in the way that I have described.
Stratford proves beyond doubt how establishing a market in schools and opting them out of any local accountability can lead only to "anarchy"—the word used by The Times, direct rule from Whitehall, or the worst of both worlds, which is what we have today.
State schools must be accountable to the community that they serve, and which pays for them. Whitehall cannot run 25,000 schools. That is why opted-out schools must be returned to their parent local authorities—with, of course, clear safeguards to prevent discrimination against school or staff. Under Labour, there will be independent public inquiries into any local authority proposal to close a school. That would have provided Stratford parents with a just hearing of their case. Under Labour, there will also be an education standards commission, which could and would intervene at the behest of parents, teachers or governors to prevent circumstances such as those at Stratford from ever beginning to develop.
I give Stratford parents this pledge: Labour will not allow their children to be used as political pawns, as the Tory Government have so cynically done.
11.20 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): That last remark really took the biscuit. Opposition Members have talked about Stratford as though they were talking about some kind of academic exercise. They have not really been concerned about the 600-odd pupils at the school.
Mr. Spearing: I mentioned them specifically.
Mr. Eggar: If the hon. Gentleman reads the record, what I have said will be obvious to him.
I will quote from a letter written by Mr. Scivetti, the chairman of the school PTA. He has two children at the school, and was responsible for calling a very successful parent-teacher meeting this evening. He wrote:
"Jack Straw talks of a school in chaos yet neither he nor any other Labour MPs have visited the school. Were they to do so, they would see how well the school continues to function. They might remark at the high quality of the education; the quiet in the classrooms; the good behaviour and discipline of the pupils and the very high standard and progress being made."
Children have only one chance in their secondary education. Some of those pupils at Stratford were victims of Newham's outrageous behaviour, and its attempts to empty the school last year. Let us be clear about this: when the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) talks about returning the school to Newham, what he really means is closing the school, because he knows that that is the policy of Newham council. He is talking about trying to return those pupils to an education authority that

141
has palpably failed. He is asking us to believe that the best way forward for Stratford school is, in fact, a leap backwards—a leap that would return the school to Newham LEA.
I say this to the hon. Members who seek to represent Newham: whatever differences may exist at Stratford school, everyone there is united on one thing—their absolute abhorrence of the idea of ever being returned to the control of Newham LEA.
What is Newham's panacea? The hon. Member for Newham, North-West should face up to the performance of its LEA. Newham is bottom of the league table in regard to the amount of money delegated to schools. It is almost bottom of the league table for exam results. It ranked 94th out of 96 LEAs in respect of average GCSE results over the last three years for which records are available, and it ranked next to last in the national tests for seven-year-olds: in the composite results and in English and maths separately, it came 104th out of 105. It did slightly better in science, coming 103rd. That is the record of Newham local education authority that Opposition Members seek to support.
Let us consider again what Mr. Scivetti, the chairman of the parent-teacher association, said in his letter:
"I would suggest it is the education of children at these LEA schools which is more likely to suffer and it is to these schools they"—
Opposition Members—
"should direct their attention."
Opposition Members have said on previous occasions and in previous questions to me, although not during this debate, that Stratford school is a waste of money. That was not repeated this evening. Opposition Members have made that very clear. They say that they believe that Newham is so efficient and streamlined that it could manage the school and provide high quality education.
Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It appears that the Minister is casting aspersions. He said that one of us three hon. Members who represent Newham said that a school was a waste of money. I have never said that and I do not think that my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have said that. The Minister should substantiate that remark or withdraw it with the rest of his tirade.
Mr. Eggar: It was the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) who raised the question of the financing of Stratford school with me. I believe, from memory, that it was at Question Time.
Mr. Leighton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have never used those words. Will the Minister quote from where in Hansard I said that?
Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman has, on previous occasions, made a statement about the cost of educating pupils at Stratford school. As he would surely want to know the facts, I can tell him that—
Mr. Deputy Speaker:Order. If the Minister cannot show that he has done other than to misrepresent the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), he should withdraw his earlier remark.
Mr. Eggar: I am very willing to return to the interjection that the hon. Gentleman made about financing—
Mr. Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is absolutely outrageous conduct from the Minister, who is trying to avoid responsibility for the school. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have just asked him to withdraw a totally unfounded remark about my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). With respect, I invite you to ask him to withdraw it again.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that the Minister was in the process of withdrawing it. I very much hope that he will do so.
Mr. Eggar: If I have misrepresented the hon. Member for Newham, North-East, of course I withdraw. However, the hon. Gentleman is aware that he has raised the question of the cost of financing pupils at Stratford with me.
The cost per pupil at Stratford is £2,600 per pupil on the roll today and that compares with Newham's standard spending assessment—the basis on which the Government's revenue support grant for the authority is determined—of £3,500 for 11 to 15-year-olds and £5,000 for over-16-year-olds.
Mr. Straw: What are the Government going to do about Stratford school?
Mr. Eggar: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) wants to consider the record of Stratford school. Progress to date at the school has been remarkable. It now has 570 pupils, compared with only about 180 when Newham had finished luring children and teachers away. The school had almost to start from scratch, not knowing until the last moment how many pupils and staff it would have on 1 April 1991. Instead of attacking the school, Opposition Members should join in praising the head, the head's staff, parents and pupils for their sheer hard work and determination. [Interruption.] Again, from a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Blackburn says that no one has attacked the school. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West said at the beginning of the debate that the governors, the head and the senior staff should leave the school. If that is not attacking the school, it is riot clear to me what is.
Although the school continues to grow and to provide pupils with a good education, it is well known that there have been difficulties between the governing body and the head teacher. For Opposition Members, particularly those whose constituents are involved in the school, that should be a matter of concern and a reason to give the school support. It should not be an opportunity for political point scoring of the cheap sort that we heard tonight.
We have written to the governing body on several occasions to give advice and guidance on the sort of relationships that we would like to see. We shall soon send it the guidance that it asked for on the role of governors. This follows on from the advice that we have already given. For instance, the chairman of the governors was told in a letter from an official in January:
"The Secretary of State considers that the success of a grant-maintained school depends in no small measure upon a good working relationship between the headteacher of the school and the governing body. The headteacher is the governing body's professional adviser and their link between the formulation of policy and its execution in the school." In February, the chairman was informed of the Secretary of State's view on a disruption caused in the school earlier that day. He was told:

143
"The Secretary of State is of the very strong view that the welfare of the children transcends any disagreement which you may have with the headteacher or any other persons and that it is wholly wrong to seek to involve pupils directly in such matters."
Mr. Spearing: I think that the Minister will agree that I said that the welfare of the pupils was the first consideration. He did not acknowledge that. Will he now acknowledge that by agreeing to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), that the Minister ask his inspectors to go into the school to see that the norms that he mentions are indeed maintained?
Mr. Eggar: Her Majesty's inspectorate is closely involved with the school and will continue to be involved. It will continue to advise Ministers on the position. The hon. Member for Blackburn raised a point about auditors. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the Department's auditors paid a visit to the school—I think in the middle of last week. As is well known, in addition to the representations that we have made to the governors, we have used our power under the Education Reform Act 1988 to appoint two first-rate additional governors to the school, Mrs. Daphne Gould and Professor Eric Bolton. They play a full and active part in the governing body.
The Government intend to assist the school to get over its difficulties and to ensure that, by whatever means necessary within our powers, the school knows what is expected of it and the right atmosphere is created to allow the head and her teaching team to get on with their job. We have not hesitated and we will not hestiate to use when necessary the powers given to us by Parliament. [Interruption.] We have made that clear to the governing body at every stage.
I heard the hon. Member for Newham, North-West say, again from a sedentary position, that we had been
144
chucking money at the school. That is exactly the point that I made earlier. The school is getting some £2,600 per pupil. That compares with the education SSA allowed to Newham council per pupil of some £3,500 for 11 to 16-year-olds and £5,000 for post-l6-year-olds. I might say that this great educational nirvana which is Newham chooses not to spend as much money per pupil on education as the Government allow it. The Government will continue to keep a close watch on the position at the school. We shall assist the governing body in the efficient and orderly carrying out of its work in every way possible. We will use our powers to intervene where necessary.
As was made clear tonight at the meeting of the parent-teacher association, the parents, pupils and teachers at Stratford want their school to succeed. They want and deserve a first-class education for their children. They must not be put off that objective by the negative approach of Labour Members. Given time, patience, assistance and support, Stratford school will go from strength to strength. It deserves the support of everyone, including the Members of Parliament who represent the area, in its continuing work for the pupils of its community. I trust that, after this debate, Opposition Members and especially the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will have worked out their bile and will seek to support the school and the teachers there.
I thank the hon. Member for Newham, North-West for giving me this opportunity to place on record the Government's support for Stratford school and for the work of the head teacher and her team. I hope that all involved will allow them to settle down and allow the school to mature into the first-class school that I know that it is capable of becoming.
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-four minutes to Twelve o'clock.

ENERGY

  Oil and Gas Reserves
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give a breakdown of the oil and gas platforms, oil and gas production, and oil and gas reserves between the Scottish and English sectors of the Moray Firth, central North sea, and mid North sea high fields.

  Moray Firth

  Central North sea

  Mid North sea high

  Number of oil and gas platforms

  7

  15

  Nil

  1991 oil production (million tonnes)1

  9·8

  19·3

  Nil

  1991 gas production (billion cubic metres)1

  3—

  3—

  Nil

  Initial discovered oil reserves (million tonnes)1 2

  455

  690

  Nil

  Initial discovered gas reserves (billion cubic metres)1 2

  80

  145

  Nil

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Central estimates at 31 December 1991.

  3 Less than one.

  Electricity Generators Licences
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received regarding the effect of the no discrimination provision in electricity generators licences on competition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of representations regarding the non-discrimination provisions in the electricity generators' licences. Licence conditions are a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply.

  Oil and Gas Unit
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has had for and against the moving of the oil and gas industry exploration appraisal and development unit to Aberdeen.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have received a number of representations from Scottish organisations, and the matter has also been raised in discussions with the oil industry.

  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what time scale he envisages for the consultancy study considering the future position of the oil and gas industry exploration appraisal and development unit; when he expects to make a final decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The study of the case for or against relocating the Department of Energy's petroleum engineering directorate to Aberdeen is expected to take about five months. Ministers will then be in a position to make a final decision.
  2
  Mr. Moynihan
  Under international law, the continental shelf appertains to the United Kingdom as a whole. The reserves and production have not been divided between Scotland and England. The number of platforms presently located in the areas commonly known as the Moray Firth, the central North sea and the mid North sea high, together with my Department's provisional estimates of production in 1991 and of initial recoverable reserves discovered to date in each of these areas are shown in the table.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Malawi
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Minister for Overseas Development has had with her EC counterparts on linking Malawi's performance on human rights with the levels of EC development aid.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Following the EC Development Ministers' adoption last November of a resolution on human rights, democracy and development, agreed representations have been made to the Malawi Government. Britain and her European partners will continue to monitor Malawi's actions in all these areas and respond accordingly.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current levels of aid to Zimbabwe.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In 1990, the last year for which comprehensive figures are available, we spent £20·7 million including investments by the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Expenditure in 1992 will include balance of payments aid in support of Zimbabwe's economic reform.

  Aid Policy
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions the Minister for Overseas Development has had with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on the co-ordination of aid policy.
  3
  Mrs. Chalker
  I attended the OECD joint ministerial environment and development meeting and the OECD development assistance committee high level meeting in Paris, on 2 to 4 December 1991.

  EC Aid Programmes
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with Britain's EC partners on EC aid programmes in the last month.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I last discussed development issues with all my EC colleagues at the Development Council in Brussels on 28 November 1991. My officials are in frequent contact with their opposite numbers in the Commission and other member states.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how British aid assists the contribution to family planning in developing countries made by the non-governmental sector.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Population assistance has a high priority in the United Kingdom aid programme—the amount has more than tripled since 1980 to £24 million in 1990. Non-governmental organisations have a vital role to play.

  We are providing substantial and increasing support to NGOs in this area through our support to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, and through our joint funding scheme and bilateral programmes.

  Aid Policy
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met OECD development ministers to discuss the co-ordination of aid policy.

  Mrs Chalker
  I last met a number of overseas development ministers at the OECD joint ministerial environment and development meeting and the OECD Development Assistance Committee high level meeting in Paris from 2 to 4 December 1991.

  Development Co-ordination
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Contenonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with Britain's EC partners on overseas development co-ordination in the last month.

  Mrs Chalker
  I last discussed development issues with all my EC colleagues at the Development Council in Brussels on 28 November 1991. My officials are in frequent contact with their opposite numbers in the Commission and other members states.

  Aid Programmes
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Minister for Overseas Development next intends to meet the Secretary-General of the United Nations and representatives of the World bank to discuss matters relating to the administration of multilateral aid programmes.
  4
  Mrs Chalker
  I met the United Nations Secretary-General on 13 January and the president of the World bank on 4 February. I have regular meetings with senior officials in these and other multilateral aid agencies.

  Animal Conservation
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contributions towards animal conservation are being made by the Overseas Development Administration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs Chalker
  Since 1990 ODA has committed almost £20 million to wildlife conservation projects. A list of projects is available in the Library of the House.

  Baltic States
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conditions he intends to place on future know-how and other funds offered to the states of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia.

  Mrs Chalker
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: The Government have designated the following four sectors as priorities for the delivery of technical assistance to the Baltic states: food processing and distribution, financial services, small business creation, and energy. This does not prevent us from responding to specific requests made by the Baltic authorities in other areas.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the British economic assistance that has been extended to the three Baltic states since independence.

  Mrs Chalker
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: The following projects for technical assistance to the Baltic states under the know-how fund have now been approved:

  KNOW-How FUND: ESTONIA, LATVIA, LITHUANIA

  COUNTRY PROGRAMME PROJECTS

  As at 28 February 1992

  SMALL BUSINESS CREATION

  Mitaline Technology (Estonia)
  Preparation of training programme for use by Estonian Small Business Association. Approved at a cost to KHF of £4,820.

  FINANCIAL SERVICES

  Ports Privatisation Conference
  Director of Estonian Maritime Board enabled to attend Privatisation Conference. Approved at cost to KHF of £900.

  Transcend Technology (Lithuania)
  To provide assistance to the Association of Light Industry Enterprises of Lithuania to prepare individual state enterprises for privatisation. Approved at a cost to KHF of £9,800.

  Lithuanian Association of Accountants
  Study Visit by representative of the Association to United Kingdom to examine accountancy practices. Approved at a cost to KHF of £8,000.

  POLITICAL AND CULTURAL

  Restructuring Ministries of Foreign Affairs
  Senior retired United Kingdom diplomats on short attachments to Ministries of Foreign Affairs in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. To provide advice on restructuring in a democratic society. Approved at a cost to KHF of £ 15,000.
  5
  Police Training
  Senior officers from Strathclyde police on short missions to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to advise on police training needs and restructuring. Approved at a cost to KHF of £20,000.

  Low Cost Book Scheme
  Subsidies for text books for retailers and individuals in the three Baltic states in co-operation with International Books Development Ltd. Approved at a cost to KHF of £66,000.

  Short Term Scholarships
  One year scholarships for postgraduates and young professionals in the three Baltic states. Target areas are economics, finance and management. In co-operation with higher education institutions. Approved at a cost to KHF of £120,000.

  Bradford Baltic Unit
  Attachment of students from the three Baltic states to the Baltic Unit of Bradford University. Approved at a cost to KHF of £70,900.

  Books for Parliament
  Provision of text books in key areas to libraries of the Parliaments of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Approved at a cost to the KHF of £15,000.

  Seminar .for Parliamentary Librarians
  Training seminar for parliamentary librarians from three Baltic states. In co-operation with the Library of the House of Commons. Approved at a cost to the KHF of £8,000.

  Legal Attachments
  Attachments of young lawyers from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to the Law Society of Scotland and Scottish legal practices. Approved at a cost to KHF of £40,000.

  Legal Concepts for Translators
  Training in legal concepts in English for translators attached to the office of the Lithuanian Supreme Council. In co-operation with the University of Edinburgh. Approved at a cost to KHF of £10,000.

  Television Training Project
  Instructing trainees from the three Baltic states in British television production procedures. In co-operation with the Soros Foundation. Approved at a cost to the KHF of £26,000.

  Ministry of Foreign Affairs Protocol Training
  Visit to UK by Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Deputy Chief of Protocol. Approved at a cost to KHF of £2,000.

  Publisher Training
  Seminar on publishing and the book trade in Lithuania. In co-operation with the Open Society Foundation of Lithuania. Approved at a cost to KHF of £30,000.

  Re-integration Conference
  Conference on the re-integration of the Baltic states into the world community. In co-operation with the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Approved at a cost to KHF of £6,000.

  Voluntary Organisations Legislation
  Visit of legal experts to advise on framing voluntary organisation legislation in Lithuania. Approved at a cost to KHF of £5,000.

  Estonian Maritime Board
  Visit of delegation to UK to study hydrography, search and rescue methods. Approved at cost to KHF of £5,000.

  MISSIONS

  Banking, Finance and Privatisation Mission
  Short mission to Baltic states to identify potential projects and terms of reference by Know How Fund Adviser. Approved at cost to KHF of £11,000.

  Insurance Mission
  Mission to the Baltic states to identify potential projects and terms of reference by Know How Fund Adviser. Approved at cost to KHF of £6,000.
  6
  Energy Audit Mission
  Assessment missions to Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia to prepare terms of reference in co-operation with Ministries of Energy for National Energy Audit and other energy sector technical assistance projects by Know How Fund consultant. Approved at cost to KHF of £15,500.

  Joint Exchanges Committee Mission
  Mission to advise on the establishment of a physical commodity exchange. Approved at a cost to KHF of £4,000.

  TRAINING AND ACADEMIC LINK PROJECTS

  University of Stirling
  Exploratory visit in association with the Estonian Academy of Sciences. Cost to KHF to be finalised.

  Leicester Polytechnic
  Exploratory visit in association with Riga Technical University. Cost to KHF of £1,000.

  INVESTMENT SCHEMES PROJECTS

  Michael Abakhan Ltd.
  Training for personnel in partly British owned investment in Estonia. Approved at cost to KHF of £15,600.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS'

  South Africa
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make further representations to the South African authorities to secure the release of all South African political prisoners in accordance with the UN declaration on South Africa adopted by consensus in December 1989; and if he will approach his partners in the European Community to do likewise.

  Mrs Chalker
  We have repeatedly urged the South African Government to release all political prisoners throughout South Africa. The issue is complicated by the late submission of thousands of indemnity applications from prisoners claiming political status. A demarche on political prisoners was handed to the South African Government by the Dutch ambassador, representing the European Community, in October 1991.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to try and increase the number of entries on the electoral roll in St. Helena.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The registers of electors are up-dated during a period of 28 days at the beginning of each calendar year. During this period and throughout the year the public are urged by radio news and the weekly newspaper to register. This coverage, which extends to Ascension island, is supplemented by the work of registration officers and councillors who urge their constituents to register on the electoral roll. The preliminary lists for 1992 show 27 new claims.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the latest available figures for the population of St. Helena 18 years old or over, the number of St. Helenians eligible to be entered on the electoral roll and entitled to vote at an election for the legislative council; and the number at present entered.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The latest available figure for the population of St. Helena 18 years old and over is 3,508.
  7
  The same number are entitled to be entered on the electoral roll and entitled to vote at an election for the legislative council. A total of 2,532 persons are presently entered on the electoral roll.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the prospects for the St. Helena olive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The St. Helena Government are collaborating with the royal botanic gardens in an attempt to propagate the St. Helena olive. There is only a single specimen which is now old and producing only a few seeds from which propagation is being attempted both on St. Helena and at the royal botanic gardens at Kew. There is optimism that the St. Helena olive can be saved and eventually propagated in larger numbers.

  Western Sahara
  Mrs Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide details of the United Kingdom financial contribution to the UN peace plan for the western Sahara; and if he will state how many United Kingdom personnel are currently in the western Saraha to monitor the implementation of the ceasefire and peace plan.

  Dr. Douglas Hogg
  Our assessed contribution to the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in the Western Sahara (MINURSO) amounts to US$8,265,226 so far. In addition, we have provided 15 military observers.

  Nuclear Proliferation
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) all measures taken by his Department in the last 12 months to prevent nuclear proliferation, (b) the number of personnel in his Department working to prevent nuclear proliferation and (c) his Department's total expenditure on control of nuclear proliferation in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Following is the reply:

  (a) Preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is one of the FCO's departmental objectives. To that end we have been consistently active in promoting the nuclear non-proliferation regime in a wide range of international fora, including the UN, the IAEA, the EC, the nuclear suppliers group, the Zangger committee and in support of the UN Special Commission's activities in Iraq. We have undertaken regular bilateral lobbying to increase support for the NPT. In co-operation with other Departments we have provided advice to the DTI on export licensing matters.

  (b) Ten FCO staff in London are engaged directly in work to prevent nuclear proliferation. But a much larger number of staff, at home and overseas, were involved in activities in support of this objective at some time in 1991.

  (c) It is not possible to identify separately departmental expenditure specifically on the control of nuclear proliferation.

HEALTH

  Children at Risk
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children are currently categorised as at risk in(a) London and (b) nationally.

  Mrs Virginia Bottomley
  The information collected centrally relates to children on the child protection registers. The provisional figures for March 1991 show about 7,630 children on registers for London authorities and 45,200 for England. These figures may be adjusted slightly when the final publication is released in the next few months.

  Induced Births
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by year for the last five years, the number of induced births carried out by each(a) regional health authority and (b) district health authority, and if he will show in his answer the age of the mothers in the following age ranges (i) under 16, (ii) 16 to 19, (iii) 20 to 24, (iv) 25 to 29, (v) 30 to 39 and (vi) over 40 years.

  Mrs Virginia Bottomley
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table shows the estimated percentages of induced deliveries by regional health authority for 1985, the last year of the hospital in-patient enquiry (HIPE) and for 1989–90, the first full year of the collection of maternity items in the hospital episode statistics system (HES). The 1989–90 figures are the latest available centrally.

  Induced deliveries as estimated percentages of all deliveries

  19851

  1989–902

  England

  18

  18

  Northern

  18

  22

  Yorkshire

  17

  21

  Trent

  18

  17

  East Anglia

  15

  17

  North West Thames

  24

  12

  North East Thames

  16

  18

  South East Thames

  15

  22

  South West Thames

  18

  15

  Wessex

  19

  n.a.

  Oxford

  19

  19

  South Western

  15

  17

  West Midlands

  17

  21

  Mersey

  16

  17

  North Western

  18

  24

  n.a. Not Available

  Source:

  1 Hospital In-Patient Enquiry (HIPE)

  2 Hospital Episode Statistic (HES)

  Diabetics
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make available finger-pricking devices free of charge for diabetics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs Virginia Bottomley
  We are aware of the potential benefits of these devices: new additions to the list of prescribable items must be subject to the availability of resources and decisions on other competing priorities.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total capital expenditure on the national health service, expressed at 1992 prices for each year since 1962.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information, expressed at 1992 prices, is shown in the table. Figures are available only from 1970–71 onwards, and are not available on the present definition of capital prior to 1985–86.

  NHS capital gross expenditure (including trusts' capital expenditure)

  Cash (A) £ million

  Cash (B) £ million

  Adjusted by GDP 1992–93 prices (A) £ million

  Adjusted by GDP 1992–93 prices (B) £ million

  1970–71

  126

  —

  966

  —

  1971–72

  158

  —

  1,114

  —

  1972–73

  201

  —

  1,311

  —

  1973–74

  245

  —

  1,493

  —

  1974–75

  246

  —

  1,253

  —

  1975–76

  332

  —

  1,347

  —

  1976–77

  361

  —

  1,290

  —

  1977–78

  321

  —

  1,009

  —

  1978–79

  373

  —

  1,057

  —

  1979–80

  417

  —

  1,013

  —

  1980–81

  568

  —

  1,166

  —

  1981–82

  693

  —

  1,298

  —

  1982–83

  719

  —

  1,257

  —

  1983–84

  752

  —

  1,256

  —

  1984–85

  845

  —

  1,344

  —

  1985–86

  928

  1,013

  1,399

  1,527

  1986–87

  —

  1,089

  —

  1,590

  1987–88

  —

  1,129

  —

  1,563

  1988–89

  —

  1,221

  —

  1,577

  1989–90

  —

  1,454

  —

  1,764

  1990–91

  —

  1,603

  —

  1,792

  1991–92

  —

  1,912

  —

  1,998

  1992–93

  —

  2,073

  —

  2,073

  Notes:

  1. Figures in column B are adjusted to take into account the transfer to capital from current as a result of the redefinition of NHS capital.

  2. Expenditure figures for 1991–92 and 1992–93 include estimated capital expenditure by NHS trusts financed through internally generated income and external finance limits.

  Leighton Hospital
  Mrs Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what were the number of nurses of G grade and above employed at Leighton hospital, Crewe in 1990–91; and what are the comparable figures to date;

  (2) what are the present staff levels at Mid Cheshire hospitals trust Leighton hospital in (a) consultants, (b) nurses and (c) auxiliary medical porters; and what were the comparable figures for 1979–80, 1985–86 and 1990–91.

  Mrs Virginia Bottomley
  The information is not collected centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. R. F. Lawrence, the chairman of Mid Cheshire hospitals NHS trust, for details.

  Poliomyelitis
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of poliomyelitis there have been in each year since 1978 and in 1992 to date; and if he will give for 10
  each year the number of cases known to have been caused from (a) vaccination and (b) contact with a vaccinated person.

  Mrs Virginia Bottomley
  Between 1978 and the end of 1991, there have been 42 cases of paralytic poliomyelitis reported to the Public Health Laboratory Service communicable disease surveillance centre. A total of 18 were vaccine associated (recipient) cases and nine were vaccine associated (contact) cases.

  In 1992 there has been one vaccine associated (contact) case.

  Immunisation
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 18 February,Official Report, column 111–12, how many of the 483 reported suspected adverse reactions to immunisation in 1991 were serious.

  Mrs Virginia Bottomley
  One hundred and fifty nine.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 18 February,Official Report, column 111–12 if he will list the research studies which show that the deaths to which he referred are temporally not causally related to immunisation.

  Mrs Virginia Bottomley
  The United States Institute of Medicine has recently published a detailed review of studies of vaccine adverse events titled "Adverse Effects of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines". The report concludes:there was insufficient evidence to indicate a causal relationship between Diphtheria, Pertussis and Tetanus (DPT) vaccine and aseptic meningitis, chronic neurological damage, erythema multiforme, Guillain Barre syndrome, haemolytic anaemia, juvenile diabetes, learning disabilities, peripheral mononeuropathy or thrombocytopenia, and rubella vaccine and radiculoneuritis and other neuropathies or thrombocytopenia purpura:
  that the evidence does not indicate a causal relationship between DPT vaccine and infantile spasms, hypsarrhythmia, Reye Syndrome or sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

  The full bibliography can be made available. Thirty-nine references to studies on SIDS and DTP are listed in that publication.

  In this country, deaths reported in association with mumps, measles and rubella have been studied carefully by the clinicians involved, and no causal relationship established.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the individuals or organisations from the private sector who have been involved since 18 November 1991(a) in determining areas within his Department for market testing or contracting out or (b) who have advised him of areas that should be market tested or contracted out to market consultants; the total fees or other costs to date charged to his Department by them and the full costs likely to be charged;

  (2) if he will list any areas within his Department that have been identified since 18 November (a) by individuals or organisations from the private sector or (b) otherwise as possibly suitable for market testing and contracting out; and what steps are being taken to prevent any non-governmental organisations successfully tendering to carry out work currently undertaken by civil servants

  11
  facing a conflict of interest between the public interest requirement of this work and other commercial activities they are involved in or other clients they represent.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Following a competitive tendering exercise, the Department has appointed KPMG Management Consultants to assist in identifying activities that might be suitable for market testing. No decisions have been taken on areas for market testing beyond those identified in the Department's contribution to the annex of "Competing for Quality" published on 18 November 1991, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  The full costs of external support for the Department's market testing programme cannot be estimated until that programme is decided. Payments under individual consultancy contracts are confidential.

  To avoid potential conflicts of interest, all nongovernmental organisations bidding in a market testing exercise will be required to declare any interest that might be contrary to the public interest. In particular, any companies that help to prepare specifications for any service will be excluded from the process of evaluating tenders.

  Dentists
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he intends to take to stop people in dentistry from leaving the NHS; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Our recent survey showed that 76 per cent. of dentists routinely accept all patients for NHS treatment, and 85 per cent. accept all children. There were always some dentists who provided a mixed service but prior to the registration of patients, as required by the 1990 dental contract, we had no means of checking the numbers. There are currently 25 per cent. more dentists practising in the general dental services in England than there were in 1979.

  Patient Statistics
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the in-patient and day case activity figures for the first six months of the current financial year for each national health service trust; and if he will provide comparable data for the previous three years.

  Mrs Virginia Bottomley
  In all NHS trusts the number of patients treated in the first six months of the current financial year was: in-patients 536,425, day cases 140,812. This information is provisional only as it has not yet been validated.

  Comparable information for the previous three years for individual units is not available. However, in all NHS trusts the number of patients treated in the first six months of the last financial year was: in patients 516,129, day cases 120,078.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the in-patient and day case activity figures for the 75 directly managed units, showing the largest increase in activity rates in the first six months of the current year; and if he will provide comparable data for the performance of these units in the previous three years.

  Mrs Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  National Blood Authority
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 586, if he will list those who responded to the consultation document on the proposal to establish a national blood authority for England and those whom he has asked to be part of the technical working group to consider operational matters.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The organisations which submitted comments in response to the consultation document are given in the table. Those who have been invited to nominate members for the technical working group are indicated with an asterisk.

  Alpha, Armour and Immuno Pharmaceutical Companies

  Association of Clinical Pathologists

  British Blood Transfusion Society

  British Society for Haematology

  Central Blood Laboratories Authority*

  College of Anaesthetists

  East Anglian Regional Health Authority

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's Special Health Authority

  Joint Consultants Committee of the British Medical Association

  Mersey and North Wales Regional Transfusion Centre

  Mersey Regional Health Authority

  Moorfields Eye Hospital

  Mount Vernon Hospital NHS Trust

  National Directorate of the National Blood Transfusion Service*

  National Association of Blood Donors

  National Blood Transfusion Service (Regional Transfusion Directors)*

  National Health Service Trust Federation

  North East Thames Regional Transfusion Centre

  Northern Regional Health Authority

  Northern Regional Blood Transfusion Service

  North Western Regional Health Authority

  North West Thames Regional Health Authority

  Oxford Regional Health Authority

  Oxford Regional Blood Transfusion Centre

  Pontefract Health Authority

  Public Health Laboratory Service

  Public Health Laboratory Service at Manchester

  Regional Health Authority Chairmen*

  Regional Directors of Public Health*

  Royal Brompton National Heart and Lung Hospitals

  Royal College of Nursing

  Royal College of Physicians

  Royal College of Surgeons of England

  Senior Nurse Managers Group of the National Blood Transfusion Service

  South East and South West Thames Regional Health Authorities

  South Western Regional Transfusion Centre

  South Western Region Haematology Advisory Group

  The Haemophilia Society

  The Hospitals for Sick Children Special Health Authority

  The Royal College of Midwives Trust

  The Royal College of Pathologists

  The Royal Marsden Hospital

  Trent Blood Transfusion Service Board

  Trent Regional Health Authority

  Trent Regional Transfusion Centre

  United Kingdom Haemophilia Centre Directors Organisation

  Wessex Regional Health Authority

  West Midlands Regional Transfusion Centre

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  In addition, 14 individuals have commented in a personal capacity.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those parts of his Department, including executive agencies, carrying out reviews over the last 12 months into the pay and grading of staff and the firm of consultants engaged, where appropriate.

  Mr. Atkins
  No such reviews have yet taken place.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current number of staff in his Department dedicated to(a) the operation of local management of schools and (b) opted-out schools.

  Mr. Eggar
  Local management of schools is operated by local education authorities, not by the Department. There are 9.8 full-time-equivalent staff working in the Department's local management of schools unit, which is responsible for policy, development and implementation.

  A total of 53 staff currently work in schools 4, division B, which is responsible for policy on grant-maintained schools, including transitional arrangements and recurrent and capital funding.

  Kingsbridge School
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to reply to the hon. Member for South Hams's letter of 13 December, enclosing a letter from the principal of the Kingsbridge school and community college.

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Vacancies filled

  Applications received

  Vacancies filled

  Applications received

  Vacancies filled

  Applications received

  Northern board

  123

  1,116

  239

  2,354

  153

  2,009

  Southern board

  103

  —1

  57

  576

  89

  790

  Western board

  102

  785

  160

  2,098

  90

  1,594

  Eastern board

  294

  3,500–4,000

  220

  3,695

  243

  4,135

  1 The Southern and Eastern health and social services boards have not retained application details for 1989.

  There were no complaints in 1989. In 1990 five complaints against the Western board and three against the Eastern board were taken to the Fair Employment Commission and are still under consideration. Three complaints against the Northern board were referred to tribunal, two were withdrawn and one is outstanding.

  In 1991 two complaints against the Western board were taken to the FEC and are still under consideration. To date, no complaints have gone to court and no compensation has been paid.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many teachers were trained within the teacher training colleges in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is:

  Number

  1986–87

  386

  1987–88

  403

  1988–89

  422

  14
  Mr. Atkins
  A reply was sent by my right hon. and learned Friend on 26 February 1992.

  Students Charter
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to introduce a students charter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Further and Higher Education Bill, when enacted, will improve opportunities for students and ensure that the quality of the education offered in both sectors is sustained and enhanced. My right hon. and learned Friend will be considering whether these advances will best be reflected in a charter.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fair Employment
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table to show for each health and social services board headquarters, the number of vacancies filled in each of the last available three years, the number of applications received by each board for those vacancies in each of those years, and the number of complaints made under the fair employment legislation in respect of those posts in each year and the number of such complaints which went to a tribunal; how many went to court; and how many are still ongoing.

  Mr. Hanley
  I attach a table showing the information requested.

  Number

  1989–90

  432

  1990–91

  367

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the increase in staff working in the headquarters of the Eastern health and social services board since April 1989.

  Mr. Hanley
  Between 1 January 1989, the nearest date to April 1989 for which figures are available, and I January 1992 the number of staff employed in the headquarters of the Eastern health and social services board fell from the equivalent of 428.24 full-time workers to 352.12, a decrease of 76·12.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons were on the electoral registers of each of the 17 parliamentary constituencies in June 1983; and how many there are now.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I understand from the chief electoral officer that the information is as set out. The figures for 1983 are estimates as the electoral register published that year was on the basis of the former 12 parliamentary constituencies.

  Persons on the register of parliamentary electors in Northern Ireland, by constituency—June 1983 and February 1992

  Constituency

  Persons on Register

  11983

  1992

  Belfast East

  56,231

  53,375

  Belfast North

  61,778

  55,587

  Belfast South

  54,344

  52,556

  Belfast West

  60,400

  55,280

  East Antrim

  59,430

  63,739

  East Londonderry

  68,015

  76,912

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  68,530

  71,472

  Foyle

  68,081

  75,970

  Lagan Valley

  60,749

  73,688

  Mid Ulster

  64,549

  70,410

  Newry and Armagh

  63,037

  68,716

  North Antrim

  63,904

  70,217

  North Down

  62,224

  69,604

  Strangford

  60,882

  69,855

  South Antrim

  59,949

  68,292

  South Down

  67,637

  77,371

  Upper Bann

  61,445

  68,422

  Total

  1,061,185

  1,141,466

  1 Estimated figures. Figures are available for the number of people eligible to vote in each of the 17 Northern Ireland constituencies in the June 1983 general election, but they do not include 11,049 persons who were under the age of 18 on election day but were on the electoral register because they would reach voting age while it was current.

  Health Service Staff
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total number of people employed by the NHS in Northern Ireland on a full-time and part-time basis.

  Mr. Hanley
  At 31 December 1991 the total number of people employed in the Northern Ireland health and personal social services was 61,050; of these 34,025 were employed on a full-time basis and 27,025 on a part-time basis.

  Note: These figures include staff employed in personal social services which are provided by local authorities in Great Britain.

  Electors
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the statutory provisions which relate to the powers of the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland to arrange to have potential electors in residential homes excluded from the Register of Electors for 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The statutory powers and duties of chief electoral officer in respect of the compilation of the electoral register are contained in the Representation of the People Act 1983, as amended and as applied by
  16
  schedule 1 to the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, and in subordinate legislation made under that Act. Under sections 1(1), 2(1) and 12 of the Act a person who is subject to a legal incapacity to vote may not be registered.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many residents are registered in residential homes in east Antrim; and how many of those residents have been excluded from the 1992 electoral register.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I understand from the chief electoral officer that this information is not available.

  Lough Foyle
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the running costs incurred in the operation of the research vessel Lough Foyle in each of the years from 1 April 1986 to 31 March 1991.

  Mr. Hanley
  The running costs for the Lough Foyle are:

  £

  20 October 19881 to 31 March 1989

  168,662

  1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

  409,332

  1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991

  585,483

  1 Date at which the vessel became operational in public service.

  Claimants
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many, and what proportion, of supplementary benefit and income support claimants in Northern Ireland were in receipt of benefit because they were unemployed for each year since 1979.

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

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Defence Sales
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)Official Report, 21 February, column 338, if he will list those individual sales contracts for defence equipment covered by ECGD insurance where all commercial parties involved have agreed to disclosure.

  Mr. Lilley
  ECGD has no record of any instance where all the commercial parties have agreed to the disclosure of support in respect of defence sales contracts.

  Nuclear Proliferation
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list(a) all measures taken by his Department in the last 12 months to prevent nuclear proliferation, (b) the number of personnel in his Department working to prevent nuclear proliferation and (c) his Department's total expenditure on control of nuclear proliferation in each of the last three years for which figures are available.
  17
  Mr. Lilley
  The Export Control Organisation of DTI works together with other Government Departments to implement policy on nuclear non-proliferation. Over the past 12 months my officials have continued to participate in international fora dealing with nuclear proliferation issues, in particular the nuclear suppliers group and the European political co-operation working group on nuclear non-proliferation.

  Amendment No. 7 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order introduced in July 1991 was a significant unilateral measure which brought under control the export of a wide range of goods where the exporter knows or suspects that they will be used for nuclear proliferation purposes. In 1991 my Department organised a series of eight seminars for industry entitled "The Changing Threat" aimed at alerting exporters to proliferation issues in the context of export controls.

  The Export Control Organisation of DTI employs 119 staff. As the staff of the Export Control Organisation deal with all matters relating to export control, it is not possible to provide figures on the Department's expenditure specifically on the control of nuclear proliferation.

  Car Exports
  Mrs Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what were the total earnings of exports of British cars in 1990–91; and what are the latest figures for British car exports in total.

  Mr. Leigh
  The available information is given in the table.

  Total United Kingdom exports of passenger motor cars

  Numbers

  Value (£ million)

  1990

  433,490

  3,306·3

  1991

  626,084

  4,081·0

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom (Business Monitor MM20).

  Passenger motor cars are defined as item 781·2 of the standard international trade classification, revision 3.

  Innovation Unit
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the work of the innovation unit of his Department.

  Mr. Leigh
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the background to the DTI's innovation unit as summarised in press notice P/91/544. Since its establishment in October 1991, the innovation unit has expanded, with the secondment of five top business men who are using their hands-on experience of innovation in industry to deal directly with firms, higher education institutes, schools and the media.

  Since its establishment, the unit has initiated or supported many activities such as the publication of the first United Kingdom research and development scoreboard and the "Innovation Plans Handbook", both aimed at improving communication between industry and investors. It is supporting the fellowship of engineering's MacRobert award and visiting professorship scheme and, in conjunction with the Fellowship of Engineering and the Royal Society, organised the first United Kingdom innovation lecture, delivered last month by Mr. Akio Morita, chairman of the Sony Corporation.

  Export Control Seminars
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, pursuant to his answer of 24 February,Official Report, column 380, if he will indicate (a) the number of corporate or individual attendees at each of the export control seminars held by his Department last year, (b) the number of such bookings taken for the seminar in Manchester on 23 March and (c) the feedback his Department has received on the utility of such seminars.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 28 February 1991]: (a) The number of corporate attendees at each seminar last year was as follows:

  Number

  Southampton

  27

  Manchester

  50

  London

  161

  Edinburgh

  29

  Bristol

  26

  Birmingham

  44

  Cambridge

  18

  Reading

  49

  (b) So far six companies have made bookings for the seminar in Manchester on 23 March. We are taking urgent steps to encourage further participation by businesses in the region.

  (c) Last year's seminars were all well received by exporters and assessed by participants as being informative and of practical value.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton),Official Report, 27 January, column 435, if he will set out for each year respectively from 1975 the proportion of United Kingdom total annual exports to Indonesia that were made up of military equipment requiring an export control licence.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: The information requested is not available.

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the details of each external consultancy study undertaken, including its remit, into any aspects of the operation of the National Engineering Laboratory in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 28 February 1991]: Since this is an operational matter it would be best dealt with by direct contact with the agency. I have therefore asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Gentleman with the information requested.

  EC Funding
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether local authorities in areas eligible to receive European regional development fund assistance will, from 1993–94, automatically have public expenditure cover made available for them to enable those local authorities to claim fully the European regional development fund made available by the European Commission.
  19
  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: Yes. Local authorities are, however, of course not the only recipients of grant from the fund. In accordance with my statement on 17 February, from 1993–94 local authorities will receive supplementary credit approvals to match in full the ERDF-funded part of their expenditure on approved capital projects. Public expenditure cover will also be made available automatically for all other forecast ERDF receipts.

  I welcome the Commission's announcement on 26 February of its approval of the Government's RECHAR programmes.

  Additionality
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will deposit in the Library such papers relating to the discussions between the Government and the European Commission relating to the issue of additionality, and upon which he based his statement made on 17 February, as are not confidential.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: No. It is not usual for such papers to be deposited.

  RECHAR
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give full details of the nature of the transitional arrangements referred to in his statement of 17 February,Official Report, columns 22 to 37, on RECHAR.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: An announcement will be made as soon as possible about the details of the transitional arrangements in the intervening period until 1993–94. Allowance has already been made in public expenditure plans for RECHAR-linked expenditure, but it has not been possible for RECHAR grants to be made in 1991–92 because of the delay to the Commission's approval of the programmes.

  The transitional arrangements will include special arrangements for RECHAR to ensure that commensurate public expenditure cover is available to the relevant spending authorities for the element of their expenditure financed by the ERDF.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Disability
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the employment of people with disabilities in the civil service.

  Mr. Renton
  The annual review of employment of people with disabilities in the civil service is presented in the magazine "Independent" published today. This shows that the civil service employs 8,024 registered disabled people, an increase of 125 since 1990.

  Copies of "Independent" have been placed in the Library.

THE ARTS

  Arts Budget
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will give details of the total United Kingdom arts budget for the last five financial years for which figures are available; and if these figures can be broken down for Scotland. England, Wales, Northern Ireland and London and expressed in cash terms and as percentages.

  Mr. Renton
  Details of the total arts budget for the United Kingdom are not available. The central Government arts programme for which I have responsibility is as follows:

  £ million

  Per cent.

  1986–87

  343

  —

  1987–88

  368

  +7

  1988–89

  414

  +13

  1989–90

  446

  +8

  1990–91

  496

  +11

  1991–92

  561

  +13

  It includes finance for the Arts Council of Great Britain which, in turn, passes funds on to the Scottish and Welsh Arts Councils.

  The Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland make provisions for the arts in their respective expenditure programmes.

  A territorial presentation of Government expenditures by function and from 1986–87, is available in the Government's "Public Expenditure Analyses to 1994–95, Statistical Suplement to the 1991 Autumn Statement". Cm 1920.

  National Gallery
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what central Government financial assistance was given for the recent building work on the new wing of the national gallery in London.

  Mr. Renton
  None.

  Acceptance in Lieu
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if the statement in paragraph 3.3 of his Office's annual report for 1992, Cm 1912, concerning the availability from the contingency reserve of up to £10 million per annum, taking one year with another, for acceptance in lieu represents a change in policy from the announcement of 26 July 1985,Official Report, column 777, stating that the figure was not a limit but an estimate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  As Lord Gowrie said when he announced this policy in 1985, it is not possible to give an exact estimate of what might be accepted in lieu of tax in any one year, as too many unpredictables are involved. Looking at recent and current levels of acceptance in lieu offers, we would expect to call on the reserve for around £10 million or so a year, taking one year with another. I am pleased to say that there has been no change in policy in this area and must emphasise strongly that this is neither a target nor a limit, but an estimate. In any given year the demand could be either less or more.

  Bohemian Carvings
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts pursuant to the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on 17 February,Official Report, column 152, what further consideration he has given to the matter of discussions with the art market about Bohemian carvings.

  Mr. Renton
  I will tomorrow be meeting with my consultative group on the export of works of art after 1992, on which there are representatives of the major art trade associations and auction houses. I will therefore take the opportunity to draw the matters of the Bohemian wood carvings to its attention, and I will follow this up in a letter. The hon. Member is no doubt aware of the voluntary code of practice adhered to by the art trade in the United Kingdom, whereby it undertakes not to deal in stolen works of art. I am sure it will wish to assist in the recovery of any wood carvings which might appear on the market.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs Mahon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total number of employees in his Departments; and how many are(a) black and (b) disabled.

  Mr. Maples
  The total number of employees in the Chancellor's departments at 1 October 1991 was 110,593·5.

  Departments collated their ethnic minority and disability figures at different times within the past 12 months. The combined totals are 5,611 from ethnic minority backgrounds and 1,7895 registered disabled workers.

  These figures include part-timers as 0·5.

  Some departments do not hold central records of the ethnic origin or disability of industrial staff. The response rate to ethnic origin questionnaires varies from 57 to 97·5 per cent. of staff. Some disabled people choose not to register as disabled.

  Mrs Mahon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the number of(a) men and (b) women in his Departments in each of grades (i) 1, (ii) 2, (iii) 3, (iv) 4, (v) 5, (vi) 6, (vii) 7, (viii) SEO, (ix) HEO, (x) administrative trainee, (xi) EO, (xii) CO and (xiii) CA.

  Mr. Maples
  The combined total for the Chancellor's departments is:

  Grade

  Men

  Women

  1

  7·0

  0·0

  2

  19·0

  3·0

  3

  58·0

  2·0

  4

  58·0

  0·0

  5

  402·5

  31·0

  6

  1,135·5

  73·0

  7

  2,582·0

  344·0

  SEO

  4,132·0

  572·0

  HEO

  10,310·0

  3,576·5

  AT

  21·0

  5·0

  EO

  14,882·5

  12,244·0

  AO

  9,874·5

  20,568·5

  AA

  6,777·5

  18,862·0

  22
  These figures all relate to 1991–92, although the precise date varies between departments. The figures show full-time equivalents; part-timers are counted as 0·5. More women than men work part time; so the figures understate the actual number of women employed.

  Childcare Tax Allowance
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on Treasury revenues in 1992–93 and in a full year of introducing a child care tax credit of £5 per child for(a) all working mothers and (b) all mothers, giving figures separately for (i) all dependent children and (ii) children under five years only.

  Mr. Maude
  Estimates of the cost of introducing such a tax credit are in the table. It has been assumed that the £5 per week payments would be made to all those with children whether taxpayers or non-taxpayers.

  All families

  All families with working mother1

  £billion

  £billion

  Payment in respect of:

  All children

  3·2

  1·9

  Children under five only

  1·0

  0·4

  1 Including lone fathers who are working.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of introducing a tax allowance for child care costs, set against the taxable income of the mother, equal to £50 per week(a) per family with children under age 16 years and (b) per family with at least one child under the age of five years, giving the numbers of each who would benefit from such allowance, in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 24 February 1992]: Estimates of the cost of introducing an allowance of £50 per week against taxable income of mothers and lone parents at 1992–93 levels, and the numbers of families benefiting from such an allowance are set out in the table.

  Cost £billion

  Numbers benefiting millions1

  Family with children under the age of 161

  1·3

  2·5

  Family with at least one child under the age of 51

  0·4

  0·8

  1 Includes lone parents.

  Families (Taxation)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families with children are estimated to have taxable incomes below the income tax threshold; and what proportion this represents of all families with children.

  Mr. Maude
  In 1991–92 it is estimated that 1.8 million single parents and married couples with children have no income tax liability. These represent about one quarter of all families with children.

  Non-taxpayers
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for how many(a) working and (b) non-working people do not pay tax, in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  Just under 21 million people over 16 do not pay income tax in 1991–92, of whom 4·2 million have some earnings.

  Debtor Countries
  Mrs Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the estimated total value of debt relief will be for countries which recieved the Toronto terms if they were all to receive the same terms as recently agreed by the Paris Club for Nicaragua;

  (2) how much debt relief would be given by the United Kingdom Government if all the countries which received relief under the toronto terms were to receive the same terms as recently agreed by the Paris Club for Nicaragua.

  Mr. Maples
  The actual value of debt relief under the terms of a Paris Club agreement is dependent on a number of factors which are not known in advance of the conclusion of the agreement. However, the agreement concluded with Nicaragua in December of last year provided for the reduction by 50 per cent. of eligible debts.

  Mrs Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the United States Government on the adoption of option A of debt relief agreements reached in the Paris Club of the kind agreed with Nicaragua last December.

  Mr. Maples
  The United States Government are aware at the highest level of the United Kingdom Government's objectives in this area. These objectives are the full implementation of Trinidad terms by all creditor countries at the Paris Club. Treasury officials are in regular contact with their United States counterparts, and will continue to pursue this matter vigorously.

  Mrs Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the criteria for debtor countries' eligibility to receive the Trinidad terms of debt relief.

  Mr. Maples
  There are no formal criteria for eligibility for any set of debt restructuring terms at the Paris Club. The Trinidad terms are designed for a similar group of countries to the Toronto terms. These countries were informally designated as those very poor and heavily indebted countries with chronic balance of payments problems that render the country unable to service debts on conventional terms. It is a pre-condition of any agreement at the Paris Club that the debtor country has a strong economic adjustment programme in place supported by the IMF. Eligibility is determined on a case-by-case basis.

  The 20 countries which have benefited from the Toronto terms between October 1988 and June 1991, are as follows: Benin, Bolivia, Burkino Faso, Central African Republic, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zaire and Zambia. Since December 1991 four countries have further benefited from the Trinidad terms. These are Nicaragua, Benin, Tanzania and Bolivia. More are expected to follow.
  24
  Mrs Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the United Kingdom is owed by those countries which have received the Toronto terms of debt relief.

  Mr. Maples
  Taking into account the effect of debt reduction under the Toronto terms, the total of debt owed to the United Kingdom Government by the countries which have benefited from Toronto terms is £870 million, comprising £755 million of claims and outstanding interest on those claims owed to ECGD and £115 million owed to ODA.

  Capital Investment
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much British capital is currently invested in the USA.

  Mr. Maples
  The latest available information from United Kingdom sources relates to the book value of direct investments in branches, subsidiaries and associates of United Kingdom companies in the USA at the end of 1989 and is published in table 1.6 of "Business Monitor MA4 (1989 Overseas Transactions)" published by the Central Statistical Office, a copy of which is in the Library. In addition, figures on the position at the end of 1990, are published by the US Department of Commerce in its "Survey of Current Business (August 1991)". A copy of this publication is also in the Library.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the amounts of the inward and outward movement of capital to and from the United Kingdom for the last 10 years.

  Mr. Maples
  The available details inward and outward investment (distinguishing direct, portfolio and other flows) are contained in table A8 of the December 1991 issues of "Economic Trends" published by the Central Statistical Office, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. Annual figures for 1991 are not yet available.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much Japanese capital is currently invested in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maples
  The latest available information relates to the book values of direct investments in branches, subsidiaries and associates of Japanese companies in the United Kingdom at the end of 1989 and is published in table 2.6 of "Business Monitor MA4 (1989 Overseas Transactions)" published by the Central Statistical Office, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Local Authority Borrowing
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the total local authority borrowing requirement for each year from 1978–79 to 1991–92, estimated.

  Mr. Mellor
  The total local authority borrowing requirement (LABR) for each year from 1978–79 to 1990–91 is as follows:

  LABR £ billion

  1978–79

  1·3

  1979–80

  3·0

  1980–81

  2·1

  25

  LABR £ billion

  1981–82

  -0·2

  1982–83

  0·1

  1983–84

  1·2

  1984–85

  2·4

  1985–86

  1·7

  1986–87

  0·1

  1987–88

  1·4

  1988–89

  0·3

  1989–90

  1·3

  1990–91

  3·4

  An estimate for the LABR in 1991–92 will be published in the 1992 FSBR.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total corporation tax raised from companies in regard to their activities in Wales in 1990–91.

  Mr. Maude
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the gross domestic product of(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Greater London in (i) cash and (ii) real terms in each year from 1980–81 to 1991–92, estimated.

  Mr. Mellor
  Current price figures for Greater London up to 1989 are published in "Economic Trends" No. 457, November 1991 page 96. These include the income from employment of non-residents who work in Greater London. Alternative estimates given on page 92 exclude the income of non-residents. These do not measure the whole of the economic activity taking place in Greater London, but annual estimates are available up to 1990. Both pages include comparable figures for the United Kingdom. Only calendar year estimates are made.

  Constant price estimates of regional GDP are not made because there are no regional deflators. Comparable constant prices figures for the United Kingdom are given in table 1.3 of the Central Statistical Office Blue Book, 1991 edition, "United Kingdom National Accounts".

  Government Revenue
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total Government revenue, including all taxation and other income accruing to both central and local government, for the year 1990–91; and what was the revenue per capita.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information on total general Government revenue, defined as total current and capital account receipts, is published in the Central Statistical Office monthly publication "Financial Statistics" in tables 2.1 and 2.2 and is £220,347 million for the financial year 1990–91. The total revenue divided by the home population for mid-1990 as published in "The United Kingdom National Accounts" (CSO Blue Book) table 17.1 gives a figure for revenue per capita of £3,838.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish identifiable general Government expenditure, by area and function, consistent with the figures in tables EIO and El 1 of Cm. 1920 for(a) Greater London and (b) the south-east excluding Greater London.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is not available.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list any areas within his Department that have been identified since 18 November(a) by individuals or organisations from the private sector or (b) otherwise as possibly suitable for market testing and contracting out; and what steps are being taken to prevent any non-governmental organisations successfully tendering to carry out work currently undertaken by civil servants facing a conflict of interest between the public interest requirement of this work and other commercial activities they are involved in or other clients they represent.

  Mr. Maude
  A study to determine the most promising areas for market testing within the Department is not yet complete. Guidance on the ethics of conducting business with the private sector is contained in the Treasury's public competition and purchasing units guidance—CUP No. 16 —which has been circulated to Departments.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the individuals or organisations from the private sector who have been involved since 18 November 1991(a) in determining areas within his Department for market testing or contracting out or (b) who have advised him of areas that should be market tested or contracted out to market consultants; the total fees or other costs to date charged to his Department by them and the full costs likely to be charged.

  Mr. Maude
  Following the evaluation of proposals from six firms, Touche Ross has been appointed to provide the private sector input to the study being undertaken to determine the scope for further market testing in Treasury in accordance with the White Paper "Competing for Quality" (Cm 1730). Information on the level of fees charged is commercially confidential.

  Uniforms
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will approve the introduction of uniforms to those employees in the public departments and executive agencies who currently wear individual clothes.

  Mrs Gillian Shephard
  I have no plans to do so.

  Tax Deductions (Training Courses)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether expenditure by a proprietor of a business on attending a training course(a) to obtain new knowledge or skills or (b) to upgrade existing knowledge is tax deductible.

  Mr. Maude
  Where a business proprietor incurs expenditure on training to extend or improve his or her
  27
  professional knowledge or skills, capital expenditure and tax relief will not normally be available for the expenditure when calculating the profits of the business for tax purposes. But money spent to update his or her professional skills or knowledge would generally be of a revenue nature and therefore allowable. It will be a question of fact in each case.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people presently have cars registered for ownership in a company's name; and if he will give a comparable figure for each year since 1973–74.

  Mr. Maude
  I assume that the hon. Member is interested in the numbers of employees with cars provided by their employers which are available for private use. It is estimated that in 1991–92 there were just under 2 million such employees. There are also about 2 million cars used by self-employed people for which relief is claimed against schedule D income tax liability. Available information on the numbers of employees who were taxed on the benefit of the provision of a car for private use for earlier years is as follows. Information for earlier years of numbers of self-employed people with cars used for business is not readily available.

  Numbers with taxable car benefit (thousands)

  1978–79

  560

  1980–81

  650

  1981–82

  790

  1983–84

  850

  1985–86

  1,070

  1987–88

  1,550

  1988–89

  1,750

  1989–90

  1,850

  1990–91

  1,950

  Pensioners
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what are the most recent estimates of the number of people who are(a) under state retirement age and (b) over state retirement age, and receiving a pension from a recognised scheme, giving in each case the number who are (i) non-taxpayers, (ii) basic rate taxpayers and (iii) higher rate taxpayers;

  (2) what are the most recent estimates of the number of people who are (a) under state retirement age and (b) over state retirement age, and receiving a pension from a recognised scheme, giving in each case the number who are (i) non-taxpayers, (ii) basic rate taxpayers and (iii) higher rate taxpayers in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Maude
  Available estimates arc for United Kingdom taxpayers with occupational pensions and are as follows:

  Basic rate taxpayers (thousands)

  Higher rate taxpayers (thousands)

  Aged under 65

  930

  50

  Aged 65 and over

  1,540

  70

  Purchasing Initiative
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in implementing the Government's purchasing initiative since 1989–90.

  Mr. Maude
  A report by the central unit on purchasing (CUP) on progress in Government purchasing during 1990–91 is published today. This will be the last report from CUP; following the publication of the Government's White Paper "Competing for Quality" Cm 1730, a new public competition and purchasing unit (PCPU), based in the Treasury, has been established to promote the Government's programme as part of the citizens charter initiative for extending competition in the provisions of public services as well as subsuming CUP's other work.

  The report records the high level of activity and considerable progress in Government purchasing in 1990–91. The main features include:
  in 1990–91 Departments achieved value for money savings of £153 million exceeding their target by some £36 million. For 1991–92 Departments have set themselves a target of 3.4 per cent;
  since 1985–86 Departments have achieved savings in excess of £1.5 billion;
  further strengthening of purchasing as a professional specialism in central Government;
  a core specification for purchasing information systems for all Government Departments;
  in the construction field, a database was established in 1990–91 which will offer departments a better system for tracking performance, so that projects can he properly managed within time and cost parameters.

  The report also records progress on other areas of the purchasing initiative and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for how many people who pay tax have earnings below the upper earnings limit in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 24 February 1992]: Latest estimates for 1991–92 indicate that about 16 million taxpaying employees had earnings below the upper earnings limit.

  Marginal Tax Rates
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people faced marginal tax rates(a) including and (b) excluding social security, of (i) over 40 per cent., (ii) over 50 per cent., (iii) over 60 per cent., (iv) over 70 per cent., (v) over 80 per cent., (vi) over 90 per cent. and (vii) over 100 per cent. in every year since 1978–79, including 1991–92, in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 24 February 1992]: Estimated numbers of taxpayers liable to income tax at rates above the basic rate are in the table. Estimates of the numbers with marginal net income deduction rates (taking account of the withdrawal of social security benefits) at or above certain levels were published in figure 20 of "Social Security. The Government's expenditure plans 1992–93 to 1994–95" (Cm 1914).
  29

  Taxpayers1 liable at higher rate

  (thousands)

  Tax rate2

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–913

  1991–923

  40

  235

  302

  334

  445

  435

  355

  380

  380

  400

  360

  1,350

  1,500

  1,660

  1,620

  45

  158

  168

  216

  305

  245

  245

  255

  250

  300

  320

  —

  —

  —

  —

  50

  86

  108

  129

  170

  155

  140

  145

  150

  210

  240

  —

  —

  —

  —

  55

  84

  43

  52

  75

  65

  55

  65

  70

  90

  110

  —

  —

  —

  —

  60

  54

  53

  65

  95

  83

  65

  85

  100

  120

  160

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65

  45

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  70

  32

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  75

  36

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  80

  33

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  763

  674

  796

  1,090

  983

  860

  930

  950

  1,120

  1,190

  1,350

  1,500

  1,660

  1,620

  1 Single people and married couples for years up to and including 1989–90, individuals from 1990–91.

  2 Tax rate applicable to earned income. This excludes any liability to the investment income surcharge for years up to 1983–84.

  3 Provisional estimates projected from the 1989–90 Survey of Personal Incomes.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the revenue cost in 1992–93 of a reduced rate of income tax of(a) 20 per cent., (b) 23 per cent. and (c) 24 per cent., on the first (i) £1,000 and (ii) £2,000 of taxable income, in the United Kingdom giving the numbers with taxable incomes less than £1,000 and £2,000.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 February 1992]: Estimates at 1992–93 levels of income are as follows. They assume that the basic rate limit (higher rate threshold) would not be affected by the introduction of the reduced rate band.

  Full year costs (£ million)

  Reduced rate

  Taxable income subject to reduced rate (£)

  20 per cent.

  23 per cent.

  24 per cent.

  1,000

  1,190

  480

  240

  2,000

  2,280

  910

  460

  Approximately 2 million tax-paying individuals have taxable income less than £1,000 and 4 million tax-paying individuals have taxable income less than £2,000 in 1992–93.

  Tax Relief, Isle of Dogs
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total cost of tax yields forgone as a result of the reliefs associated with the Isle of Dogs enterprise zone, showing the total for each tax, for each year from 1981–82 to 1991–92 (estimated).

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: Information on capital allowances claimed for investment in individuals enterprise zones is not held centrally. Estimates of investment in each zone are given in the HMSO publication "Enterprise Zone Information 1988–89" and earlier annual editions, copies of which are in the Library.

  Denatured Wine
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the reasons for leaving duty on denatured wine products for culinary uses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: Excise duty is charged on wine and made-wine, whether or not denatured, under sections 54 and 55 of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979. There is no general
  30
  relief for culinary use but, subject to certain conditions, duty is repayable under sections 56 and 60 to manufacturers of products in which wine or made-wine is used as an ingredient.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lord Chief Justice
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will describe the procedure whereby the Lord Chief Justice is appointed;

  (2) if he will list the parties consulted before the nomination of the new Lord Chief Justice was submitted;

  (3) what consideration was given to the custom and practice that an outgoing Government should not seek to bind its successors before appointing the new Lord Chief Justice.

  The Prime Minister
  As with other senior appointments to the judiciary, the Lord Chief Justice is appointed by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister following confidential consultations in appropriate quarters. It has never been the practice to list the parties consulted nor to reveal the nature and source of any advice or recommendations received.

  Secondees
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the external secondees among the personnel of the efficiency unit, the "next steps" unit and the citizens charter unit, together with the seconding organisation or company where appropriate.

  The Prime Minister
  The external secondees working in these areas are:

  Seconding organisation

  Location

  N. R. Cribb

  Unilever

  Efficiency unit

  Dr. I. V. Howell

  British Petroleum

  Efficiency unit

  B. R. Ross

  Bass

  Efficiency unit

  C. Purbrook

  Ernst and Young

  Next Steps unit

  Alice Hyde
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister how he proposed to respond to the petition from Alice Hyde.

  The Prime Minister
  I have acknowledged Alice Hyde's petition on the effect of the proposed east London river
  31
  crossing on Oxleas wood and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will arrange for a full reply to be sent shortly. It will confirm that the impact of the road on the wood was carefully considered at the public inquiries held in 1985 and 1986, and subsequently by the Secretaries of State for Transport and the Environment before they approved the line of the road.

  The route has been aligned to preserve the largest part of Oxleas wood intact. The slopes of the cutting through the wood, and the new area of open space to be given in exchange for that required for the road, will be landscaped to recreate, as far as possible, the woodland habitat that existed before the road was built.

  The Government place much weight on environmental matters. However, we have to balance the environmental impact of measures associated with road schemes with the benefits of those schemes in order to reach decisions that are in the best interests of the community as a whole. We believe that the right decision was made in this case.

  Mirror Group
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the committee representing the staffs of Mirror Group Newspapers in regard to the recovery of pension assets from the banks which are holding them; if at an early date he will meet a deputation from the committee; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have recently received a request to meet a deputation and it will be considered in the usual way. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, and other ministerial colleagues met representatives of trustees of all Maxwell pension schemes on 6 February.

WALES

  Home Ownership Schemes
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many homes are currently under the flexi-ownership scheme operated by the Development Board for Rural Wales; and how many households have taken advantage of the scheme.

  Mr. David Hunt
  To date the Development Board for Rural Wales has received 300 expressions of interest, dealt with 115 formal applications and completed 53 sales under the flexi-ownership scheme. To be eligible for the scheme, tenants must not have been in receipt of housing benefit or rent rebate in the preceding 12 months. When the scheme was launched approximately 850 households were eligible for flexi-ownership.

  A40, Abergavenny
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had regarding safety for pedestrians on the A40 between Abergavenny town centre and Hardwick roundabout, Abergavenny; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Two inquiries have been received regarding pedestrian safety on this section of the A40, one from a Plas Derwen resident and one from the hon. Gentleman.

  Grants to Industry
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 February Official Report, column 214, on the effects of grants to companies in Wales, what information is available in his Department to assess the cost-effectiveness of grants in aid to industries located in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department participates in a programme of evaluation studies of regional policy instruments such as regional selective assistance and regional enterprise grants which are available in the assisted areas of Great Britain. These evaluations include an assessment of the cost-effectiveness of the grant schemes.

  The two most recently published studies are: "Regional Selective Assistance 1980–84," an Evaluation by DTI, IDS and WOID (HMSO 1990), and "Evaluation of Regional Enterprise Grants-Second Stage," a report by Segal Quince Wicksteed Ltd (HMSO 1991). Further evaluations of both grant schemes are currently taking place.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amount of poll tax income is still owed to local authorities for 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  It is estimated that at 31 December 1991 about £76 million of community charges remain to be collected in 1991–92, including arrears of 1990–91 charges. Many payments made by instalments will have been made during the final quarter of the year.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the individuals or organisations from the private sector who have been involved since 18 November 1991(a) in determining areas within the department for market testing or contracting out or (b) who have advised him of areas that should be market tested or contracted out to market consultants; the total fees or other costs charged to the department by them to date and the full costs likely to be charged.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte has been engaged to help the Department draw up its forward programme of market testing. The amount of its fee is commercially confidential information.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list any areas within his Department that have been identified since 18 November(a) by individuals or organisations from the private sector or (b) otherwise as possibly suitable for market testing and contracting out; and what steps are being taken to prevent any non-governmental organisations successfully tendering to carry out work currently undertaken by civil servants facing a conflict of interest between the public interest requirement of this work and other commercial activities they are involved in or other clients they represent.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The study to identify potential market testing candidates is not yet complete. My Department observes the guidance on the ethics of conducting business with the private sector which has been prepared by the Treasury's competition and purchasing unit.

  Agriculture, Gwent
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the implication of the MacSharry proposals on agriculture in Gwent.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received a number of representations from industry bodies in Wales and individual farmers, including some from Gwent, on the implications for the industry generally of the EC reform proposals.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next proposes to meet the European Agriculture Commissioner to discuss the effects of the MacSharry proposals on agriculture in Gwent.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I met Commissioner MacSharry most recently on 21 February in Brussels when I again emphasised the deep concern of the Welsh farming industry over the EC's proposals for CAP reform.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current level of employment in agriculture in Gwent.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There were 3,761 persons engaged in work on main holdings in Gwent in 1991, excluding wives/husbands of farmers, partners and directors.

  Hospital Closures, South Glamorgan
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with South Glamorgan health authority concerning the proposed closure of Rook wood hospital, Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital and the Cardiff royal infirmary and the timing of announcements relating to such closures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  None.

  Independent Farm Units
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many independent farm units there were in Gwent in 1981 and 1991.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There were 2,129 main holdings in Gwent in 1981 and 2,143 in 1991.

  Heartbeat Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West on 26 February,Official Report, column 526, if he will institute an independent evaluation study of the costs and benefits of Heartbeat Wales.

  Long term unemployed1

  July 1983

  January 1992

  Change

  Total

  Total

  Total

  Percentage

  Clwyd

  8,970

  3,403

  -5,567

  -62·1

  Dyfedd

  5,576

  3,361

  -2,215

  -39·7

  Gwent

  11,378

  6,144

  -5,234

  -46·0

  Gwynedd

  4,109

  3,237

  -872

  -21·2

  Mid Glamorgan

  13,494

  8,423

  -5,071

  -37·6

  Powys

  1,262

  648

  -614

  -48·7

  South Glamorgan

  9,000

  6,138

  -2,862

  -31·8

  West Glamorgan

  9,538

  4,546

  -4,992

  -52·3

  1 Unadjusted.

  34
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Health Promotion Authority for Wales has published its Heartbeat Wales evaluation strategy entitled "The Welsh Heart Programme Evaluation Strategy: progress, plans and possibilities", which has been subject to a scientific peer review. HPAW, in developing its strategy, has sought the advice of a wide range of external consultants. The evaluation was reviewed during 1989 by two international experts in the field of community programme evaluation, Professor Murray (University of Minnesota) and Professor Bosse Haglund (programme director of the Stockholm cancer prevention project), both of whom continue to give advice. In addition the Health Promotion Authority for Wales has an evaluation advisory group comprising United Kingdom-based experts.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the political advisers employed for each Minister in his Department since 1979, the period for which each was employed, the salary range applicable in each case, and the total annual cost to public funds of political advisers.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Mr. Christopher Butler served the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Nicholas Edwards MP, from 1983 to 1985. Mr. Rod Richards served as my special adviser from 1990. It would not be appropriate o reveal the salaries of special advisers, nor in consequence the total cost of individual appointments, as these are individually negotiated taking into account previous outside earnings and are therefore confidential.

  Unemployment Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of long-term unemployed in each of the counties of Wales for the latest available date and for May 1979 giving the increase expressed both as a total and as a percentage.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The earliest month for which data comparable with present coverage are available for local areas is July 1983. The numbers of long-term unemployed in each of the counties of Wales in July 1983 and January 1992 are as follows:

  Alder Hey Hospital
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future prospects of Welsh patients in relation to treatment at Alder Hey hospital, Wirral.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This is a matter for individual health authorities in Wales as purchasers of quality health care for their resident populations.

  Cancer Treatment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to make a statement on cancer treatment for north Wales patients.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  We are currently considering the far reaching implications of the Deloitte Haskins and Sells report in the light of the responses to consultation. We hope to announce our decision on the further development of the service before too long.

  Kytril
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the use in Wales for patients undergoing chemotherapy treatment, of the drug Kytril to combat nausea.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Kytril became commercially available from January this year after being licensed for use in December 1991. Any new drug is considered by the appropriate local drugs and therapeutic committee prior to its approval for either general or limited use. The use of Kytril is a matter for health authorities, as purchasers of health services for their residents, to consider.

  Monmouth
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 17 February,Official Report, column 56, if he will now state what delegation, representing what bodies, he intends to meet in relation to the application for assisted area status for the Monmouth travel-to-work area.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have agreed also to meet the Monmouth chamber of commerce on a date still to be fixed.

  On 6 January 1992 I received a document from the chief executive of Monmouth borough council arguing the case for the Monmouth travel-to-work area to be designated an assisted area and asking for a meeting with the council and other bodies. On 24 January a reply was sent from my office acknowledging the document but pointing out that in 1988 it was announced that there would be no changes made during the lifetime of this Parliament. Mr. Roger Evans then contacted me to argue the case for a meeting and raising some new issues in favour of a change which were not contained in the document. Today I met the leader, deputy leader, planning and development officer, and chairman of the industrial site sub-committee from Monmouth borough council, the town clerk of Monmouth town council, county councillor White and Mr. Evans.

  I shall now be considering the points raised and responding in due course. I am, of course, willing to see the hon. Gentleman on these issues should he make a request for a meeting.

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs Mahon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table showing the numbers of(a) men and (b) women in his Ministry in each of grades (i) 1, (ii) 2, (iii) 3, (iv) 4, (v) 5, (vi) 6, (vii) 7, (viii) SEO, (ix) HEO, (x) administrative trainee, (xi) EO, (xii) CO and (xiii) CA.

  Mr. Curry
  The information has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and is as follows:

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Non-industrial staff in post statistics by grade eqivalent 1 April 1991

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Grade 1

  1

  0

  1

  Grade 2

  6

  0

  6

  Grade 3

  24

  1

  25

  Grade 4

  16

  0

  16

  Grade 5

  101

  9

  110

  Grade 6

  130

  13

  143

  Grade 7

  827

  130

  957

  SEO

  868

  131

  999

  HEO

  1,221

  423

  1,644

  EO

  948

  773

  1,721

  AO

  699

  1,365

  2,064

  AA

  557

  1,499

  2,056

  Total

  5,398

  4,344

  9,742

  Notes:

  1. Includes one Grade 2 who has been on secondment to the European Community for a number of years and excludes one female Grade 2 appointed shortly after 1 April 1991.

  2. Part-time staff are counted as half-units and numbers are rounded to whole units.

  3. The table covers all non-industrial staff and includes equivalents of the grades listed.

  Consumer Panel
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the operation of his Department's consumer panel.

  Mr. Maclean
  Since it was set up by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in November 1989, the consumer panel has proved to be a fruitful means of obtaining the views of the ordinary consumer. I have therefore agreed that it should continue. I have today announced the names of the persons who have agreed to serve on the panel for its second term. They are: Mr. Philip Bell, Mrs. Judy Brander, Mrs. Dorothy Craig, Mrs. Harriet Kimbell, Mrs. Suzi Leather, Mrs. Jean McVitty, Mrs. Maeve Robertson, Mr. Gareth Morgan, Mrs. Karen Powell and Mrs. Noel Whamond.

  Although individuals have been nominated by specific consumer organisations, they are appointed in a personal capacity to serve as ordinary consumers and to represent the views of ordinary consumers. I look forward to their playing a part in the continuing development of Government policies on food safety, diet and nutrition and consumer protection issues.

  In order to help better focus the panel's discussion on the issues it considers, I have revised the terms of reference for the panel. These are now:

  (i) to bring to the attention of Ministers food issues of concern to consumer;

  (ii) to advise on the transparency for consumers of Ministers' food policies;

  (iii) to advise on the transmission to consumers of advice and information relating to Ministers' policies on food safety, diet and nutrition.

  Agricultural Development Advisery Service Support Staff
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what account has been taken by his Department of the conditions of service of support staff following the establishment of the Agricultural Development Advisery Service as a Government agency in April.

  Mr. Curry
  ADAS support staff remain civil servants, subject to civil service terms and conditions of service. As civil servants, staff are eligible to move between the agency and MAFF, the Welsh Office or other Government Departments, for example, for career development.

  Horse Manure
  Mr. Alex Carlisle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has which would prohibit the sale of horse manure for spreading on private gardens; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no such proposals and have no intention of doing so.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the individuals or organisations from the private sector who have been involved since 18 November 1991(a) in determining areas within his Department for market testing or contracting out or (b) who have advised him of areas that should be market tested or contracted out to market consultants; the total fees or other costs to date charged to his Department by them and the full costs likely to be charged.

  Mr. Curry
  None. The Department is in the process of awarding a contract covering a preliminary exercise to assist with the selection of areas for more detailed examination.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list any areas within his Department that have been identified since 18 November(a) by individuals or organisations from the private sector or (b) otherwise as possibly suitable for market testing and contracting out; and what steps are being taken to prevent any non-governmental organisations successfully tendering to carry out work currently undertaken by civil servants facing a conflict of interest between the public interest requirement of this work and other commercial activities they are involved in or other clients they represent.

  Mr. Curry
  No individuals or organisations from the private sector have identified any areas within the Department since 18 November 1991.

  As indicated in the "Competing for Quality" White Paper, the Department already has a programme for extending competition through market testing. Since publication of the White Paper, our officials have been reviewing further areas that could be considered suitable for market testing.

  The Department is conscious of the risk that conflicts of interest could arise as a result of contracting work out. The risk would be assessed very carefully on a case-by-case basis both in framing invitations to tender and in attaching conditions to any contracts subsequently awarded.

  Fish Conservation
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is yet able to draw up a detailed commissioning scheme to secure access to EC funding for British fishermen.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Minister gave on 27 February to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) at column 612–14.

  Intervention Stores, Coventry
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the EC intervention stores located within 20 miles of Coventry and tabulate the tonnage, value and type of stock held at each; how many storehouses for EC surplus foodstuffs there are in Britain; and what is the aggregate tonnage, value and type of the stocks they hold.

  Mr. Curry
  Since the question concerns matters which are the direct responsibility of the chief executive of the Intervention Board executive agency, I am asking him to write directly to the hon. Member.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Restrictive Covenants
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received about the law on restrictive covenants; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor has received around 100 letters from Members of Parliament and the public expressing a range of views on the Law Commission's report on obsolete restrictive covenants published in July 1991.

  West Midlands Police
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to reach a decision regarding prosecutions of West Midlands police officers arising from the West Yorkshire inquiry.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown prosecution service will take these decisions when consideration is completed of 73 files submitted to CPS headquarters by the West Yorkshire inquiry team.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the current annual cost of legal aid.

  The Attorney-General
  In the financial year 1990–91 expenditure on legal aid in England and Wales was £852 million gross and £684 million net. In addition, for the same period £33 million was spent on legal aid administration. In the current financial year it is estimated that expenditure will be around £1,150 million gross and around £900 million net plus £39 million on legal aid administration.

  Maxwell Pension Funds
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Attorney-General if the Director of the Serious Fraud Office has reached any decision on prosecutions relating to the Maxwell Communication Corporation and Mirror Group of companies pension funds; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney General
  No decision on prosecutions has yet been made. Inquiries will continue for some time.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a further statement about the work of the Serious Fraud Office.

  The Attorney-General
  The aims of the Serious Fraud Office remain to increase the efficiency of the criminal justice system in dealing with serious fraud, thereby detering fraud and maintaining confidence in our financial systems. The Serious Fraud Office has, since its inception, prosecuted 171 individual defendants of whom 115 were convicted on one or more charges (67 per cent. of those brought to trial). Establishment of the Serious Fraud Office brought together the skills of several disciplines in a way which has made it possible successfully to investigate cases which previously might have proved impenetrable. The Serious Fraud Office has utilised modern technology extensively to ensure that cases can be presented succinctly and clearly to juries. Suggestions of overcharging are fallacious.

  Of the 20 cases since September 1990 in which the jury were asked to return verdicts, six indictments contained one count only and only three indictments involved in excess of 12 counts. Each of those three indictments related to investor fraud involving up to several hundred instances of alleged criminal conduct.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General what recent representations he has received about the operation of the Serious Fraud Office.

  The Attorney-General
  In 1992 I have received seven parliamentary questions on a variety of subjects which fall under the broad heading of representations about the operation of the Serious Fraud Office. Those are in addition to the questions on today's Order Paper. I have also received representations from one hon. Member and one constituent.

  Immigration
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey of 17 February,Official Report, column 19, what plans his Department has to speed up the determination of appeals against refusals of applications for visitors' visas by visitors to the United Kingdom from Bangladesh.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor's Department plans to increase by 10 per cent. the staffing resources available to the immigration appellate authorities (IAA), and is improving and expanding the IAA's existing accommodation to provide more hearing rooms for adjudicators. Furthermore, a multi-terminal case-tracking computer system has recently been installed.40
  These measures will help the IAA to tackle more effectively their rising workload, including visitor visa appeals from Bangladesh.

  High Court Judges
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Attorney-General how many High Court judges are(a) men and (b) women.

  The Attorney-General
  As at 1 March there were 83 High Court judges in office, of which 81 were men and two were women. In addition, a further female High Court judge, Mrs. Justice Ebsworth, is being sworn in today.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each private sector consultancy firm which has been retained by each agency within his Department, and for his Department as a whole, for the purposes of advising on the market testing programme; and whether the appointment in each case was the result of competitive tendering.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte has been retained to conduct a single study, in conjunction with an internal review team, to advise me on the future market testing programme for my Department as a whole. It was selected through competitive tendering.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the individuals or organisations from the private sector who have been involved since 18 November 1991(a) in determining areas within the Department for market testing or contracting out or (b) who have advised him of areas that should be market tested or contracted out to market consultants; the total fees or other costs charged to the Department by them to date and the full costs likely to be charged.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte has been retained to conduct a study, in conjunction with an internal review team, to advise me on the future market testing programme for my Department. The review is not yet complete and no decisions have been taken on areas that are suitable for market testing. The value of contracts is a matter of commercial and contractual confidentiality.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list any areas within his Department that have been identified since 18 November(a) by individuals or organisations from the private sector or (b) otherwise as possibly suitable for market testing and contracting out; and what steps are being taken to prevent any non-governmental organisations successfully tendering to carry out work currently undertaken by civil servants facing a conflict of interest between the public interest requirement of this work and other commercial activities they are involved in or other clients they represent.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  In reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) on 5 December at column 219, I set out plans for further private sector involvement in court escorts, custody and security and in prison management.
  41
  Private sector consultants, together with an internal review team, are conducting a study to advise me on my Department's overall market testing programme, but their work has not yet been completed.

  Contracting out of Home Office work to the private sector is carried out in accordance with guidance issued by the Treasury's public competition and purchasing unit.

  Dorset Police
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the increase in police manpower in Dorset since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Dorset police had 1,280 police officers at the end of December 1991, 140 more than in May 1979. The authorised establishment of the force will increase by 15 police posts to 1,302 with effect from 1 April 1992.

  Effra House
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decision he has taken on funding by his Department for 36 bed spaces at Effra house, 45 Effra road, London, SW2; and what representations he has received from the Effra Trust on that subject.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Office provides funding for 25 of the 26 bed spaces run by the Effra Trust at five different addresses including 45 Effra road, London SW2. I have received representations from the Effra Trust and five other organisations based in London that the probation service should take on the care payments to residents currently paid by the Department of Social Security and due to be transferred to local authorities in April 1993. I shall be replying shortly.

  Professional Jurors
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to introduce professional jurors in serious fraud cases.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no plans to do so. The procedures for serious fraud cases will be kept under review, taking account of anything which might be said by the Royal Commission on criminal justice.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number of immigration and customs officials will be permanently in place upon the opening of the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The staffing levels which will be required when the channel tunnel opens will depend upon the nature and frequency of the services which will use it at that time and the estimated passenger volumes. These are matters about which officials are in touch with the service operators, but it is still too early to put a figure on the staffing requirement.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) summonses and (b) liability orders have been issued for poll tax debt in (i) England and (ii) Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  42
  Mr. John Patten
  About 11 million summonses have been issued alleging non-payment of community charge during the period 1 April 1990 to 31 December 1991, about 10·4 million in England and 0·6 million in Wales. During the same period about 8·1 million liability orders were made, 7·7 million in England and 0·4 million in Wales. In both cases, some will have involved the same persons in respect of different financial years.

  Drug-related Crime
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the proportion of crime which is drug-related.

  Mr. John Patten
  The latest estimates are published in paragraph 2·4 of the 1991 report "Drug Misusers and the Criminal Justice System: Part 1 Community resources and the probation service" by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, a copy of which is in the Library. These however relate only to heroin misusers and do not include estimates for crimes by other drug misusers.

  Wolds Prison
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the total estimated cost of running Wolds prison during the financial year 1992–93; and how much of the total will be met by the remand contract unit.

  Mrs Rumbold
  The estimated cost of running Wolds prison in 1992–93 will be published in the "Supply Estimate" on Budget day.

  Police Forces
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) women and (b) men are employed by each police force in Britain; at what grade they are employed; and what percentage this is at each grade.

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

  Re-offenders on Bail
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in the West Midlands police force area have committed offences while on bail during 1991, or for the latest year available.

  Mr. John Patten
  The requested information is riot available.

  Football Stadia
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of the Football Stadia Advisory Design Council.

  Mr. John Patten
  This body was set up and funded jointly by the Football Association and the Football League following a recommendation of Lord Justice Taylor in his report on the Hillsborough disaster. He recommended that the council should:

  (a) conduct and marshal research into the improvement and design of football stadia and

  (b) disseminate regularly such information and expertise as they acquire in this field to members of the Football League and, on request, to other football and sports clubs in England, Wales and Scotland.

  43
  The council has already published some helpful guidance and I understand that discussions as to its future role are taking place with the Football Association.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his latest estimate of the average cost per sitting hour of a magistrates court.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 27 January at column 415.

  Electoral Registration
  Mrs Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision exists for homeless people to register; what guidance has been given to electoral registration officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Under the Representation of the People Act 1983, in order to be entitled to vote a person must be resident at an address in a constituency or electoral area on the qualifying date of 10 October, and must be registered there as an elector. The question of whether someone can be regarded as resident for registration purposes is determined not by the nature of the accommodation but by the permanence of his or her residence at a particular place. No guidance has been issued to electoral registration officers on registering homeless people.

  Mr. Delroy McKnight
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish, and in what form, the results of his investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Delroy McKnight in Wandsworth prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs Rumbold
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: Any death in custody is the cause of very great concern, to the Prison Service and to the public. In addition to the full public inquest, a careful review is carried out by prison management in each case to see whether there are any practical lessons which can be learned. It would not be appropriate to publish such reports routinely.

  The death of Delroy McKnight, however, revealed very serious inadequacies in the quality of care which, on this occasion, required a further and more detailed investigation. Following the inquest, which was held in March 1991, the director of prison medical services therefore established a working group to study the events leading to Mr. McKnight's death and make recommendations for change. The group, which was chaired by Dr. Michael Longfield, a principal medical officer within the medical directorate, submitted its report last November. In view of the seriousness of this case, I am now, exceptionally, arranging for a copy of the report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  The report makes 17 recommendations, the majority of which are concerned with specific practical changes in working procedures at Wandsworth and other establishments at which Mr. McKnight was in custody. The recommendations aim particularly at improving communication and continuity in the clinical management of
  44
  prisoners, for example by ensuring full documentation of all decisions, clear understanding by all staff of their responsibilities and regular multi-disciplinary reviews of the needs of prisoners who appear to be at risk of self-harm or are receiving treatment for psychiatric problems. Almost all the recommendations addressed to establishments have already been implemented. The local suicide prevention management group at Wandsworth has brought about substantial improvements in suicide prevention policy and procedure since Mr. McKnight's tragic death.

  In addition, the report makes several recommendations about general matters of health care management within the Prison Service, which are under active consideration within the medical directorate in the context of the follow-up to the scrutiny of the prison medical service.

  Mortality Statistics (Public Streets)
  Mrs Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the figures for deaths on public streets in London due to causes other than violence or road traffic accidents for the period 1 October 1990 to 30 April 1991.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what are the figures for deaths on public streets in England and Wales due to hypothermia, malnutrition or self-neglect in the period from 1 October 1990 to 30 April 1991;

  (2) what are the figures for deaths on public streets in London due to hypothermia, malnutrition or self-neglect in the period from 1 October 1990 to 30 April 1991;

  (3) what are the figures for deaths on public streets in England and Wales due to (a) hypothermia, (b) malnutrition or (c) self-neglect in the year ended 31 December 1991 or the most recent available period.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  There were no deaths on the public streets in England and Wales due to hypothermia, malnutrition or self-neglect registered in the period I October 1990 to 30 September 1991.

  There were nine deaths registered due to these causes of persons of no known address, of which five were in Greater London and four elsewhere in England and Wales.

  All of the deaths occurred between 1 October 1990 and 30 April 1991 and of these, six died in hospital and three elsewhere.

  Prison Suicides
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of suicides in prisons in England and Wales during the year 1991; and if he will list the prisons and the number of suicides that took place within them.

  Mrs Rumbold
  [pursuant to her reply, 22 January 1992, c. 191–92]:
  The total number of deaths in 1991 which resulted from an act of deliberate self-harm was 42 and not 41. The adjustment to the figure is necessary following the recent inquest into the death of a man at Cardiff prison in

  45
  October 1991, which was not initially thought to have been self-inflicted. Further evidence came to light at the inquest, however, and a verdict of "suicide while the balance of his mind was disturbed" was recorded.

  Inquests have now been held on 29 of these deaths and a verdict of suicide was recorded for 23. The establishments at which the deaths occurred are listed in the table.

  Deaths at HM Prison Service Establishments in 1991 resulting from an act of deliberate self-harm.

  Establishment

  Numbers of deaths

  Birmingham

  3

  Bristol

  1

  Brixton

  1

  Cardiff

  2

  Dorchester

  1

  Durham

  1

  Featherstone

  1

  Feltham

  2

  Full Sutton

  2

  Garth

  1

  Glen Parva

  1

  Gloucester

  1

  Grendon

  2

  Haverigg

  1

  Leeds

  2

  Liverpool

  3

  Long Lartin

  1

  Manchester

  2

  The Mount

  1

  Norwich

  2

  Nottingham

  1

  Oxford

  1

  Parkhurst

  1

  Pentonville

  1

  Preston

  1

  Stafford

  1

  Stoke Heath

  1

  Wakefield

  1

  Wandsworth

  1

  Winchester

  1

  Wormwood Scrubs

  1

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment If he will detail each local authority with the percentage of its community charge collected in 1990–91, and 1991–92 to date, in descending order of percentage collected; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  I am arranging for the available information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the proportion of local authority revenue expenditure in England financed by

  Local Authority Revenue Expenditure

  Revenue Expenditure1

  Government Grants2

  Non-Domestic rates3

  Domestic Rates/Community Charges4

  Cash £ million

  1991–92 prices £ million

  Cash prices £ million

  1991–92 £ million

  Per cent.

  Cash prices £ million

  1991–92 £ million

  Per cent.

  Cash prices £ million

  1991–92 £ million

  Per cent.

  1981–82

  20,106

  36,026

  11,234

  20,129

  56

  5,013

  8,982

  25

  4,034

  7,228

  20

  1982–83

  21,952

  36,718

  11,705

  19,578

  53

  5,685

  9,509

  26

  4,548

  7,607

  21

  1983–84

  23,263

  37,188

  12,584

  20,117

  54

  6,042

  9,659

  26

  4,382

  7,005

  19

  1984–85

  24,119

  36,719

  13,126

  19,983

  54

  6,361

  9,684

  26

  4,707

  7,166

  20

  46
  (a) Government grant, (b) non-domestic rates and (c) local domestic taxation in each year from 1978–79 to 1990–91 and estimates for 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Key
  The available information is as follows:

  Local Authority Revenue Expenditure1

  Government grants2 as percentage of local authority expenditure

  Non-domestic rates3 as percentage of local authority expenditure

  Domestic rates/community changes4 as percentage of local authority expenditure

  1981–82

  56

  25

  20

  1982–83

  53

  26

  21

  1983–84

  54

  26

  19

  1984–85

  54

  26

  20

  1985–86

  54

  28

  21

  1986–87

  50

  28

  22

  1987–88

  49

  28

  23

  1988–89

  46

  28

  25

  1989–90

  44

  29

  26

  1990–91

  41

  29

  28

  1991–92

  52

  31

  16

  11992–93

  56

  29

  15

  1 For the years 1981–82 to 1989–90, local authority expenditure is taken to be 'relevant expenditure' plus expenditure on certain non-relevant items such as net expenditure on mandatory student awards. It represents spending to be financed by rate support grant, relevant specific grants, rates and balances. This measure of expenditure is net of sales, fees and charges, interest receipts etc. For the years 1990–91 to 1992–93 local authority expenditure is 'revenue expenditure do compare with TSS' which is expenditure to be met from revenue support grant, specific grants in aggregate external finance, special grants, non-domestic rates, community charges and appropriation from reserves In 1991–92 the also included community charge grant and in 1992–93 this will include teachers pay award additional grant.

  2 For the years 1978–79 to 1989–90 Government grants comprise aggregate exchequer grant and rate rebate grants. For the years 1990–91 to 1992–93 Government Grants included are revenue support grant, special grants, specific grants in aggregate external finance, community charge grant (1991–92), teachers pay award additional grant (1992–93), community charge benefit and transitional relief/community charge reduction scheme grants.

  3 For the years 1981–82 to 1989–90 this represents non-domestic rate yields net of rate relief. For the years 1990–91 to 1992–93 this represents the distributable amount from the non-domestic rates pool.

  4 Net of domestic rate rebates for the years 1981–82 to 1989–90, net of community charge benefit grant and transitional relief/ community charge scheme grant in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  5 1992–93 settlement.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the breakdown of local authority revenue for each year from 1979–80 to 1991–92 in terms of (i) Government grant, (ii) business rates and (iii) rates/poll tax expressed both in million pounds and constant prices and as a percentage.

  Mr. Portillo
  The available information is as follows:
  47

  Revenue Expenditure1

  Government Grants2

  Non-Domestic rates3

  Domestic Rates/Community Charges4

  Cash £ million

  1991–92 prices £ million

  Cash prices £ million

  1991–92 £ million

  Per cent.

  Cash prices £ million

  1991–92 £ million

  Per cent.

  Cash prices £ million

  1991–92 £ million

  Per cent.

  1985–86

  24,284

  35,037

  13,069

  18,856

  54

  6,740

  9,725

  28

  5,094

  7,350

  21

  1986–87

  26,630

  37,199

  13,402

  18,721

  50

  7,566

  10,569

  28

  5,912

  8,258

  22

  1987–88

  28,980

  38,394

  14,274

  18,911

  49

  8,088

  10,715

  28

  6,539

  8,663

  23

  1988–89

  31,240

  38,615

  14,469

  17,885

  46

  8,819

  10,901

  28

  7,689

  9,504

  25

  1989–90

  33,282

  38,633

  14,707

  17,072

  44

  9,595

  11,138

  29

  8,487

  9,852

  26

  1990–91

  36,448

  38,993

  15,037

  16,090

  41

  10,429

  11,159

  29

  10,109

  10,817

  28

  1991–92

  39,880

  39,880

  20,834

  20,834

  52

  12,408

  12,408

  31

  6,388

  6,388

  16

  Notes:

  1For the years 1981–82 to 1989–90, local authority expenditure is taken to be 'relevant expenditure' plus expenditure on certain non-relevant items such as net expenditure on mandatory student awards. It represents spending to be financed by rate support grant, relevant specific grant, rates and balances. This measure of expenditure is net of sales, fees and charges, interest receipts etc. For the years 1990–91 and 1991–92 local authority expenditure is 'revenue expenditure to compare with TSS' which is expenditure to be met from revenue support grant, specific grants in aggregate external finance, special grants, non-domestic rates, community charges and appropriation from reserves. In 1991–92 this also included community charge grant.

  2 For the years 1981–82 to 1989–90 Government grants comprise aggregate Exchequer grant and rate rebate grants. For 1990–91 and 1991–92 Government grants included are revenue support grant, special grants, specific grants in aggregate external finance, community charge grant (1991–92), community charge benefit grant and transitional relief/community charge reduction scheme grant.

  3 For the years 1981–82 to 1989–90, this represents non-domestic rate yields net of rate relief. For the years 1990–91 to 1991–92 this represents the distributable amount from the non-domestic rates pool

  4 Net of domestic rate rebates for the years 1981–82 to 1989–90. Net of community charge benefit grant and transitional relief/community charge reduction scheme grant for the years 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount of poll tax revenue is outstanding to local authorities for 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Portillo
  Local authorities budgeted to collect £10,200 million in community charges in respect of 1990–91 and £6,400 million in respect of 1991–92. I estimate that by 31 December 1991 they had collected £9,900 million of the former and £4,300 million of the latter. Much of the remaining 1991–92 amounts will subsequently have been collected in the form of routine monthly payments in January and February 1992.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what targets his Department has set for local authorities' collection of poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Local authorities should be attempting to collect 100 per cent. of the community charges due in their areas; well-managed authorities are coming very close to achieving this.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the safety net arrangements within the national non-domestic rate system; and if he has any plans to make changes to those arrangements.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have received a number of representations about the non-domestic rate transitional arrangements. We shall shortly be making regulations to allow transitional protection to continue in cases where a local authority waste disposal company takes over property occupied by an existing waste disposal authority under part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make changes to the arrangements for the national non-domestic rate for 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  A number of provisions modifying the non-domestic rating system are contained in schedule 10 to the Local Government Finance Bill. Those which would 48
  have effect in 1992–93 concern the payment of interest in respect of overpayments of rates, the rating of multiple moorings, the exemption of church property, the reference date for the determination of rateable values, and the information which charging authorities must take into account in calculating their contributions into the national non-domestic rating pool.

  Council House Building
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority permanent dwellings have been started in the 32 London boroughs in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information requested for 1979 is shown in table 5 of the publication "Local Housing Statistics: England and Wales", issue No. 53 (May 1980). Figures for 1980 to 1989 appear in "Housebuilding in England by Local Authority Areas, 1980 to 1989", tables 1.1 to 1.10. Figures for 1990 are in "Local Housing Statistics: England and Wales", issue No. 98 (July 1991). The following information is available on local authority housebuilding in 1991:

  Local authority

  (a) Authorities with local authority housing starts in 1991

  Barking 10 dwellings Barnet 4 dwellings Kensington and Chelsea 4 dwellings Waltham Forest 88 dwellings

  (b) Authorities with no local authority housing starts in 1991

  Bromley, Camden, Croydon, Ealing, Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Harrow, Havering, Hounslow, Islington, Redbridge, Sutton, Wandsworth, Westminster

  (c) Authorities which have not yet sent returns for all, or part, of 1991. No authority reporting for part of 1991 has recorded any local authority housing starts

  Bexley, Brent, Enfield, Haringey, Hillingdon, Kingston upon Thames, Lambeth, Lewisham, Merton, Newham, Richmond upon Thames, Southwark, Tower Hamlets

  Tenants' Participation
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of the Housing Corporation's document "Tenant Participation Strategy".

  Mr. Yeo
  The corporation has not yet completed its review of tenant participation strategy. As soon as it publishes a strategy document, I shall be happy to arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has received from his European opposite numbers with regard to orimulsion.

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the burning of orimulsion; and to which power stations they relate.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have received a number of representations concerning the burning or proposed burning of orimulsion generally and at individual power stations such as Pembroke and Ince. A considerable number have also been received by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in respect of applications for authorisation under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to burn orimulsion at Padiham and Pembroke power stations.

  Nature Reserves
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what restrictions are placed on developments by local authorities of designated local nature reserves; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Local planning authorities can grant themselves planning permissions under the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1976. Authorities are required to give their proposals the same publicity, to make them subject to the same consultations, and to consider them against the same criteria and policies, as they would an ordinary planning application for similar development. On 27 February the Department of the Environment issued for consultation a draft planning policy guidance note on nature conservation which provides up to date guidance on how the Government's policies on the conservation of our natural heritage are to be reflected in land use planning.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on wind farm developments; and what proposed developments he has called in.

  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on such developments in response to the Department's consultations and proposed planning policy guidance note on renewable energy. He has called in two planning applications for wind farms: at Kirkby moor in south Lakeland, and Ovenden moor, Halifax.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the amounts outstanding in unpaid business rates for 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Portillo
  I estimate that up to 31 December 1991 a total of £9,130 million was collectable from non-domestic rates in respect of properties on local rating lists for the 1990–91 financial year. By 31 December 1991 local authorities had collected £8,960 million.

  For 1991–92, I estimate that £10,600 million of non-domestic rates are collectable within the year. By 31 December 1991 local authorities had collected £8,180million.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the revenue available to local authorities from business rates for each year from 1979–80 to 1992–93 showing the figures in £ million and constant prices.

  Mr. Portillo
  The available information is as follows:

  Local authority non-domestic rates

  1Non-domestic rates £ million

  1991–92 prices £ million

  1979–80

  3,354

  7,798

  1980–81

  4,169

  8,191

  1981–82

  5,013

  8,982

  1982–83

  5,685

  9,509

  1983–84

  6,042

  9,659

  1984–85

  6,361

  9,684

  1985–86

  6,740

  9,725

  1986–87

  7,566

  10,569

  1987–88

  8,088

  10,715

  1988–89

  8,819

  10,901

  1989–90

  9,595

  11,138

  1990–91

  10,429

  11,159

  1991–92

  12,408

  12,408

  1992–93

  12,306

  11,776

  1 For the years 1979–80 to 1989–90 this represents non-domestic rate yields net of rate relief. For the years 1990–91 to 1992–93 this represents the distributable amount from the non-domestic rates pool.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his best estimates of the amount of business rates being transferred between gainers and losers under the uniform business rate safety net arrangements for 1992–93, showing the amounts deferred for both categories.

  Mr. Portillo
  I estimate that the amount of business rate increases in England being deferred for losers is about £475 million. An equal amount of reduction for gainers is also being deferred.

  Local Government (Political Control)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in rank order, showing political control, the all ages social index for local authorities for 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Portillo
  A table showing the information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list any area within his Department that have been identified since 18 November(a) by individuals or organisations from the private sector or (b) otherwise as possibly suitable for market testing and contracting out; and what steps are being taken to prevent any non-governmental organisations successfully tendering to carry out work currently undertaken by civil servants facing a conflict of interest between the public interest requirement of this work and other commercial activities they are involved in or other clients they represent;

  (2) if he will list the individuals or organisations from the private sector who have been involved since 18 November (a) in determining areas within his Department for market testing or contracting out or (b) who have advised him of areas that should be market tested or contracted out to market consultants, the total fees or other costs to date and the full costs likely to be charged.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My officials are currently drawing up proposals for new market testing areas within the Department in line with the timetable set out in the Financial Secretary's letter to the Home Secretary of 17 December. A market testing adviser from the private sector is to be appointed soon to assist in this task. The market testing areas are to be selected from the list of possible candidates set out on page 13 of the White Paper "Competing for Quality" (Cm 1730). My Department will carefully vet all non-government organisations involved in tendering for work currently undertaken by civil servants to ensure conflicts of interest do not arise.

  Reptiles (Indonesia)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what scientific advice he has received on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species appendix 2 status for reptile species from Indonesia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My scientific advisers, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), are currently considering new information from the Indonesian authorities about these species. The European Commission proposes to arrange discussion of this information by representatives of EC member states during the current conference of the parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. The JNCC will give advice at this meeting, which will decide whether or not the EC should lift its current ban on the import of certain species from Indonesia.

  Water Supply, Hull
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has decided to take in respect of the supply of water unfit for human consumption in Hull in 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The drinking water inspectorate has reported to me on the progress of its investigations into the outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in the Hull area in December 1989 and January 1990. This investigation has inevitably been difficult and lengthy because of gaps in 52
  scientific knowledge about cryptosporidium, which a research programme funded by the Department is seeking to remedy.

  This case has raised a number of new and complex issues, and necessarily continues to involve external advisers as well as the inspectorate. An outbreak control group, comprising representatives of the health authorities, the local authorities, the water company and the Public Health Laboratory Service, was established in the locality during the outbreak and its report was essential to the inspectorate's investigations. The group was not able to complete its report until March 1991. Advice then had to be sought from the Government's Chief Medical Officer and, in view of the possibility of a prosecution, from leading counsel.

  The case is being taken forward as quickly as possible and I shall make a further statement as soon as there is further progress to report.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance will be available to the Local Government Commission in assessing the identities and interests of local communities.

  Mr. Portillo
  We commissioned two research projects as a contribution to thinking on how to assess community identity in the restructuring of local government. The research is intended as a starting point for the Local Government Commission in its work in recommending changes to local government structure and boundaries. I have placed in the Library copies of the reports "Identification with local areas" by Alan Hedges and "Application of Geographic Information Systems to community boundary definition" by the centre for urban and regional development studies at Newcastle university. Copies have also been sent to the local authority associations and the Audit Commission.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received the report by the drinking water inspectorate on the incident at the Iver treatment works of Three Valleys Water in July 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have now received the drinking water inspectorate's report on the incident at the Iver treatment works in July 1992, and copies have been placed in the Library of the House. A summary of the findings and recommendations is being made widely available.

  The inspectorate found that the normal disinfection processes failed on Saturday 20 July 1991 because, when a changeover occurred from one bulk liquid chlorine storage tank to another tank, a valve on the outlet from the second tank was not opened and remained shut for 41/2 hours. The effect of this failure was mitigated however by mixing that occurs at the treatment works and in the distribution networks part of the normal operation of the system, and by the fact that chlorine is applied at various stages. Having weighed all the evidence, the inspectorate has concluded that there is no reason to believe that the water supplied by the company in the period following the incident was unfit for human consumption. Any breach of the quality standards in the Water Quality Regulations is likely to have been trivial.
  53
  The inspectorate is critical of the company for not taking appropriate remedial action at the works within a reasonable period. It has nevertheless concluded that, on the basis of the situation at that time and the information available, senior management took a prudent decision on the Saturday night to issue advice to consumers to boil water. However the water undertakers owned by Three Valleys Water which supply water from the Iver works, Colne Valley Water Company Plc and Rickmansworth Water Plc, contravened the Water Quality Regulations by failing to notify each local authority and district health authority affected by the incident. At the time of the incident there were no powers to take enforcement action in relation to a contravention of this nature, but I can confirm that this gap in the legislation has now been filled for the future.

  The report identifies specific deficiencies in the instrumentation at the Iver works, in operational and management procedures, in emergency plans, and in contingency plans for communicating with consumers in such circumstances. Although microbiological analysis would not have provided results until the following day, the inspectorate is nevertheless critical of the company's failure to carry out comprehensive sampling and analysis particularly of water leaving the Iver works. The report also identifies weaknesses in the response to the incident by local authorities and district health authorities.

  The report puts forward 13 recommendations. Most of these have already been met by action which Three Valleys Water has subsequently taken, and the company has accepted the remaining recommendations. Some of the recommendations about contingency planning also require the co-operation of the relevant local authorities, district health authorities and police forces, and of the media, and I hope that this will be forthcoming.

  In a covering letter to the report, the chief inspector has drawn attention to a number of points which have implications for the approach adopted by water companies generally to preventing failures of disinfection and ensuring that the necessary contingency plans are in place. I have accepted the conclusions and recommendations of the report, and the chief inspector's advice that further guidance should be given to all water companies on these matters. He will be writing to companies promptly for this purpose, and special attention will be paid to emergency procedures in the annual inspections of water companies.

  In the light of the conclusions of this report, my Department will discuss with the Department of Health and the Home Office whether further guidance needs to be given to local authorities and health authorities about their role in responding to incidents affecting water supply. To ensure that liaison with the media functions effectively on future occasions and to secure a prompt response, we are also drawing the attention of water companies to the BBC guide on facilities for broadcasting emergency announcements. We are recommending them to make appropriate standing arrangements both with the BBC and with other television and radio stations serving their areas.

  The inspectorate's report is commendably thorough. The findings that, although we have a very high standard of drinking water in this country, and this particular incident did not cause damage to health, there is scope for improving procedures in order to provide more effective safeguards for the future. I confirm that the necessary action has either been taken or is in hand.

  United Nations Conference
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what matters are on the agenda for the final preparatory committee meeting in New York from 2 March to 2 April for the forthcoming United Nations conference on environment and development.

  Mr. Baldry
  The main items for consideration al the final United Nations conference on environment and development preparatory committee are 900 pages of proposed action under the heading of "Agenda 21—a statement of principles on the world's forests and the Earth Charter".

  Inland Waterways
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the results of his consultation into the management of the navigation of inland waterways; and what changes he is considering in navigation rights as part of this review following the River Derwent judgment.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: Responses are still being received. The outcome of the review will be announced as soon as possible.

  Peat Extraction
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment following the agreement between English Nature and Fisons plc(a) who now owns the mineral rights for the sites concerned and (b) to what habitat-type it is intended to restore cut over areas of lowland raised peatbog once the peat has been extracted.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: Of the 8,000 acres of land involved, English Nature will immediately assume ownership of mineral rights over some 2,800 acres; Fisons will retain the mineral rights for the remainder.

  The objective has been to restore lowland peat vegetation on the cutover areas, but I am advised that a mosaic of other habitats, such as fen, is likely to be the end result.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Duchy Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many visits he plans to make to the Duchy in the period before April.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I have no present plans to visit the Duchy in my capacity as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster during the coming month.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee (1) what target is set for the use of recycled writing paper in the House.

  (2) if he will make arrangements to supply all stores in the House with recycled writing paper;
  55
  (3) what is the cost of recycled House writing paper expressed as a percentage of the cost of non-recycled paper;

  (4) what proportion of writing paper used by hon. Members is recycled;

  (5) what was the level of recycled writing paper used in the House 12 months ago;

  (6) why it is not possible to order House of Commons writing paper which has been recycled for delivery in less than three weeks.

  Mr. Orme
  There is no target set for the use of recycled writing paper in the House. At its meeting on 18 June 1991 the Services Committee approved a resolution of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee that a range of recycled items of stationery should be stocked on a permanent basis in addition to existing ranges of equivalent stationery of archival quality, but that, for the present, it should be supplied only from the Serjeant at Arms stores. The Serjeant at Arms has taken steps to draw Members' attention to the availability of recycled writing paper and I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

  Telephones
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many telephones there are in the House of Commons; and what was the total telephone bill for the last available year.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 5 December 1991]: I understand there are 2,972 telephones in the House of Commons; the House telephone bill for the year ended 31 March 1991 was £1,212,831·49.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what monitoring of telephone calls made from public areas of the House of Commons takes place; and what percentage of telephone expenditure takes place from such locations.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 5 December 1991]: The monitoring of telephone calls in the House has in the past caused Members great concern, particularly on the ground of the threat to their privacy. I am aware a number of Members make frequent use of telephones in the corridors and currently there is no monitoring of telephones in these areas or in any others.

  Over recent months the Director of Finance, appointed as a result of the Ibbs report, has been considering how to measure telephone usage and expenditure throughout the House. The Director of Finance is aware of the sensitivities of Members to the monitoring of telephone calls and it is now for him to make a proposal to the House of Commons Commission on the principle of monitoring if he wishes to do so.

  If telephone monitoring were to be introduced in any part of the House in the future, Members and staff would be given adequate warning and explanation of the measures planned. There remains, however, at present the need for the House to balance the identification of telephone expenditure against the preservation of privacy for Members in their use of the telephones throughout the House.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the policy towards supplying Members and 56
  authorised users with a key or pass card to access telephones in the public parts of the House; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 5 December 1991]: Proposals to limit the use of telephones will be considered by the Administration Committee shortly after the Easter recess and it is hoped to introduce new measures when the telephone exchange is upgraded in mid-1992; it is unlikely that a key or pass card will form part of these proposals.

EMPLOYMENT

  Doncaster Unemployment Office
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the unemployment office in Trafford way, Doncaster, was first open for business; and when it received its official opening.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Empoyment if he will list any areas within his Department that have been identified since 18 November(a) by individuals or organisations from the private sector or (b) otherwise as possibly suitable for market testing and contracting out; and what steps are being taken to prevent any non-governmental organisations successfully tendering to carry out work currently undertaken by civil servants facing a conflict of interest between the public interest requirement of this work and other commercial activities they are involved in or other clients they represent.

  Mr. Jackson
  A study to determine the most promising areas for market testing within the Department is not yet complete. The Department follows the guidance on the ethics of conducting business with the private sector contained in the Treasury's public competition and purchasing unit's guidance—CUP No. 16.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the individuals or organisations from the private sector who have been involved since 18 November 1991(a) in determing areas within the Department for market testing or contracting out or (b) who have advised of areas that should be market tested or contracted out to market consultants; the total fees or other costs charged to the department by them to date and the full costs likely to be charged.

  Mr. Jackson
  Two companies have been used by this Department in considering areas for market testing or contracting out, namely Ernst and Young, chartered accountants and Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte. The fees agreed with these organisations for their services are commercially confidential.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give figures for the number of health and safety inspectors and the number of industrial accidents in(a) Wales and (b) the United Kingdom for the years 1979 and 1991.

  Mr. Forth
  The number of Health and Safety Executive inspectors based in Wales and the total number employed in Great Britain in 1979 and 1991 is as follows:

  Year (1 April)

  Inspectors based in Wales

  Inspectors employed in Great Britain

  1979

  169

  1,426·5

  1991

  62

  1,342·0

  1 Excludes mines and quarries and industrial air pollution inspectors as centrally held records for 1979, for these staff, cannot be analysed by location.

  The information available on the total number of occupational injuries occurring in Wales and in Great Britain in 1979 and the financial year 1990–91 is as follows:

  Total injuries reported1 to Health and Safety Executive's Factory and Agricultural Inspectorates and Local Authorities

  Wales

  Great Britain

  21979

  3n/a

  269,763

  4 51990£91

  9,629

  180,450

  1 Reported under various pieces of health and safety legislation in 1979 and the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 (RIDDOR) for 1990–91.

  2 Injuries to employees only compulsorily reportable.

  3 Regional analysis of injuries in 1979 is not available.

  4 Injuries to employees, self-employed people and members of the public injured as a result of someone else's work activity in year commencing 1 April 1990.

  5 Provisional.

  Responsibility for occupational health and safety matters in Northern Ireland lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Unemployment, London
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has for reducing unemployment in inner London.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Employment Service and training and enterprise councils deliver a wide range of employment, enterprise and training programmes to help employment prospects for unemployed people. In inner London, as elsewhere, these programmes are often designed to take account of special local circumstances to help people find the best and quickest route back to employment.

  Noise
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's actions to combat noise in industry and other places of work since 1987.

  Mr. Forth
  During this period the Government introduced the Noise at Work Regulations 1989 requiring measures to control noise and protect workers. The Health and Safety Executive supplemented the regulations by 58
  publishing extensive guidance and free leaflets for employers, employees and machinery makers and suppliers, explaining the new legislation.

  Health and safety inspectors have been active in enforcing the legislation. They have mounted a series of campaigns and other initiatives to monitor compliance and to raise the awareness of the hazard created by excessive noise at work and improve understanding of the means of controlling it.

TRANSPORT

  Ports Privatisation
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what timetable has been established for the privatisation of the port of Tilbury in accordance with the Ports Act 1991; what criteria he has laid down for management-employee buy-outs; how many bidders have submitted bids; when he expects to receive any recommendation as to the proposed successful bidder; when he proposes to announce his decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Final bids for the port of Tilbury were to be submitted by 28 February. Once they have assessed the bids, the Port of London authority board will make its recommendation to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, who will announce his decision as soon as he is able to do so. The objectives of sale for the port of Tilbury include the following criterion in respect of management and employee share-ownership:"In considering competing bids, the PLA will have regard to … the desirability of encouraging the disposal of the whole or a substantial part of the equity share capital of the company to managers or other persons employed by the company; or to another company the whole or a substantial part of whose equity share capital is owned by managers or other persons so employed."

  The number of bidders for the port is a matter of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what submissions he has received from the port of Dover for the privatisation of the port in accordance with the provisions of the Ports Act 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received no proposals for privatisation from that port.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what timetable has been established for the privatisation of the port of Medway in accordance with the Ports Act 1991; what criteria he has laid down for management-employee buy-outs; how many bidders have submitted bids; when he expects to receive any recommendation as to the proposed successful bidder; when he proposes to announce his decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Final bids for the Medway ports authority's undertakings were submitted on 24 February. Once it has assessed the bids, the Medway ports authority board will make its recommendation to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, who will announce his decision as soon as he is able to do so. The objectives of sale for the Medway ports authority include the following criterion in respect of management and employee share-ownership:"the Authority will have particular regard to the desirability of encouraging the disposal of the whole or a substantial part of the Company to managers and employees."
  59
  The number of bidders for the port is a matter of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what timetable has been established for the privatisation of the Port of Forth in accordance with the Ports Act 1991; what criteria he has laid down for management-employee buy-outs; how many bidders have submitted bids; when he expects to receive any recommendation as to the proposed successful bidder; when he proposes to announce his decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. and learned Friend has agreed in principle to the privatisation of the Forth ports authority's undertaking by means of a flotation. The date of the flotation has not yet been announced. In considering the authority's detailed proposals my right hon. and learned Friend has had particular regard to the desirability of encouraging the disposal of the whole or a substantial part of the equity share capital to managers and employees.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what submissions he has received from the port of Ipswich for the privatisation of the port in accordance with the provisions of the Ports Act 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received no proposals for privatisation from that port.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what timetable has been established for the privatisation of the port of Clyde in accordance with the Ports Act 1991; what criteria he has laid down for management-employee buy-outs; how many bidders have submitted bids; when he expects to receive any recommendation as to the proposed successful bidders; when he proposes to announce his decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Final bids for the Clyde port authority's undertaking were submitted on 14 February. Once it has assessed the bids, the Clyde port authority board will make its recommendation to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, who will announce his decision as soon as he is able to do so. The objectives of sale for the Clyde port authority include the following criterion in respect of management and employee share-ownership:"the Authority will have particular regard to the desirability of encouraging the disposal of the whole or a substantial part of the equity (and voting rights) in the successor company to managers or other employees of the successor company (or to a company in which such managers or other employees have a substantial interest)."

  The number of bidders for the port is a matter of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what submissions he has received from the port of Tyne for the privatisation of the port in accordance with the provisions of the Ports Act 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received no proposals for privatisation from that port.

  Service Areas
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the provision of services on new stretches of national non-motorway roads.
  60
  Mr. Chope
  Policy on the provision of services on all-purpose trunk roads, new and old, is set out in the Department's circular "Roads 4/88". A copy is in the Library. The need is for facilities, preferably comprehensive ones, at appropriate intervals to meet the needs of all users. Local authorities are encouraged to help to identify locations where facilities are not adequate. The Department will in general comment favourably on planning applications which conform to the advice in the circular. Non-motorway roads other than all-purpose trunk roads are the responsibility of local highway authorities.

  Canary Wharf
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which authorities are empowered to introduce traffic-calming measures at Canary wharf.

  Mr. Chope
  The introduction of traffic calming on the private roads at Canary wharf is primarily at the discretion of the developers, in consultation as necessary with the local highway authority.

  Thames River Bus
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much public money supports the Thames river bus service.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Thames river bus service received a £500,000 grant in 1989–90 to promote and improve the service in recognition of its road decongestion and docklands regeneration benefits. Discussions are in progress about the possibility of further support on the basis of benefits to road decongestion from river transport.

  The case is yet to be made.

  Motorway Service Areas
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the largest sum tendered since 1975 for a motorway service area.

  Mr. Chope
  It has been the consistent practice to treat the sums tendered for motorway service areas as confidential between the tenderer and the Department.

  Road Services
  Mr. John Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will make a statement on the expenditure and improvement of road services within and to Bournemouth since 1987, including those improvements currently under way or approved.

  Mr. Chope
  The following major improvement schemes have been completed by the local highway authority Dorset county council, in each case with the assistance of 50 per cent. transport supplementary grant from central Government.

  Scheme

  Cost £ million

  Wessex Way, Bournemouth

  9·13

  Winton and Moordown Relief Road

  6·86

  Holes Bay Road, Poole

  11·93

  61
  No major trunk road improvement schemes have been carried out in the Bournemouth area since 1987. However, there are four schemes in the national programme at various stages of preparation:

  Scheme

  Estimated cost £ million

  A31 Ashley Heath Grade Separated Junction

  8·1

  A31 Ringwood-Ashley Heath Improvement

  3·8

  A31 to Mannings Heath Relief Road

  28·4

  Poole Harbour Bridge Replacement

  21·0

  In addition, the Department of Transport has carried out a number of small improvements to the A31 in the Bournemouth area. This includes one at Ashley Heath roundabout (£150,000) and approximately £0·5 million on other improvements.

  Ports Workers
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the number of casual or temporary workers engaged in the ports industry.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The British Ports Federation's survey of numbers employed in the United Kingdom port industry on 2 April 1991 found 16,543 manual workers, of whom 638 were in temporary employment.

  British Rail
  Mrs Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when next he intends to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the external financing limit and train procurement.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend has regular meetings with Sir Bob Reid, the British Rail chairman, to discuss a variety of railway issues, including external financing and train procurement.

  Roads Programme
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to review the Government's roads programme.

  Mr. Chope
  The White Paper (Cm 693) "Roads for Prosperity" is the basis of the trunk road programme in England. We keep this under review and from time to time I report progress to Parliament, and any modifications to our plans.

  Port of London Authority
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for the future role of the Port of London authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Apart from those which it will lose with the sale of the Port of Tilbury, I have no proposals for changes in the statutory functions of the Port of London authority as the harbour authority for the tidal reaches of the Thames. These include conservancy, regulation of navigation, pilotage and the development, with a view to disposal, of its surplus land holdings.

  Air Services
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he received from British Midland for assistance on its decision to withdraw the air service from Liverpool to London.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None.

  Maritime Transport Service
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information on the Department's definition of substantial employee share ownership and management buy out preference has been given to Maritime Transport Service; in addition to that which has been given to any other bidder for any trust port under the Ports Act 1991.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The chairman of Maritime Transport Services met officials of the Department on 4 February at his request. As regards a price preference for a management and employee buy-out, officials said that my right hon. and learned Friend had made it clear that he was prepared to consider a limited price preference in the light of the particular circumstances of the situation and that they were not able to add further to that statement. As regards the level of employee share ownership, officials said that this was a matter for the relevant port authority boards to consider in assessing bids against the objectives of sale agreed for their port before making their recommendation to my right hon. and learned Friend as to the sale of the port and suggested that Maritime Transport Services should seek any necessary clarification from the port authority boards as to how they would view the level of employee share ownership in assessing bids. The Department has given Maritime Transport Services no information on these matters which is not already available to other bidders for trust ports.

  Traffic, Hazel Grove
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the need for a grant from his Department to assist with traffic-calming measures in the town of Hazel Grove.

  Mr. Chope
  None since last year when the council was advised that a scheme may be eligible for consideration for transport supplementary grant if the council demonstrated road safety benefits.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list any areas within his Department that have been identified since 18 November(a) by individuals or organisations from the private sector or (b) otherwise as possibly suitable for market testing and contracting out; and what steps are being taken to prevent any non-governmental organisations successfully tendering to carry out work currently undertaken by civil servants facing a conflict of interest between the public interest requirement of this work and other commercial activities they are involved in or other clients they represent.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A study to determine the most promising areas for market testing within the Department
  63
  is not yet complete. Guidance on the ethics of conducting business with the private sector is contained in the Treasury's public competition and purchasing unit's guidance—CUP No. 16—which has been circulated to Departments.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the individuals or organisations from the private sector who have been involved since 18 November 1991(a) in determining areas within his Department for market testing or contracting out or (b) who have advised him of areas that should be market tested or contracted out to market consultants; the total fees or other costs to date charged to his Department by them and the full costs likely to be charged.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  After considering a number of possibilities, Mr. Dick Walker, a senior executive with ICI, has been appointed on a short-term contract to assist in the development of market-testing targets for the Department and its agencies. The Department will reimburse Mr. Walker's ICI salary.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the estimated rate of return on investment for the previously proposed channel tunnel rail link route and the current estimated rate of return from investment for the route which he has now decided.

  Mr. Freeman
  Estimates of the relative benefits and costs of different route options are contained in British Rail's "Comparison of Routes", published in October 1991, copies of which were placed in the Library of the House. British Rail is currently refining the easterly route, and it is too early to provide information on rates of return.

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to consider social and economic factors in assessing new rail electrification projects to include such factors in the calculation of the internal rate of return; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The electrification of lines is expected to earn an 8 per cent. return compared with the alternative of diesel services. However, it is the policy to take into account external benefits where a project would not otherwise meet the relevant appraisal criteria.

  Coaches
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with coach operators concerning regulations for the discharge of waste from coach toilets.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: The law already prohibits a toilet fitted in a wheeled motor vehicle from being capable of discharging directly on to a road.

  We have had no consultations with coach operators on this subject.

  Road Building
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has undertaken on the effects of the road building programme on sites of importance for nature conservation.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: The effects of road schemes on sites of importance for nature conservation are assessed on a site specific basis as part of the environmental assessment carried out for each scheme. Consultation with English Nature takes place during this assessment.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will amend the present method of cost-benefit analysis of road building assessment, so as to include an assessment of the environmental impacts of road building.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: The Department's current methods for appraising trunk road schemes already include a comprehensive assessment of environmental effects. Effects are quantified as far as possible, but are not given monetary values at present. The Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment has recently reviewed the question of monetary valuation in environmental assessment. Its report and the Government's response will be published shortly.

  Cars
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has undertaken on the environmental consequences of the forecast increase in the number of cars on roads in Great Britain.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: My Department devotes a significant part of its research programme to many environmental issues relating to current and future road transport. For example, we are planning to develop a more accurate assessment of how vehicles perform in order to improve our forecasting of future emissions. We are also reviewing research on alternative vehicle engines and fuel. We are looking at ways of reducing urban congestion and pollution, including the scope for road pricing and the role of enhanced public transport in reducing emissions. Current forecasts of increased road traffic are relevant background to all this research. They are also taken into account in the environmental impact assessments carried out for each of our new road schemes.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the total of local government(a) revenue and (b) capital expenditure by local government within Scotland for each year from 1978–79 to 1991–92 (estimated).

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information requested is as follows:
  65

  Total revenue expenditure £ million

  Total capital expenditure £ million

  1978–79

  1,738·0

  543·1

  1979–80

  2,096·1

  643·9

  1980–81

  2,616·5

  657·4

  1981–82

  2,927·3

  723·8

  1982–83

  3,145·7

  780·4

  1983–84

  3,316·3

  929·3

  1984–85

  3,490·8

  859·8

  1985–86

  3,606·0

  875·2

  1986–87

  3,824·2

  917·7

  1987–88

  4,085·0

  1,094·3

  1988–89

  4,426·0

  1,161·7

  1989–90

  4,724·1

  1,246·7

  1990–91

  5,178·9

  1,234·5

  1991–92

  5,647·4

  1,253·4

  Notes:

  1. The revenue figures are final outturn for the years up to and including 1989–90: provisional outturn for 1990–91: and budget estimate for 1991–92.

  2. The capital figures are final outturn for the years up to and including 1990–91: and estimated outturn for 1991–92.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the proportion of local authority revenue expenditure in Scotland financed by(a) Government grant, (b) non-domestic rates and (c) local domestic taxation in each year from 1978–79 to 1990–91 and estimates for 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The table shows the proportion of Scottish local authorities' income from each source. This differs from revenue expenditure only to the extent that local authorities made use of balances to fund expenditure.

  Central Government Grant Per cent

  Non-Domestic Rates Per cent

  Domestic Rates/ Community Charge Per cent.

  1978–79

  64·9

  22·2

  12·9

  1979–80

  63·1

  24·2

  12·8

  1980–81

  60·3

  25·8

  13·8

  1981–82

  53·9

  29·7

  16·4

  1982–83

  52·9

  30·1

  17·0

  1983–84

  54·1

  29·4

  16·5

  1984–85

  55·1

  28·6

  16·3

  1985–86

  53·6

  28·6

  17·8

  1986–87

  51·0

  30·0

  19·0

  1987–88

  50·3

  30·1

  19·6

  1988–89

  51·3

  29·4

  19·3

  1989–90

  52·4

  25·9

  21·7

  1990–91

  54·9

  23·8

  21·3

  1991–92

  60·9

  23·8

  15·3

  1992–93

  63·1

  20·6

  16·4

  Notes:

  1. The rate and revenue support grant figures used in calculating the percentages are final amounts or those applying to the most recent order.

  2. The domestic rate figures used are net of domestic relief and are inclusive of rebates.

  3. For 1991–92 Government support includes community charge grant.

  4. The 1992–93 community charge income proportions are calculated from budget estimate amounts taken from the provisional outturn/budget estimate 1992 returns made to the Scottish Office by local authorities. For those authorities whose returns have not yet been received, amounts have been estimated based on assumed payment rates for 1991–92.

  5. The proportions for 1991–92 and 1992–93 are estimates.

  6. From 1984–85 onwards central Government support includes revenue support grant and specific grants. A breakdown of specific grants is not available for earlier years.

  66
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the total numbers of(a) summonses and (b) liability orders issued for poll tax debt in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  None. The procedure for recovery of debts, including community charge arrears, is different in Scotland from that in England and Wales.

  There is no equivalent of summonses for community charge arrears in Scotland.

  The nearest equivalent to a liability order is a summary warrant. It is however customary for local authorities to apply for a single warrant in respect of many debtors. Information on the total number of persons subject to summary warrant procedure is not held centrally.

  The number of summary warrants issued in respect of the community charge for the two years for which figures are available are:

  Year

  Number

  1989

  76

  1990

  876

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what amount of poll tax income is still owed to local authorities for 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The amount of local authorities' budgeted community charge income uncollected at 31 December 1991—the most recent date for which information is available—is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1989–90

  68·7

  1990–91

  157·6

  1991–92

  351·0

  Health Service Staff
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the increase of staff in health boards since April 1989.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not held centrally for the month of April 1989. Between 30 September 1989 and 30 September 1991, however, the whole-time equivalent of all NHS staff in Scotland fell from 120,677.7 to 117,600.8, a decrease of 2.5 per cent. The data for medical, dental and nursing staff at 30 September 1991 are provisional.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of people employed by the NHS in Scotland on a full-time and part-time basis.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest available information held centrally shows that at 30 September 1991 there were 85,600 full-time and 56,465 part-time employees in the NHS in Scotland. The data for medical, dental and nursing staff are provisional.

  Employees (Expenditure)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the net capital expenditure per employee in(a) Renfrewshire, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland.
  67
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: Net capital expenditure per employee in manufacturing industries for Renfrewshire, Strathclyde and Scotland is set out in the table. The latest available figures are for 1989.

  Net Capital Expenditure Per Employee —1989

  Area

  Net Capital Expenditure £ per employee

  Renfrewshire

  3,745

  Strathclyde

  2,983

  Scotland

  3,313

  Source: Annual Census of Production.

  Manufacturing Productivity
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the level for the most recent date for which figures are available of manufacturing productivity in(a) Renfrewshire, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: The official data on manufacturing productivity are published by the Employment Department in the Employment Gazette. However, separate regional figures are not included.

  Expressing manufacturing productivity in terms of gross value added per employee, the figures for Renfrewshire, Strathclyde and Scotland are set out in the table. The latest available figures are for 1989.

  Manufacturing productivity—1989

  Area

  Gross value added £ per employee

  Renfrewshire

  31,014

  Strathclyde

  23,128

  Scotland

  22,340

  Source: Annual Census of Production.

  Paisley Pattern Goods
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will encourage Scottish Enterprise to fund a feasibility study into the development of the manufacture of Paisley pattern goods in Paisley; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: I wrote to the local enterprise company about the manufacture of Paisley pattern goods in Paisley following a meeting I had with the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) on this subject on 4 September last year.

  It is a matter for the local enterprise company how it chooses to pursue this issue. I have however noted the hon. Member's suggestion of a feasibility study and will pass it on to the local enterprise company. If he wishes also to pursue the proposal direct with Renfrewshire Enterprise then I would be happy for him to do so.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the formula for determining the apportionment of resources to local enterprise companies; and if he will make a statement;
  68
  (2) if he will publish a table showing the resources allocated to each local enterprise company (a) in financial terms and (b) on a per capita basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: The basis on which resources are allocated to local enterprise companies is a matter for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, in their respective areas. I have asked the chairmen of these two bodies to write to the hon. Member with the information he has requested.

  Employment Growth, Renfrewshire
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate employment growth in Renfrewshire over the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: The information is not available in the precise form requested. The total level of employment in Renfrew district is estimated to have increased by 19.8 per cent. between 1987 and 1989, the latest year for which data are available.

  Employment Performance
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the employment performance of(a) Renfrew district, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland between 1980 and 1990.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: Available data from the September 1981 and September 1989 censuses of employment show that (a) the number of employees in employment in Renfrew district was 10,800 in 1989 and 13,000 in 1981; (b) the number in Strathclyde was 861,200 in 1989 and 885,000 in 1981; and (c) the number in Scotland was 1,966,500 in 1989 and 1,965,500 in 1981.

  Exports
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of Scottish exports came from Renfrewshire in each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: The information requested is not available.

  Renfrew Enterprise
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the Renfrew Enterprise annual(a) capital and (b) revenue budgets is already legally committed in the financial year 1991–92 and each of the subsequent four years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer, 27 February 1992]: Renfrewshire Enterprise Company's forward financial commitments are a matter for the company.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the percentage of total employment within Renfrewshire in each sector in(a) 1975, (b) 1980, (c) 1985 and (d)
  69
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer, 27 February 1992]: Available data from the Employment Department's census of employment relate to the years 1975, 1981, 1984 and 1989. For each of these years, the percentage of employees in employment in each sector in Renfrew district is shown in the table:

  Percentage

  1981

  1984

  1989

  1980 Standard Industrial Classification Sector:

  Agriculture

  0

  1

  1

  Energy and Water Supply

  1

  2

  1

  Manufacturing

  42

  52

  33

  Construction

  18

  1

  1

  Services

  38

  40

  58

  Percentage

  1975

  1981

  1968 Standard Industrial Classification Sector:

  Primary Production

  0

  0

  Manufacturing Industry

  57

  43

  Construction

  21

  18

  Service Industries

  22

  38

  1 Indicates figure unable to be provided due to the very small number of census units.

  Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of employees in his Department; and how many are(a) black and (b) disabled.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: At 1 April 1991 the total number of staff employed in the Scottish Office and associated departments was 6,186. Of that number, 29 have described themselves as belonging to an ethnic minority. At 1 June 1991, the Departments employed 80 staff who were registered disabled and an unrecorded number of people with a disability who had chosen not to register.

  Mrs Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of(a) men and (b) women in his Department in each of grades (i) 1, (ii) 2, (iii) 3, (iv) 4, (v) 5, (vi) 6, (vii) 7, (viii) SEO, (ix) HEO, (x) administrative trainee, (xi) EO, (xii) CO and (xiii) CA.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: The information at 1 April 1991 for my Department is set out in the tables:

  The Scottish Office

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Grade 1

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Grade 2

  9·5

  —

  9· 5

  Grade 3

  24·0

  2·0

  26·0

  Grade 4

  17·0

  2·0

  19·0

  Grade 5

  110·0

  12·0

  122·0

  Grade 6

  175·0

  34·5

  209·5

  Grade 7

  365·0

  51·5

  416·5

  Senior Executive Officer

  419·0

  35·5

  454·5

  Higher Executive Officer

  650·0

  222·5

  872·5

  Administration Trainee

  4·0

  2·0

  6·0

  Executive Officer

  639·0

  486·0

  1,125·0

  Administrative Officer

  432·0

  861·5

  1,293·5

  Administrative Assistant

  414·0

  774·5

  1,188·5

  70

  Scottish Record Office

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Grade 5

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Grade 6

  2·0

  —

  2·0

  Grade 7

  5·0

  4·0

  9·0

  Senior Executive Officer

  4·0

  2·0

  6·0

  Higher Executive Officer

  9·0

  1·0

  10·0

  Executive Officer

  6·0

  4·0

  10·0

  Administrative Officer

  13·0

  10·0

  23·0

  Administrative Assistant

  33·0

  16·0

  49·0

  General Register Office for Scotland

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Grade 4

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Grade 5

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Grade 7

  9·0

  —

  9·0

  Senior Executive Officer

  9·0

  1·0

  10·0

  Higher Executive Officer

  29·0

  8·5

  37·5

  Executive Officer

  35·0

  29·5

  64·5

  Administrative Officer

  40·0

  61·0

  101·0

  Administrative Assistant

  40·0

  68·5

  108·5

  Notes:

  Figures are for the grades stated and their equivalents.

  Part-time staff are counted as half units.

  RETEX
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on the European Community RETEX programme, its application in Scotland and whether the Paisley area is eligible for assistance;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the method of application of the additionality rule to the European Community RETEX programme;

  (3) which agencies are eligible to apply for assistance through the European Community RETEX proposal; what assistance is available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: We are considering the draft notice to member states which the Commission sent us on 22 January. Decisions on eligible areas, agencies eligible to apply and levels of assistance, will not be taken until the final shape of the initiative is known. The United Kingdom Government will naturally seek to ensure the most effective coverage of United Kingdom textile areas while avoiding any unfair competition against United Kingdom producers. The new arrangements for ERDF spending announced by my right hon. Friend on 17 February at column 22 will apply to RETEX.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will request Scottish Enterprise to undertake a study into how the damage to local economies through the loss of textile jobs may be minimised or alleviated; and what financial assistance is available from public agencies at all levels of government.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: Addressing these sorts of issues is a central part of the role which the Government intended for Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies when deciding to set up the new framework.
  71
  Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies monitor carefully the effects of industrial closures in Scotland and have a range of measures at their disposal to help minimise or alleviate the effects of job losses. In the case of the textiles industry, Scottish Enterprise has recently completed an internal review of the industry and is now considering how best to implement the strategy which that has identified. Scottish Borders Enterprise, along with the industry, has established the borders textiles initiative to provide practical support for design, marketing and promotion of the industry. The full range of the enterprise company's powers and functions are deployed to assist with economic development, training and job creation in the area.

  In addition, the enterprise initiative provides a wide range of assistance to industry, including assistance under the Government's regional policy. The full range of Employment Service functions are also available to help those made redundant as a result of industrial closures.

  There is in place, therefore, a range of measures to tackle precisely the concerns which the hon. Member has raised.

  Psychiatric Patients
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the use by health boards of the pocket money of long-stay psychiatric patients to buy their personal clothing: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 24 February 1992]: Hospitals are strongly encouraged by boards to use the savings of patients who are unable to look after their own affairs in an imaginative way for their benefit. They know that balances should not build up to high levels unless there are particular personal circumstances to justify this. Many of these patients are very elderly, frail and suffer from dementia. The opportunities to spend money on them creatively are limited. Buying new clothes and dressing well is one of the few pleasures nursing staff can help very dependent elderly people to enjoy.

  Unemployment, Cunninghame
  Mr. Lambie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives he is prepared to propose to deal with unemployment in Cunninghame.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 26 February 1992]: The development of initiatives to deal with unemployment in particular areas, where action is necessary to supplement the very broad range of measures alread in place, is a matter for local enterprise companies. I am confident that Enterprise Ayrshire will bring forward any new proposals which are necessary to address unemployment in Cunninghame.

  Inspector of Constabulary
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the post of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary in Scotland is full or part-time.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: Her Majesty's inspectorate for Scotland consists of one Her Majesty's inspector (full-time) and one Her Majesty's chief inspector (full-time). Both are former chief constables.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the current annual amount of(a) low level, (b) intermediate level and (c) high level nuclear waste generated in Scotland; if he will express this as a percentage of the total United Kingdom figure; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: Information relating to the rate of generation of low, intermediate and high level radioactive waste at United Kingdom nuclear establishments including those in Scotland is contained in the regular statements of the United Kingdom radioactive waste inventory published jointly by the Department of the Environment and UK Nirex Ltd. The statements are published every other year, the most recent being Department of the Environment report DOE/RW 89–110 which is in the Library.

  Nursery School Places
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the capital and revenue costs of providing nursery school places for all children in the three to five age group.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 24 February 1992]: Local authorities have the power to provide for nursery education as they deem appropriate in response to local needs and circumstances and their own spending priorities.

  The Opposition have made various claims about the importance of providing nursery places for all three and four-year-olds, but I am not aware of any estimates of the total cost of providing these places.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Shareholders
  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners own shares.

  Mr. Scott
  The latest information available suggests that in 1988 approximately 1·35 million pensioners owned shares and other marketable securities.

  Lone Parents
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of lone parents receive regular maintenance payments.

  Mr. Jack
  A survey of the circumstances of lone parent families in the United Kingdom carried out in 1989 found that only 30 per cent. of lone mothers received regular amounts of maintenance for their children. Our proposals for a new system of child maintenance aim to remedy the situation.

  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to help lone parents who want to re-enter the labour market.

  Mr. Jack
  Currently, significant help is built into the benefits available to lone parents who want to work. In
  73
  particular, family credit gives considerable encouragement. Lone parents get the same adult credit as a two-parent family, and one parent benefit is disregarded in calculating their income. Disability working allowance, which is to be introduced on 6 April 1992, will make the same provision for lone parents as family credit.

  In housing benefit and community charge benefit, those lone parents not on income support, benefit from the higher, £25, earnings disregard and from a lone parent premium which is higher than the rate of lone parent premium in income support.

  From 7 April 1992, this help will be further enhanced by two measures. First, family credit will be available to those working at least 16 hours a week rather than 24. This will enable many lone parents to work the qualifying number of hours and fit them around school hours, and so benefit from the more generous provisions of family credit.

  Secondly, from the same date, the first £15 of maintenance they receive will be disregarded in calculating income in family credit, housing benefit, community charge benefit, and disability working allowance. This will increase the disposable income of all such recipients.

  In addition, when the new Child Support Agency starts work in April 1993, more lone parents will receive higher amounts of child maintenance and be able to take full advantage of the changes in family credit.

  On 11 December 1991, we announced a grant of £1 million to the National Council for One Parent Families to enable it to provide courses for lone parents who are thinking of going back to work. The courses will help lone parents to improve their job search skills, and will provide a range of information on local facilities and personal finances.

  Housing Benefit
  Mrs Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to meet the housing associations to discuss the level of housing benefit for income support claimants.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no plans to do so and I am not aware of any requests to this Department for such a meeting.

  Housing benefit cases in England (May 1990)

  Rent rebate

  Rent allowance

  Cases

  Average benefit £

  Cases

  Average benefit £

  With income support

  Pensioners (claimant or partner aged 60 or over)

  571,000

  21·94

  189,000

  24·67

  Lone Parents1

  327,000

  25·05

  91,000

  36·74

  Others2

  444,000

  22·82

  235,000

  34·61

  Total

  1,343,000

  22·98

  515,000

  31·28

  Without income support

  Pensioners (claimant or partner aged 60 or over)

  737,000

  15·95

  201,000

  18·50

  Lone Parents1

  37,000

  18·34

  10,000

  36·24

  Others2

  190,000

  17·24

  200,000

  18·03

  Total

  964,000

  16·28

  411,000

  19·07

  Total all cases

  Pensioners (claimant or partner aged 60 or over)

  1,308,000

  18·57

  390,000

  21·49

  Lone Parents1

  365,000

  24·36

  100,000

  36·69

  Others2

  634,000

  21·15

  436,000

  26·98

  74
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the latest estimates for England of(a) the number of households receiving housing benefit, (b) the average amount of housing benefit paid and (c) the cost of housing benefit, distinguishing (i) those households which receive income support and those which do not, (ii) rent rebates and rent allowances and (iii) pensioner households, lone parent families, two parent families, childless couples and others.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 26 February 1992]: The information available is set out in the table.

  Housing Benefit Expenditure

  1990–91 IS NON IS £ million

  1991–92 IS NON IS £ million

  Rent Rebate (England)

  Pensioners (Claimant or partner aged 60 or over)

  621

  692

  483

  752

  Lone Parents1

  441

  47

  462

  47

  Others2

  590

  176

  712

  212

  Total

  1,652

  915

  1,657

  1,010

  Rent Allowance (Great Britain)3

  Pensioners (Claimant or partner aged 60 or over)

  257

  281

  250

  371

  Lone Parents1

  197

  26

  259

  33

  Others2

  546

  238

  862

  341

  Total

  1,000

  545

  1,371

  744

  Source:1990·91 data is consistent with the Departmental Report. Estimated outturn expenditure figures have been provided for 1991–92.

  Notes:

  1 Lone parents are defined as those in receipt of the lone parent premium.

  2 "Others" include two parent families and childless couples because the information on these two categories is not available.

  3 Information for England only is not available.

  75

  Rent rebate

  Rent allowance

  Cases

  Average benefit £

  Cases

  Average benefit £

  Total

  2,307,000

  20·18

  925,000

  25·86

  Source: Housing benefit and Community Charge Benefit Management Information System annual 1 per cent, sample for May 1990.

  1 Lone parents are defined as those in receipt of the lone parent premium.

  2 "Others" includes two parent families and childless couples because the information on these two categories is not available.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for the improvement of contact between his Department and London local authorities to speed up the payment of housing benefit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department and the Benefits Agency keep the arrangements for housing benefit liaison with local authorities under constant review. Discussions are currently taking place with the Benefits Agency and the local authority associations on the preparation of a national service level agreement. This will provide a model framework for individual local authorities and social security districts throughout Great Britain, allowing them to negotiate local agreements which more closely suit local needs. One of the first local agreements will operate between certain London authorities and the Glasgow benefits centre. In addition to these initiatives, regular liaison meetings, at working and management levels, are actively encouraged. Finally, the forms used by the Benefits Agency to supply information to local authorities are to be improved later this year. With these improvements in place, all authorities should see gains in the quality of service provided.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many unemployed benefit claimants there were in St. Helens in December 1978 and in December 1991.

  Mr. Scott
  In December 1978 there were 14,288 unemployed people registering in the Wigan and St. Helens travel-to-work area. In December 1991 there were 22,740 people signing unemployed in that area.

  Incomes
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have incomes in excess of £20,280 a year solely by virtue of receiving overtime and bonus payments.

  Mr. Jack
  It is estimated from the April 1991 "New Earnings Survey" that nearly three quarters of a million employees have gross weekly earnings above £390—the equivalent of £20,280—by virtue of overtime, bonus and other premium payments.

  Upper Earnings Limit
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the estimated revenue yield in 1992–93 of abolishing the employee's national insurance upper earnings limit from October 1992.

  Mr. Newton
  We estimate that the contribution yield in 1992–93 would be £1·1 billion.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the average cost to a non-pensioner of the imposition of national insurance contributions at 9 per cent. on income from savings above £3,000.

  Mr. Newton
  We estimate that in the United Kingdom the average cost in 1991–92 to a non-pensioner would be £770.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the annual cost of providing full national insurance benefits to those with earnings below the lower earnings limit.

  Mr. Jack
  The cost would depend on various factors, including the scope of the benefits scheme proposed and the incidence of claims among low earners. I regret that the information on which such an estimate could be made is not presently available.

  However, some 3 million employees earning less than the lower earnings limit might be affected from such an arrangement and as a result payment for such benefit could cost billions in the longer term.

  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the revenue yield(a) of a 4.5 per cent. rate of national insurance contributions applied to all income in excess of £20,280 a year and (b) an increase in the national insurance contributions upper earnings limit to £26,000 a year.

  Mr. Jack
  We estimate that a 4.5 per cent. charge on earnings over £20,280 a year would yield about £1–5 billion in respect of 1991–92.

  Raising the upper earnings limit for employees to £26,000 a year, would yield about £0·6 billion.

  Disability Benefits
  Sir William Shelton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures are being taken to improve awareness of the new disability benefits due to be introduced in April.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to publicise improvements to the system of benefits for disabled people.

  Mr. Scott
  The advertising campaign for disability living allowance and disability working allowance commenced on 5 February. The campaign includes television commercials, supported by advertising in the national press, specialist, and ethnic press as well as a number of other publications. The advertisements invite people to telephone or send off a coupon to a freepost address to obtain the "Guide to New Benefits for Disabled People". I am very pleased to announce that we have already received 120,000 responses to the advertising.
  77
  The advertisements form part of a larger publicity campaign targeted at disabled people, carers, advisers, and health professionals. As part of this campaign, we have written to over one million existing beneficiaries of attendance allowance and mobility allowance to let them know about the benefit changes and how to claim extra help, if appropriate. We are also writing to organisations of and for disabled people, advisers, and health professionals—such as doctors, nurses and therapists—telling them about the benefits and how they can help their clients and patients to claim. We are also making use of the new out-of-hours service BBC Select to broadcast a series of information programmes about DLA and DWA.

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

  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps have been taken to consult disabled people and their representatives in the design and promotion of the new disability living allowance and disability working allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  There has been considerable consultation and testing with disabled people and their representative organisations on many of the key elements of the new benefits, including proposals for the new assessment and adjudication arrangements, draft claim packs, regulations and leaflets. In addition the key materials for the publicity campaign—including the television commercials and press advertisements—have been researched with disabled people, and the campaign has been prepared in liaison with representatives of organisations of and for disabled people.

  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what response his Department has received to the current advertising campaign for disability working allowance and disability living allowance.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what response his Department has received to the current advertising campaign for disability working allowance and disability living allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  In response to the advertising campaign for the new disability benefits which began on 5 February we have received more than 120,000 inquiries so far. I regard this as a very successful start to the campaign, and one which reflects the Government's commitment to ensuring that as many disabled people as possible learn of the new opportunities that the benefits provide.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what percentage total expenditure on social security has increased since 1979 in real terms.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Total expenditure on Social Security increased by 52 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the likely increase in expenditure that will result from the change from mobility allowance and attendance allowance to disability living allowance.
  78
  Mr. Scott
  We expect by next year to be spending nearly £1/4 billion extra on additional help for around 300,000 disabled people as a result of introducing disability living allowance. This expenditure comes on top of several other substantial improvements introduced during this Parliament and, of course, on top of an increase of over £7 billion in real terms since 1979 in the benefits we pay to disabled people.

  Family Credit
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the value of the average family credit award expressed as a proportion of gross wages for those who receive family credit.

  Mr. Jack
  In August 1991, a 5 per cent. sample of family credit recipients showed that the average is 30 per cent. of the gross weekly earnings of the main earner.

  Self-employed People
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many self-employed people earn more than £20,280 a year.

  Mr. Jack
  As I confirmed to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), we estimate that in 1991–92 about 400,000 self-employed people will earn above the upper profits limit of £20,280.

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further representations he has received concerning the existing legal basis for occupational pension schemes.

  Mr. Newton
  My Department has received a number of representations from Members of Parliament, interested organisations and members of the public on the basis of which occupational pension schemes operate.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of household income derives from social security payments in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Wales.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested can be found in table 31 of the 1990 "Family Expenditure Survey". These percentages are affected by the interplay of a wide range of demographic and economic, as well as social, factors.

  Claimants
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many, and what proportion, of supplementary benefit and income support claimants in Great Britain were in receipt of benefit because they were unemployed for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Jack
  The information available for the period is in the table:
  79

  Year

  Total number of supplementary benefit/income support claimants thousands

  Number of supplementary benefit/income support claimants who were unemployed thousands

  Proportion of supplementary benefit/income support claimants who were unemployed

  1979

  2,855

  566

  1 in 5·04

  1980

  3,118

  854

  1 in 3·65

  1981

  3,723

  1,318

  1 in 2·82

  1982

  4,267

  1,722

  1 in 2·48

  1983

  4,349

  1,826

  1 in 2·38

  1984

  4,609

  1,953

  1 in 2·36

  1986

  4,938

  2,121

  1 in 2·33

  1987

  4,896

  1,957

  1 in 2·50

  1988

  4,352

  1,511

  1 in 2·88

  1989

  4,161

  1,216

  1 in 3·42

  1990

  4,180

  1,063

  1 in 3·93

  Note: Figures for claimants have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Income Support
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether unemployed claimants who are receiving income support who participate in European social fund vocational training courses provided either by(a) voluntary organisations or local authorities, or (b) training and enterprise councils or local enterprise companies are required to be available for, and actively seeking, employment.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to her on 26 February at column 537.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total value for the last 12-month period for which records are available, of assistance paid to mortgagors currently in receipt of income support, for(a) direct help with mortgage interest payments, (b) passported help from the social fund for help with the cost of furniture and other essential household items and (c) other passported help from the social fund, by category; and if he will subdivide the figures into childless, couples with children, and lone parent household categories.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: The information required for (b) and (c) is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The information requested for (a) is as follows:

  Status

  Number of claimants(000s)

  Amount included in assessments for mortgage interest (£ million)

  Childless

  169

  231

  Couples with children

  64

  146

  Lone parents

  77

  177

  Total

  310

  554

  Source: Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiry, May 1990.

  Notes:

  1. All numbers of claimants have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. All amounts of money have been rounded to the nearest million.

  Over-60s Card
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to introduce the European Community over-60s card.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) on 80
  3 February at columns 96–7. I will send him a copy of the letter I wrote to Members of the European Parliament on 20 January 1992.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each private sector consultancy firm which has been retained by each agency within his Department, and for his Department as a whole, for the purposes of advising on the market testing programme; and whether the appointment in each case was the result of competitive tendering.

  Mr. Jack
  Individual agencies within the Department have not retained a private sector consultancy firm to give advice on market testing. Price Waterhouse has been retained to advise the Department as a whole on potential areas for market testing. The appointment was made following competitive tendering.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list any areas within his Department that have been identified since 18 November 1991(a) by individuals or organisations from the private sector or (b) otherwise as possibly suitable for market testing and contracting out; and what steps are being taken to prevent any non-governmental organisations successfully tendering to carry out work currently undertaken by civil servants facing a conflict of interest between the public interest requirement of this work and other commercial actitivies they are involved in or other clients they represent.

  Mr. Jack
  Since 18 November 1991 the Department has been working to draw up a three to five-year programme of market testing, informed by studies undertaken with the private sector, as required by the White Paper "Competing for Quality". All support areas are being considered.

  Contract documents include a clause on confidentiality covering both commercial and other information. All contractors' employees are bound by the same conditions on confidentiality as civil servants under the Official Secrets Acts of 1911 and 1989 and section 19 of the Social Security Act 1989 and are required to sign a declaration to that effect.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the individuals or organisations from the private sector who have been
  81
  involved since 18 November 1991 (a) in determining areas within his Department for market testing or contracting out or (b) who have advised him of areas that should be market tested or contracted out to market consultants and the total fees or other costs to date charged to his Department by them and the full costs likely to be charged.

  Mr. Jack
  Price Waterhouse has been contracted by this Department to advise on potential areas for market testing. The fees charged on individual contracts are regarded as commercial in confidence and cannot be divulged.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list changes in the criteria for attendance allowance made between May 1990 and May 1991.

  Mr. Scott
  From 1 October 1990 people with a terminal illness who are unlikely to live long enough to satisfy the six-month qualifying period for the benefit have been able to qualify for the higher rate automatically, and do not have to satisfy the qualifying period.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) when attendance allowance was first paid to Mrs. Mary Wood of Fairfax place, Dartmouth; when it was withdrawn; when a doctor appointed by his Department last carried out a medical examination of Mrs. Wood; when he expects to make a decision on Mrs. Wood's entitlement to the allowance; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what assessments were made of the entitlement of Mrs. Mary Wood of Fairfax place, Dartmouth to receive attendance allowance in (a) May 1990 and (b) May 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of attendance allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend and copies will be placed in the Library and Public Information Office.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the circumstances under which payment of attendance allowance may be discontinued.

  Mr. Scott
  Payment may be discontinued because:

  (a) the medical criteria for an award are no longer satisfied;

  (b) more than 28 days have been spent as an inpatient in a health service hospital and/or publicly funded residential accommodation;

  (c) the residence and presence conditions are no longer satisfied;

  (d) there is a complete overlap with constant attendance allowance;

  (e) of imprisonment or detention in legal custody.

  Benefits
  Mrs Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many benefit claimants in Glasgow have requested a review of their supplementary benefit entitlement under the regulation 72 take-up campaign; how many of these(a) have had their requests for review refused, (b) are pending and (c) have received payments; what is the total amount of back-dated benefit paid out to Glasgow claimants as at 31 January; and what was the average amount of such payments;
  82
  (2) if he will list the number of claimants for each individual benefit at each of his Department's offices serving the Glasgow, Maryhill constituency as at 30 December.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the public information office.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many additional people who at present have reduced entitlement to benefits would qualify for full entitlement to benefit as a result of increasing the initial capital cut off point from £3,000 to £6,000, while retaining the present upper limits and tapers for(a) income support, (b) family credit, (c) housing benefit and (d) community charge benefits; and what would be the full year cost in each case;

  (2) what is the number of people who receive reduced entitlement to benefit as a result of the rules on capital limits for (a) family credit, (b) income support, (c) housing benefit and (d) community charge benefit;

  (3) how many additional people, who at present have reduced entitlement to benefits, would qualify for full entitlement to benefit as a result of increasing the initial capital cut off point from £3,000 to £4,000, while retaining the present upper limits and tapers for (a) income support, (b) family credit, (c) housing benefit and (d) community charge benefits; and what would be the full year cost in each case;

  (4) how many additional people who at present have reduced entitlement to benefits would qualify for full entitlement to benefit as a result of increasing the initial capital cut off point from £3,000 to £5,000, while retaining the present upper limits and tapers for (a) income support, (b) family credit, (c) housing benefit and (d) community charge benefits; and what would be the full year cost in each case.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 25 February 1992]: Where a claimant's capital exceeds £3,000, a weekly income is assumed in each of the income-related benefits according to a tariff income formula. However, any actual interest earned by the capital is not counted as income when deciding entitlement to benefit. In many cases, this interest exceeds the tariff income taken into account.

  The estimated numbers of recipients of income-related benefits, whose entitlement to benefit is affected because they have capital in excess of £3,000 are as follows:

  (a) Family Credit: 3,000

  (b) Income Support: 73,000

  (c) Housing Benefit: 174,000

  (d) Community Charge Benefit: 608,000

  Increasing the existing lower capital limit of £3,000 would affect all claimants with capital above £3,000. The numbers of claimants who, on the latest information available, would not have tariff income taken into account if the lower capital limit were increased to the levels stated, and the estimated costs of raising the lower level for all cases with capital, are in the table:

  £4,000

  £5,000

  £6,000

  Income Support

  39,000

  58,000

  69,000

  Family Credit

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Housing Benefit

  59,000

  101,000

  130,000

  83

  £4,000

  £5,000

  £6,000

  Community Charge Benefit

  165,000

  289,000

  389,000

  Estimated costs across the income·related benefits

  £90 million

  £150 million

  £200 million

  Sources: (latest information available)

  August 1991 Family Credit Statistical System

  May 1990 Annual Statistical Enquiry of Income Support recipients

  May 1990 Housing Benefit Management Information Statistics.

  Notes:

  1. Costs of increasing the lower capital limit are based on the results of modelling using data drawn from the 1987–88–89 family expenditure surveys at 1992–93 prices and benefits levels.

  2. Estimates of capital holdings drawn from the family expenditure survey are imputed from reported income from investment and savings and are therefore uncertain.

  1—Less than 2,500 claimants.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest figures for Coventry and Warwickshire for the number of claims to(a) income support, (b) family credit and (c) housing benefit; and what were the figures one year ago.

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

  Social Fund
  Mrs Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications to the social fund for(a) community care grants, (b) budgeting loans and (c) crisis loans were made by applicants at each of his Department's offices covering the Glasgow, Maryhill constituency between 1 July 1991 and 31 December; how many were successful; and how many were awarded to pensioners.

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

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mrs Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants in Glasgow have automatically received the £6 cold weather payment during the month of January 1992, via the income support computer system.

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

  Benefit Changes
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of(a) the saving from a 100,000 fall and (b) the cost of a 100,000 increase, in the number of people unemployed, arising from changes in benefits.

  Mr. Jack
  The latest estimate of the effect of variation of 100,000 is contained in figure 25 on page 18 of the "Departmental Report" (Cm 1914). The estimate for 1992–93 is £330 million.

  Earnings-related Supplement
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cash value of earnings-related supplement to unemployment benefit in 1992 for(a) a person on half average male earnings, (b) a person on average male earnings and (c) a person on one-and-a-half average male earnings if the supplement had not been abolished in 1991 and assuming it had been uprated by the pre-1981 formula.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: In 1980 the formula for calculating ERS was 33 per cent. of reckonable weekly earnings in the last complete tax year between £17–50 (the then lower earnings limit for payment of national insurance contributions) and £30, plus 15 per cent. of earnings between £30 and £120 (the then upper earnings limit for payment of national insurance contributions). Because ERS was found not to meet the needs of the most vulnerable in the employment field it was abolished in January 1982 and the resulting savings targeted elsewhere within the social security system.

  Values in 1992 would be:

  Earnings base for calculating ERS

  Cash value of supplement to UB £

  Half average male earnings

  18·10

  Average male earnings

  38·90

  One-and-a-half average male earnings

  55·85

  Notes:

  1. Earnings related supplement has been uprated from its 1980 level.

  2. Average male earnings are taken from the April 1991 new earnings survey.

  Using a 1980 base the net cost of re-introducing ERS is estimated at about £530 million which takes account of a £120 million reduction in payments of income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit.

DEFENCE

  Departmental Flats and Maisonettes
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many flats or maisonettes under his Department's control were constructed by the Jesperson 12M system; how many are(a) now demolished or (b) scheduled for demolition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is no central record within the Ministry of Defence of how many married quarters, either flats or maisonettes, were constructed using this system nor of how many may have been demolished.

  HMS Daedalus
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department will co-operate with Gosport borough council, the Gosport Aviation Society and other interested bodies in order to ensure the maximum possible retention within Gosport of historical artefacts and preservation of sites of historical interest, following the closure of HMS Daedalus.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes. Contact with both Hampshire county council and Gosport borough council has already been established at local level. No approach from the Gosport Aviation Society has been received to date.

  Departmental Orders
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of orders placed by his Department with Rolls-Royce in Scotland, British Aerospace, Prestwick, GEC/Ferranti, Edinburgh, Babcock, Rosyth, Babcock Renfrew and Yarrow on the Clyde in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The following is the information:

  Company

  Number of contracts since 1 April 1989

  Total value of contracts placed since 1 April 1989 £ million

  Roll-Royce

  20

  81·6

  British Aerospace Prestwick

  62

  3·3

  GEC-Ferranti Edinburgh

  149

  53·7

  Babcock Rosyth

  345

  141·3

  Babcock Renfrew

  44

  0·6

  Yarrow Clyde

  94

  19·6

  Information on orders placed prior to 1 April 1989 could be obtained only with disproportionate cost and effort.

  Service Contracts
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the total value of contracts awarded to local firms by RAF Lossiemouth, RAF Kinloss, RAF Leuchars, RN Bases Coulport, Faslane and Rosyth and Royal Marine Base Condor.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Maintenance and Repair Contracts
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the value of maintenance and repair contracts awarded by his Department during the last 10 years to Scottish industrial engineering companies and to Scottish shipyards and dockyards.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  "Options for Change"
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the firms in the engineering and allied industries that have been consulted about his policy statement in "Options for Change".

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Decisions on the content of the defence programme arising from our proposals for Britain's defence for the 1990s are for Government. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet firms from all sectors of the defence industry to discuss a wide range of issues. Subject to the necessary constraints of security and confidentiality, we would always wish companies to be briefed as fully as possible on future requirements in which they may have an interest.

  Equipment Sales
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the second phase of the Al Yamamah contract for Tornadoes, Hawks and support equipment is likely to be signed.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the next phase of purchases of British equipment under the Al Yamamah agreement with Saudi Arabia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I am not in a position to make a statement at this time.

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current estimate of the cost of the additional expenditure which would be incurred if beneficiaries of the armed forces pension scheme who were invalided from the service prior to 1973 received the improvement in benefits made to the scheme in 1973; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The additional cost of providing benefits under the armed forces pension scheme to personnel invalided from service before 31 March 1973, on the same basis as applies to personnel invalided on or after that date, is estimated to be in the region of £400 million per year.

  Advanced Short-range Air-to-air Missile
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when an announcement on the advanced short-range air-to-air missile is to be made.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We hope to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Conscripts)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation which have conscript military forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following North Atlantic Treaty Organisation member states have conscript military forces:

  Belgium

  Denmark

  France

  Germany

  Greece

  Italy

  The Netherlands

  Norway

  Portugal

  Spain

  Turkey

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

Motorways: Condition
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there has been a deterioration in Britain's motorways, and if so, what steps they intend to take to improve them.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, Britain's motorways are maintained to ensure a high level of safety and serviceability. There is no evidence of any deterioration in these respects. Detailed investigation of the underlying strength of motorways in England has revealed that maximum life is not always being achieved, as it can be through timely maintenance work. The problem is being addressed through new survey techniques and improved arrangements for collecting and analysing survey data. Those will allow more effective planning of maintenance operations.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. In spite of what he has said, do not the reports of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee show a saga of neglect, incompetence and waste as regards our motorways? Is it not a fact that many of our motorways resemble cobbled streets and dangerous switchbacks rather than major highways? Will the Government under-take to carry out a proper emergency repair programme in order to ensure that our motorways are put in proper order?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is exaggerating a little about Britain's motorway system. I do not say, nor is it borne out in evidence, that there is a saga of neglect, incompetence and waste, or that our motorways resemble cobbled streets. Despite meeting year-on-year targets to keep on top of the required strengthening programme, those targets have proved to be inadequate in the face of faster than expected growth in heavy goods traffic. Therefore, there has been a deterioration in the roads' structure. The Government have responded fully to the Public Accounts Committee report on the motorway section and we aim to increase our maintenance programme in that respect.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, as the Minister who introduced the motorways programme in February 1955, I have been immensely impressed by the way in which the motorways have stood up to the vast increase in traffic? Is he also aware that many of us believe that that reflects great credit on those responsible?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the part that he played in introducing the motorway network, which has proved to be of inestimable benefit to this country. The growth in heavy goods traffic in particular has exceeded forecasts and therefore there is a necessity to increase expenditure on maintenance. That is why the Government have more than doubled the amount of money spent on trunk road and motorway maintenance since coming into office in 1979.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, are we to understand from the Minister's reply that he has come to the conclusion that there is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest, as have the Public Accounts Committee and National Audit Office, that the deterioration of the motorways represents a saga of poor planning, shoddy construction standards and failure to monitor the state of the motorways, and that the Department of Transport bears heavy responsibility in that regard?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord back to his place. It is good to see him. Of course, I do not welcome his question as much as I welcome his presence but he will understand that. As I said, to describe the motorway system in terms used by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is an exaggeration. I do not pretend that there is not a need for increased maintenance of motorways. That is why we have more than doubled expenditure on motorway maintenance.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is my noble friend in a position to tell us what progress is being made on the movement of the bridge across the M.4?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I had anticipated that there might be some interest in that particular operation. Of course, the department is sorry for any delays that have been caused to traffic. The operation has been most complex and technical and it has always been recognised that there might be unexpected problems. Other methods of demolishing the bridge would have been most difficult too. My best information is that the motorway is likely to be reopened this afternoon.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, even at this late hour will the Government reconsider the decision to drive a motorway through Twyford Down in view of the great importance of the site? Even at this last minute will they do something about that?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that that is another Question.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, following on the question asked by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, will the Minister advise the House of the load-bearing specification of that section of the M.4 just east of the Severn Bridge and whether the removal of the bridge—not the Severn Bridge—is likely to cause any deterioration in that section of the motorway?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend asks an extremely technical question to which I do not have the answer. The planned method of demolishing

567
the bridge was carefully considered alongside other methods of removing it. The method chosen was found to be the best way of doing it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his kind words on my return. I am sorry that he does not like the question that I asked. However, will he not be gratified to know that very shortly my colleagues and I will not be asking questions but will be answering them from that side of the House?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not wish to have an angry exchange with the noble Lord on his first day back. I hope that that does not happen. I do not believe that it will. If it does, the noble Lord risks inheriting the motorway programme which we inherited in 1979. Government spending then was half that which is now spent in real terms.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, as regards the roads in Scotland, will my noble friend look at the road from Prestwick to Glasgow and the roads leading to Skye along the west coast of Inverness? They are in a terrible state.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend may correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that those roads are motorways. If they are not motorways, they fall outside the scope of this Question.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, have the Government considered installing street lighting on all motorways in this country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, lighting is an interesting matter as regards motorways. Lighting is installed on motorways when the predicted night-time accident savings due to lighting outweigh the installation and future maintenance costs, taking account of possible environmental effects.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister accused me of exaggeration. Will he tell that to the people who live alongside the M.27 who are bombarded by noise day and night? Will he also tell that to the motorists who have the prospect of 30 per cent. of lanes being cordoned off in the next five years?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I say, a programme of maintenance is being undertaken at present. There are always good reasons for sections of motorway being cordoned off. However, under the Citizen's Charter it is our policy to make absolutely certain that only the minimum necessary amount of motorway shall become cordoned off.
I remind noble Lords that in 1988 we reviewed the standard of motorway construction. New motorways built under those standards should not need to be overlaid for at least 20 years and there should be no need for their reconstruction for a further 20 years after that.
Viscount Cross: My Lords, I must apologise because my question also concerns motorway lighting. Does my noble friend agree that the best investment
568
which could be made in regard to motorways on road safety grounds would be to illuminate all unlit sections of motorways throughout the country as soon as funds become available? Is he further aware that, by doing that, he would, first eliminate the headlamp dazzle from the opposing carriageway; secondly, he would turn night into day and therefore reduce many accidents which take place in the hours of darkness; and, thirdly, the heat from the lighting would dissipate fog, which my noble friend will know, unhappily brings about many accidents?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, I referred to the criteria which the department uses in deciding whether or not to light a particular stretch of motorway. If my noble friend is interested in this subject, I refer him to an article published in the Journal of the Institution of Highways and Transportation in 1987 which deals fully with that matter.

Prescription Charges: Increase
2.47 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make further arrangements to help those in financial difficulties to meet the cost of National Health Service prescriptions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, extensive arrangements for charge exemption on grounds of health or status, the availability of prescription prepayment certificates, together with the separate scheme for the remission of NHS charges on the grounds of low income already ensure that no one need be deterred from obtaining necessary medication for financial reasons. In 1979 one item in three dispensed in the NHS attracted a charge. Today only one item in six does so.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is she not aware that the increase runs at twice the rate of inflation? It is another attack on the principle that all NHS costs should be met by general taxation. Is she aware also that the dental and medical associations are deeply upset at the proposed increase in prescription charges because they are afraid that many people who cannot afford them will be deterred from seeking treatment?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the increase from £3.40 to £3.75 is comparable to the percentage increase in the National Health Service drugs bill overall. In that context, it is fair and reasonable. The charge continues to represent less than half the average total cost of a prescription item to the National Health Service. As regards the final point made by the noble Lord, we believe that across the board payments do not provide a fair solution. If someone can afford to pay £3.75 for a medicine which may cost something like £90, then that person should do so. The income received as a result—estimated for

569
1992–93 at£240 million—could pay for the building and running of five district general hospitals or over 268,000 surgical operations in the acute sector.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that it was a Labour Government which introduced prescription charges and that ever since they have been passed through both Houses of Parliament by negative resolution?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am well aware that prescription charges were introduced in 1949 and that categories relating to them were increased in 1968—both occasions during the tenure of a Labour Government.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is anxiety among parents in Glasgow and Edinburgh whose children are being sold drugs by senior citizens who obtain them free on prescription? They are being used, mixed with other substances, for drug abuse. I refer to tranquillisers and sleeping pills.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am not aware of that. I shall certainly pass on that information to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Lord Desai: My Lords, is the Minister happy that prescription charges have increased by 1,775 per cent. since 1979? Is she aware that as a proportion of what it costs the NHS, the Government are recovering nearly 50 per cent. as compared with 22 per cent. in 1979? Is the Minister happy with that arrangement?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that both she and her colleagues are right to say that it was a Labour Government which first introduced charges in the National Health Service? The authors were described by the then Minister, Aneurin Bevan, as a bunch of dessicated calculators. He has been proved right ever since. Is the noble Baroness also aware of the views of the BMA and the doctors' associations which say that the extra money brought in would amount to £240 million? Many people who can barely afford the 35p increase will be making a contribution towards that. Therefore, would it not be wise for some consultation to take place with all the dental and medical associations to arrive at a more sane and just appreciation of the situation? In the final count they are more responsible than any government department.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the medical profession, together with any right-minded person, is well aware that only those who can afford to contribute towards the costs of their medication are asked to do so. If that is seen in the context that since 1979 the number of items for which exemption is claimed has increased by 100 million, noble Lords can draw their own conclusions.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Baroness repeat the answer given to my noble friend Lord Desai? He asked whether she approved of the
570
enormous real increase in the cost of NHS prescriptions. I thought that the Minister said yes. If so, if those costs doubled so that the drugs budget was fully met by people who were ill, would the Minister say yes even more strongly?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, any further increase would be a hypothetical issue. The point to which I replied in the affirmative was whether or not I approved of the fact that people who could afford to pay prescription charges should do so. The fact that the overall amount being spent by the National Health Service on prescription costs is much higher than it was in 1979 means that the amounts involved are of considerably more consequence.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether the increases to be paid by those who are sick are intended to contribute to the tax relief the Government have promised to the well off if they win the next election? In other words, is the money being obtained from the poor and the sick intended to make a contribution towards tax reductions for the well off?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Lord should be aware that the Government intend to spend over£34 billion on the National Health Service. The prescription charges form part of that figure. I have already quoted the uses towards which the money received from the modest payments of the small percentage of people required to pay those charges will be put. Any right-minded Member of your Lordships' House will agree that money is better spent in that way than on any across the board arrangement.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the issue of escalating health care costs is a major and increasing problem throughout all advanced countries in the Western world? There is now a real need for a complete reassessment of the ability of any party to fund health care and meet increasing demands on the present basis.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a fair point. Escalating costs, due to new techniques and technology and increased expectations, mean that we must justify spending money in the best possible way.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, while we are grateful for the exceptions, the charges impose a great burden on lower-paid families when sickness comes. Are we not reverting to the position in the 1930s in relation to prescription, dental and optician charges, where people do not receive the treatment they need because of the cost?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the fall-back in the matter is that people on low incomes can claim exemption. In addition, there are a number of aids, including prescription prepayment certificates. As well as the annual season ticket, a four-monthly one is available. No one needs to be in difficulty in that regard.

Atlantic Fish Catch Statistics: EC Regulation
2.56 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in respect of the submission to the European Communities of nominal fish catch statistics by member states fishing in the North-East and North-West Atlantic, as required by Council Regulations 3880/91 and 3881/91 of 19th December 1991, they will provide the estimated cost, and the administrative steps necessary, to ensure compliance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the United Kingdom has been compiling this information both for its own purposes and to submit to international bodies for at least 20 years. These regulations convert long established practice into Community legislation so that the Commission can meet its obligations under certain international conventions. It is not envisaged that compliance with the regulations will require additional costs or administrative steps for the United Kingdom.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Government's explanatory memorandum on the original proposal stated that:
"The purpose of the proposal is to convert into Community legislation the Statlant 21A questionnaire adopted informally several years ago and used since then by member states to report annual catches to international organisations"?
Is he further aware that what happened was that a number of underworked bureaucrats decided to convert an informal arrangement into legislation requiring 31 pages, oceans of paper and thousands of man hours, all for a completely redundant purpose which was already being served? Does that not provide a further example of the cascades of regulations descending upon this country and other member countries from the European bureaucracy, at least 50 per cent. of which are redundant and quite useless and should never have been incorporated in any statute book?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right that the arrangements in the United Kingdom were adequate. But within the Community there were member states whose arrangements were not operating successfully. The regulation was introduced not to catch out Britain but to catch out other countries.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the House will be pleased to hear the points raised by my noble friend and the replies of the Minister. It is an important issue. Can the Minister say whether the proposed enhancement of the scheme for joint international inspection adopted last September by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission will reduce the need for fish catch statistics? That is especially so because the aerial surveillance promised by the Canadians will be provided free. Will that not
572
allow the statistics to be incorporated into the scheme of international inspection and make it much simpler than it is at present?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that the offer by the Canadians to introduce free aerial surveillance will be useful. However, that is only half the story. It will help to show who is fishing where and in what boats but it will not provide a statistical return of what is caught. That is why the regulation was introduced.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what a nominal fish catch is?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand that that is the word to describe fish which are measured as whole fish as opposed to gutted fish.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are so many generalisations and let-outs in this mammoth regulation that any figures which are produced and made available are probably completely worthless? Will he tell the House what has happened to what has euphemistically been called "the deregulation initiative" which I understand has been in operation for some time? Is the noble Lord also aware that its objective is, as stated, to get rid of useless and redundant regulations? Can he tell the House whether this kind of regulation will be included in that new initiative?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, clearly this Government have been very successful in getting rid of redundant legislation introduced by the Labour Party when it was in government. This is European legislation and we are committed to it under our international obligations.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I have been very charitable in not referring to the Government. However, if the noble Lord cares to treat this matter on a partisan basis I am more than equal to the challenge.

British Technology Group
3.1 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in disposing of the assets of the British Technology Group they will ensure that the core, and effective control of the business, remains in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, the Government have applied rigorous criteria in the privatisation of BTG in order to safeguard the continuation of BTG's core business of technology transfer. These include a government special share for a five-year period entrenching limitations on individual shareholdings and asset disposals. In addition, the Articles of Association will provide for a CVCP director and another director experienced in commercialising public sector research. Beyond that, it would be up to the newly privatised company to

573
select the board and management it judges most suitable to promote the commercial future of the company.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, while I am mildly grateful to my noble friend for that Answer, is he aware that there is considerable anxiety among those most closely concerned and knowledgeable about this affair that, in handling what is a very valuable asset, the Government will disregard the long-term aspects of the matter and will be unduly influenced by short-term issues? I hope very much that my noble friend will inform his right honourable friend in the department and perhaps his right honourable friends in the Treasury of that anxiety.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am happy to give my noble friend an assurance that I shall pass on to my right honourable friend my noble friend's intervention. We have always made it clear that we intend to sell BTG to the right consortium—that is to say, one which will take a long-term view and which satisfies us that it will continue BTG's traditional technology transfer activities.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that, when the Bill was before your Lordships, a value of about £50 million was placed on BTG? Is it not the case that the Government have received three bids—for £13 million, £17 million and £23 million—none of which comes to even half the estimated value when the matter was before your Lordships' House? Given those facts and all the worries about the whole matter, would it not be better for the Government to call the whole silly thing off?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord. There are two consortia bidders with whom we are now negotiating. I cannot reveal any further details as the discussions are continuing and they are confidential.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am rather surprised at that reply. Why will the Government not give details of the bidders? Does the Minister agree that it is essential that we should know exactly who they are, what they are and what they intend to do? Are not the public entitled to the utmost information?
Lord Reay: My Lords, each individual consortium is free to disclose who are its individual members. It would be wrong for me to do so prematurely. I believe that the composition of each consortium is not yet firmly agreed in each case and the discussions must remain confidential.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Lord be a little more forthcoming? Originally there were three consortia and one of them has a strong American influence. Has that particular consortium now been ruled out?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I said, there are two consortia bidders with whom we are now negotiating. One consortium is led by the management of BTG and the other is an Anglo-American consortium.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I do not want to add to my noble friend's difficulties, but can he imagine any foreign country disposing of a similar asset to our benefit and allowing us similar participation?
Lord Reay: My Lords, BTG is being sold to a consortium and not to a single company or institution so no individual member of a consortium will be allowed to have overall control of BTG. Perhaps I may add that even today 80 per cent. of BTG's licensed income comes from overseas. Therefore it could be argued that it is in BTG's interests to have an overseas involvement.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, can the noble Lord's original Answer be summarised by the simple word "no"?

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

Aire and Calder Navigation Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 7,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 8 to 12,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 13 to 16,

Schedules 3 and 4,

Clauses 17 to 34,

Schedules 5 and 6,

Clauses 35 to 37,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 38 to 63,

Schedules 8 to 10.—(Lord Strathclyde.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Radioactive Substances Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Brigstocke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Macaulay of Bragar.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Offshore Safety (Protection Against Victimisation) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Education (Schools) Bill
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in the light of this Bill proceeding to Committee, and the fact that it will not be possible for us to complete it if there is a General Election on 9th April, does that mean that the Government have now decided that there will be no election on that date and that the earliest date for the election will be 7th May?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we proceed with the business of the House until we know there is to be a general election.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 9 [Inspection of certain schools]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I call Amendment No. 87. If this amendment is agreed to I cannot call amendments Nos. 88 to 99 inclusive, or Amendment No. 111A.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 5, line 13, leave out from ("duty") to end of line 20 and insert:

("(a) of every local education authority as respects every maintained school in their area;

(b) of the Chief Inspector for England as respects every school in England to which this section applies (other than a maintained school); and

(c) of the Chief Inspector for Wales as respects every school in Wales to which this section applies (other than a maintained school);

to secure that the school is inspected under a scheme of inspection approved by the Chief Inspector, at such intervals as may be prescribed, by an inspector registered under section 10(1).").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 108B, which is consequential. I shall not speak to Amendment No. 115B which has been grouped with them because I was too late when I complained and said that I wished to speak.
This amendment stands as a statement of broad principle, intended to find out the Government's view of the role of local education authorities. This has produced very contradictory statements from Ministers during the progress of the Bill. The Bill as drafted seeks to remove the power of LEAs to inspect the schools they maintain. This amendment would, instead, insert a positive duty for LEAs to arrange for the inspection of all the maintained schools of their area, but under a scheme of inspection approved by the chief inspector.
The main points which this amendment seeks to address are: that all schools should be inspected at regular intervals within sound national arrangements, that is,
"under a scheme of inspection approved by the Chief Inspector, at such intervals as may be prescribed".
Much of that is common ground. In particular, the LEA should have the leading role in arranging inspections of all maintained schools in its area. It is on that point that the Minister's response would be most helpful.
Mr. Eggar said in a meeting with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities on 18th December that it would be for the LEA to determine the order in which its schools could be inspected. Is that still the view of the Government? In slightly more detail, the amendment would thus have the schools being inspected by registered inspectors at regular intervals, the choice of registered inspector being the responsibility of the LEA; although that could perhaps be delegated to governing bodies under safeguards including those provided by the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, which were accepted a week ago. The inspection of every maintained school in an LEA's area would be conducted consistently under a local scheme of inspection approved by HMCI. Most importantly, this would permit some initiatives or policy concerns to be pursued by the LEAs, though subject always to HMCI's approval.
The crucial point is whether the LEA is empowered to inspect aspects of educational provision in maintained schools other than those which are likely to be laid down by HMCI generally for all schools and other than those which the governing body of each school wish to have inspected. On that point, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, appear to be inadequate, since HMCI's assessor, in helping the governing body to reach a sound decision, would not necessarily have the particular local knowledge and understanding possessed by the LEA. Furthermore, we believe it is proper for the LEA to be empowered to inspect educational matters that it judges to be particularly important for its local area, perhaps in connection with some additional resources that have been provided by the LEA.
One of the consequences most likely from the reduction of HMI numbers has appeared to be that HMCI would not be able to maintain the liaison with LEAs currently undertaken by HMI. That current system provides HMI with a measure of local knowledge and understanding. It might be that the Minister feels able to explain whether the increase in HMCI's staffing of perhaps a further 40 inspectors, announced in connection with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, will also provide sufficient staff to maintain close working links with each LEA. Would the assessor be able to assist the governing body, in particular, by reflecting the local priorities and educational concerns of the LEA? Nevertheless, we believe that the LEAs themselves should be empowered to pursue, through school and inspection arrangements, their priorities and educational concerns.
A subsidiary point is the position of grant-maintained schools, which have received financial inducements to opt out, and which receive preferential financial treatment after opting out, at the expense of the local education authority's budget for other maintained schools. We believe that the new inspection arrangements should examine value for money so that published reports of neighbouring schools that are maintained in one way or another from the LEAs' budgets offer comparisons which are scrupulously fair.
A further subsidiary point is the inspection of independent schools under Clause 9, which this amendment proposes should be arranged by the appropriate chief inspector in place of the proprietor. This may appear controversial, but independent schools do have a great number of assisted places in their schools and these are paid for by the taxpayer. However, there is a particular technical point about the apparently limited scope that HMCI's assessor would have under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, for providing constructive advice based on an understanding of the school's needs. Whereas the new provisions provide, sensibly, for attendance of the assessor at a meeting of a governing body, there is no parallel provision for a consultative meeting with a sole proprietor. Perhaps the Minister in her reply could say how HMCI's assessor could
578
otherwise be enabled to provide constructive advice, rather than a blunt veto, in the instance of an independent school. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: The noble Baroness has raised a number of interesting questions. However, I should like to point out the consequence, as I see it, of adopting Amendment No. 108B, which is grouped with this amendment, in which reference to the appropriate authority—that is, the board of governors of the school—is deleted. That would have serious consequences for other parts of Schedule 2, which deal with the consequences of the inspection procedure, because the appropriate authority—that is, the governors—has a number of other responsibilities in this respect.
Under paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 the governors have to organise a meeting and notify parents of that meeting, which is to be held in relation to the inspection. Under paragraph 9 they have the obligation of passing on the inspector's report to parents. Those requirements would still be there within Schedule 2 but the concept of appropriate authority would be seriously undermined by the removal of the definition of appropriate authority in the amendment under discussion. Then, of course, the appropriate authority has the responsibility for preparing action plans in consequence of the registered inspector's report. I see that there are other amendments in that respect so I shall not speak to the issue of action plans now because those will clearly be discussed under those amendments.
Under paragraphs 6 and 9 of Schedule 2 there are responsibilities of some significance assigned to appropriate authorities which would be considerably undermined if the concept of appropriate authority is abolished by the implementation of the amendment.
Baroness Seear: I support this amendment, which also has my name to it, and emphasise two points. First, in our view it is highly desirable that the local authorities should have the power to inspect, which they have always had in the past. That at least gives the authorities some continuing contact with the schools. They have the local knowledge and experience. One suspects that there is a good deal of animus against the local authorities which is leading to their exclusion. That should, in our view, be removed. The local authorities should still have powers to continue.
Secondly, we also support the idea that there should be inspections of independent schools; and not only where taxpayers' money is involved—after all, the country's children are attending those schools, whoever happens to be paying for them. While some independent schools are undoubtedly of an extremely high quality and well able to look after their own standards, we all know that there are others that are not. Therefore, inspection should be extended to independent schools in the interests of maintaining high quality education.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I welcome this amendment as well. It would bring a degree of

579
independence to the business of inspection which is very much needed. There is something fundamentally wrong about an establishment, through its governors or proprietor, choosing its own inspectors. I think it was the noble Baroness the Minister who at an earlier stage compared it to the diners choosing the inspectors of a restaurant. But it is really not like that. From my experience as an education officer at countless governors' meetings, I can testify that in both formal and emotional terms governors are much closer to being the managers of the outfit and as such they have a strong interest in a positive outcome.
The amendment put forward last Monday by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, goes some way to improving the position, but I find some difficulty in seeing how it would work on the ground without a lot of bureaucratic input on the part of HMI, whose expertise, I feel, could be better employed than in second-guessing governing bodies on criteria that will not be at all easy to formulate. But, when it is taken together with this amendment, HMI's monitoring role would of course remain, since that is what your Lordships' Committee has agreed. But it would be greatly facilitated—indeed streamlined—by dealing with LEAs rather than individual schools. I think that HMI would need a much lighter touch in such circumstances. For these reasons, and given that we are to have commercial inspections, this amendment offers a more satisfactory way of doing it, although I acknowledge the point of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that there may be difficulties over the appropriate authority. I am not quite sure at this stage how we resolve that.
Lord Peston: I support the amendment although I have not risen for that reason. I have risen to deal with the technical point of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, which seems to me to be rather more serious than he himself may have realised. Subsection (5), to which the grouped amendment refers and which we wish to delete, states:
"In this section 'appropriate authority' means".
It does not state, "throughout the Bill 'appropriate authority' means". It occurs to me, having listened rather carefully to what the noble said, that in that regard the Bill may be fundamentally flawed since it does not say that the "appropriate authority" applies anywhere else in the Bill. It may well be that it does and therefore that the matter can easily be dealt with technically. However, subsection (5) simply states "In this section".
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The term "appropriate authority" is also used in Part I of Schedule 2. Part I is headed "Inspections Under Section 9". Therefore, the definition of "appropriate authority" given in Section 9, unless deleted, applies to Part I of Schedule 2.
Lord Peston: The question I raised is precisely whether it does mean that. That is why I think it was useful for the noble Lord to raise it. Subsection (5) states "In this section". It does not state "In this section and the consequential schedule". Therefore we
580
need at the very least to be absolutely certain that the Bill is drafted correctly. The substantive point is the point that the amendment is all about—whether a school should be allowed to chose its own inspectors—but in raising his objection, which is nothing to do with the substance of the matter, the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has raised an important point.
I intervene simply to ask the Minister to clarify the position so that we are absolutely certain that the Bill is drafted correctly. As I said, I do not think that it has anything to do with the substantive point, which is that, whatever the authorities are called and however they are defined, it is irrational to suggest that they ought to choose their own inspectors. That is what the amendment is about.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may say at the outset that for a Bill that has a near record number of groups of amendments to be dealt with today it is extremely disruptive to have had not one change but two changes to the groupings, one of the changes coming as late as almost the point when I walked into the Chamber this afternoon. Perhaps I may also say, to clear up the point that has just been made—
Baroness David: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness. I do not know when there was a first change to the groupings. As I understand it, the three amendments were grouped together until I tried at about one o'clock to ungroup Amendment No. 115B. I did my best. I rang up the Government Whips' Office to say that but was told that the groupings had already been printed and could not be deleted. However, I left that message.
Baroness Blackstone: I wonder whether I may add to what my noble friend has just said. The rules of the House are that any Member of the House can ungroup a group of amendments at any time if he or she thinks that it would make more sense to do so. We of course always want to be helpful but I am rather puzzled by the Minister's remarks just now.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I am not referring to rights or to what we can or cannot do. I am simply referring to the fact that the changes were so late that it has become very difficult to respond to what is a record number of amendments today. Until one o'clock today the grouping agreed by noble Lords opposite was Amendment No. 87 with Amendments Nos. 108B and 115B. It was only as I arrived in the Chamber today, and even as I picked up the groupings that had been agreed and had been printed by the Printed Paper Office, that I found that there had been another change and that this amendment was to be taken separately. I simply make the point that it makes life very difficult; and not only for those responding at the Dispatch Box but for those following the debate who have in writing now a grouping of amendments which is not consistent with those with which we are having to cope during the course of the debate. Perhaps I may also clear up the point about the definition of "appropriate authority". The answer to that is defined in Clause 18 for the purposes of the whole Bill.

581
Amendments Nos. 87 and 108B are quite simply wrecking amendments and ones which seek partially to substitute the Labour Party's policy, as set out in its policy document, for the policy of the Government. The amendments would retain the LEA monopoly of school inspection for the schools LEAs maintain. They would, it is true, require inspections to be carried out at intervals to be prescribed by the Secretary of State. They would require all inspectors to be registered by the chief inspectors. Both of those important provisions of our Bill, which the party opposite would retain, represent at least welcome improvements to the policy as set out in Labour's own document, but they are simply not enough to make that policy acceptable.
Whatever may be said, the amendments do not seem to me strong enough to establish national criteria for inspection. They would require Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors to approve schemes of inspection LEA by LEA and not, as under our plans, to establish a national scheme and national criteria which all inspectors will be obliged to use.
We have had considerable debate about the need for strong central criteria if national comparability and standards of inspection are to be guaranteed. We are agreed that the success of the Bill depends on the chief inspectors having the power, authority and, if I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, independence to set and monitor those standards. I do not think noble Lords will be impressed by amendments which would in fact seriously weaken the chief inspectors' role.
The power to approve a scheme—to haggle and negotiate with more than 100 authorities about the criteria and the methodology they each think suitable—is not good enough. Those authorities still fundamentally opposed to the need for rigorous external inspection of schools—and there are some—could well string out such negotiations for a very long time. Are there to be sanctions if the scheme of inspection is not approved? We are not told. What if the authority cannot offer candidates good enough for registration by the chief inspector? That is not clear.
Nor do I think that noble Lords will be impressed by a system which leaves the employment and direction of inspectors entirely in the hands of those authorities which have failed so evidently to use their existing powers in this area. I know that there are beacons of excellence in a few authorities. I keep referring to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, but he has referred a number of times to one authority that ranks among the highest in the country for effective inspection. I do not want to belittle their considerable achievements, but I must remind the Committee that only nine authorities have what HMI regards as strong and effective systems. They will have no difficulty in playing a full part under our proposals. But under the Labour Party's proposals even the worst authorities will not just have a major role but a monopoly one.
In defence of the amendments it may be claimed that the chief inspectors' role will not be weakened. With a standard cycle of inspections, and the chief
582
inspectors' power to approve inspectors, there will not be that much room for manoeuvre. There will be quality control as tight as under the Bill as drafted.
In that case we have to ask ourselves what the purpose of the amendments really is. It goes well beyond the desire to keep the decision on who should do the inspection out of the hands of the governors. We discussed that question last week. Rather than take choice away from the governors, the Committee decided to strengthen the Bill, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Renfrew, to help governors to make a wise choice, and monitor their decisions. So the justification for these amendments must simply be the doctrinaire desire to see local authorities left unchallenged as providers of school inspection. That is directly contrary to the scheme of the Bill. That is why I repeat my view that these are wrecking amendments.
Local authorities will have the power to take part in the inspection system. They will have the power to monitor their schools as necessary—in later debates, we shall have a chance to set the record straight on that score—but they will no longer have a monopoly on inspection. Our Bill is designed to replace that with a more open system. I believe that the amendments must be rejected.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble Baroness concludes, perhaps I may point out that on these Benches we have no interest whatever in promoting the policy of the Labour Party. I did not think that we were discussing that issue today; I thought that we were discussing the amendment. I implore Members of the Committee to concentrate on the amendment. The straying off into discussing party manifestos which have yet to be published is an irresponsible waste of time.
I said that I support the amendment. I do so because I want to keep a role for the local authorities, not because I want to give them a monopoly. I want them to have a role in the matter. I hope that we can forget about the manifestos of all parties—even ours, which I believe is coming out today.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may respond to that point. The amendment is not about a role for local education authorities; it is about a central monopolising role for local education authorities. As that is part of a very specific pledge, we have seen it in that light.
Lord Glenamara: I listened with amazement to what the noble Baroness said. Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee of what the amendment would do with regard to county schools. Clause 9 would read:
"It shall be the duty of every education authority as respects every maintained school in their area … to secure that the school is inspected under a scheme of inspection approved by the Chief Inspector".
Would that not include who shall inspect it? Of course it would. The subsection would conclude with the words,
"at such intervals as may he prescribed, by an inspector registered under section 10(1)".

583
How on earth can it be a wrecking amendment? It is strictly in line with what the Government propose. How can the noble Baroness argue that it is a wrecking amendment?
Baroness Blatch: We do so because it gives the local education authority the power to evoke the whole process.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I believe that we were given a new definition of the word "monopoly" by the Minister in her reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. She said that the amendment would provide a monopoly for the local education authority. Surely, monopoly in that context means that it would be the only organisation involved. There could be no other interpretation. But the amendment talks about the power of three different organisations: first, the local education authority; secondly, the chief inspector for England; and thirdly, the chief inspector for Wales. How on earth can that be a monopoly?
On a separate point, although we have seen many statements since 1979 in which the Government have stated what little faith they have in local government, surely an elected local authority has a role to play even though it is not a monopoly. Moreover, in local education—which, after all, is the most important function that local government has—surely a local authority must be given a statutory and proper role as defined in the amendment.
Baroness White: Can the Minister tell the Committee what attitude the Government have towards people standing for election to local authorities? How can she expect candidates of any worth to put themselves forward for election to local authorities when the Government are so determined here to deprive local authorities of any functions which are worth the while of any good citizen to maintain?
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness highlights a fundamental difference between Members of the Committee opposite and those on this side of the Chamber. For the purposes of the Bill, we consider the proper authority to be, in the main, the governors. I was a member of a local authority. During that time, I did as much as any authority member in the country to push operational autonomy down to school level. In the 1988 Act, we took that policy further. It is about devolving operational autonomy, not simply from government but from local education authorities down to the school where we believe it belongs; namely, with headteachers, staff and the governing bodies.
Lord Glenamara: I should like to press the Minister on one point. If a local authority thinks that one of its county schools needs inspecting, why should it not be able to initiate the process? It may not carry out the inspection; that is for the chief inspector to decide under the scheme. But if it decides that a school needs inspection, why on earth should it not be allowed to initiate the process?
Baroness Blatch: If the local education authority has good reason to believe that a school needs inspecting, it has every right to do so under the provisions of the Bill.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: There is perhaps some confusion about various aspects of the amendment. So far as I can see, it would place in the hands of the local authority the responsibility for organising the inspections. The inspections would still be carried out in accordance with Clause 10(1) so, no doubt, there would still be periodic inspections—a four-year period or whatever—but if we are also discussing Amendment No. 115B—
Baroness David: We are not.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: It is on the groupings list which was made available.
Baroness David: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I said at the beginning of my remarks that I had removed that amendment from the group. I did so at 1 p.m. Unfortunately, it was not reported by the Whips' Office to the Minister. However, I made mention of the fact when I rose to speak.
Lord Dormand of Easington: The Minister did not comment at all on her definition of the word "monopoly". I believe that that is very germane to the amendment. Will she comment on it now?
Baroness Blatch: Yes, indeed. The amendment would take away the obligation for local governors to exercise their requirement for an inspection under the provisions of the Bill and put it in the hands of the local education authority.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I apologise to Members of the Committee for rising to speak again. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for informing us that paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 would remain in the Bill under this raft of amendments. But the paragraph says:
"Before entering into any arrangement for an inspection, the appropriate authority for the school concerned shall invite tenders".
The term "appropriate authority" is proposed to be deleted by Amendment No. 108B. Therefore, I am somewhat confused because, on the one hand, the noble Baroness proposes to delete the term under the latter amendment—to which I understand we are speaking—but when we come to the section which it was the original intention to delete but which is now to remain in the Bill according to the noble Baroness, we find that it contains the term, "appropriate authority". How then am I to interpret the terminology "appropriate authority" in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 if the noble Baroness has deleted the definition of it from Clause 9? I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness can explain that to me.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I should just like to refer to an earlier point made by the Minister in order to clarify that a number of us have no problems. I certainly have no problem with devolving powers to

585
schools. I think that that is right. It is simply our case that this particular power is one that it is not right to devolve to schools.
Baroness Blatch: As I said before, that confirms a fundamental difference between us.
Lord Glenamara: I must press the noble Baroness further. In reply to my first intervention she said that it was a wrecking amendment because it allowed local authorities to take the initiative. I believe she said exactly that. However, in reply to my second intervention she said that of course local authorities can take the initiative. Well, if they can take the initiative, what is she objecting to? How can it be a wrecking amendment? Surely local authorities know their schools and know when they need to be inspected. They are the people to initiate the process in county schools.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord misunderstands me. We have put the obligation on the "appropriate authority" which, in the main, means the local governors. We believe that that is right. The amendment would take that obligation away from governors and put it in the hands of the local education authority. There is a fallback power—indeed, an overall longstop power—for local authorities to have an obligation to see that education is effective under the 1988 Act. Once the inspections, which are required by the appropriate authority, have taken place, if a local authority is still concerned that there may be a problem in a school, it has the right of access to enter that school and to invoke some mechanism for ensuring that it is called to account.
Lord Glenamara: Perhaps the Minister can tell me where in the Bill a local authority is empowered to do that.
Baroness Blatch: That power is given in the 1988 Act. It is not invalidated by this Bill.
The Earl of Selkirk: Is it intended that there should he a Chief Inspector for Scotland? If so, who would be responsible for his appointment?
Baroness Blatch: There is to be an inspector for Scotland. Although I cannot give the precise terms for the appointment, I shall write to my noble friend on that point.
Lord Peston: Although I am sure that it was not done on purpose, the Minister has left me rather confused. Assuming that this provision is still in the Bill, "the appropriate authority" has no voice about whether to have the school inspected; it is obliged to have the school inspected. Therefore, that is not the issue before us. The appropriate authority must have the school inspected at the prescribed intervals. The only question is, "Who chooses the inspectors?"
Whatever else one says about that—and let us not in any sense deny the fact that we totally disagree on this point—I cannot see why this would be a wrecking amendment. There is no choice about the inspection; the school must be inspected. If the regulations refer to a specific number of years, that specific number of years must apply. If the appropriate authority has to
586
choose from a list that is approved by the chief inspector, then it must choose from the list that is approved by the chief inspector. The only difference is that the local education authority does not choose from the list; someone else chooses from the list. I can see that that is the difference and that we profoundly disagree, but I cannot see that this is a wrecking amendment. It is simply a disagreement, as we often have when considering Bills in your Lordships' House.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: Perhaps I may interpose again. That might have been the effect if Amendment No. 115B had been added but if that amendment is not added Schedule 2(2) holds and,
"Before entering into any agreement for an inspection, the appropriate authority for the school concerned"
shall invite tenders for various things. I am afraid that the amendment leaves us with an anomaly.
Baroness David: I do not think that I have ever heard so much misrepresentation as has come from the Minister on this occasion. This is not a wrecking amendment. As has been pointed out, no monopoly is being set up. The Minister did not answer my question about Mr. Eggar, the Minister, who said in a meeting with the AMA on 18th December that it would be for the LEAs to determine the order in which schools would be inspected. The Minister did not answer that point. Is that still the Government's view? If so, it seems to take away a lot of the sting about what the Minister said in reply to the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: It will be necessary to determine which 6,000-odd schools are to be inspected each year and for local education authorities to fund the specific schools that will be inspected in any one academic year. Therefore, it is important that the LEAs fund the specific schools that are designated for inspection.
Baroness David: I understood from Mr. Eggar's statement on that occasion that it would be for the LEAs to decide which schools would he inspected that year. The whole point about which the LEAs are worried is that if they know that something is going wrong in a school they want to be able to put in an inspector fairly quickly to try to get things put right. That will take a long time if they have to wait four years for the four-yearly inspection. The authorities are worried about things going wrong and about what to do if, say, a young teacher needs help. There are all sorts of occasions on which, at the moment, the LEAs can send assistance into schools. They want a little flexibility. The amendment tries to give that flexibility, but it has been grossly misrepresented. It is not a wrecking amendment.
As I said, Ministers have made many contradictory statements. On 30th January, during the Report stage in another place, the Secretary of State said that an LEA had a right to send in people and to inspect a school. However, that is not the same as what was said earlier by Mr. Fallon. I have just given the Secretary of State's latest statement on Report, but there is still a lack of clarity.
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has repeatedly made his point about "the appropriate authority". When one tables an amendment in Committee in this

587
place it often needs to be tidied up afterwards. Therefore, while denying everything that the Minister said about "monopoly" and "wrecking", perhaps the best thing for the moment would be for me to take the amendment away and tidy it up so that when it returns it will, I hope, give satisfaction to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may pose a straight question, which may throw some light on some of the answers that have been given. Am I wrong in understanding that the role that is given to the governors, which is central to the Bill as proposed, would be invalidated by the amendment? In other words, are the requirements to secure an inspection and to select from at least two tenders still allowed under the amendment? That is not my reading of it. Indeed, if that is the case, it wholly invalidates the provisions that are central to the Bill. I refer to the role of the governing bodies as the appropriate authority.
Baroness David: I think that the Minister is wrong. Under the amendment the governors can still initiate an inspection. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 87A:
Page 5, line 15, after ("inspected") insert ("having regard to any information published in relation to "value added" at the school and").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 190, 194, 195, 203 and 203F. I shall focus on Amendment No. 203 in particular and shall leave my noble friends and others to speak to Amendments Nos. 190, 194 and 195. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I speak at some length on this group of important amendments. This is the crucial debate on Clause 16.
Perhaps I may begin by saying that we on these Benches are committed to the publication of more information about schools and how they are performing. There are a number of reasons for that. First, parents deserve to have that information both when deciding to which school to send their children and so that, while their children are attending a particular school, they can be informed of just how effectively that school is performing. Secondly, head teachers and teachers should have such information as a guide to their own school's performance in relation to different age groups and different ability bands. Only when they have high quality information of that kind can they take well-informed decisions on how to improve the standards in the schools in which they are teaching. Thirdly, head teachers and their governing bodies must be accountable to the wider community for the standards achieved in their schools. High quality information on pupils' achievements helps to make that possible. Fourthly, local education authorities, which I know the Government dismiss and regard as being of no importance, need such information when monitoring standards and intervening where there are problems.
Therefore, we support the collection and publication of data about the performance of pupils school by school. I say all this because I want to pre-empt the Minister getting up to ask what the Labour Party's policy is or casting aspersions on the Labour Party's policy instead of dealing with the amendment, as happened in Committee last week and as began to happen when we discussed the previous amendment.
For further clarification, the Labour Party is not saying that the raw data about schools' performances should not be published. We are saying that it must be published, but along with further information, showing not only the crude results of testing and examinations but also the progress that has been made by pupils. In other words, we are concerned about the value that the school adds, taking into account pupils' academic achievements on entering the school. That is the purpose of this group of amendments.
Amendment No. 203, upon which I wish to focus especially, is couched in a moderate, tentative way. All it requires is that the Secretary of State should obtain advice from HMCI on the appropriate method of providing parents with objectively assessed evidence showing the value added by schools. It therefore places on the face of the Bill an obligation to pursue the matter, which does not exist as the Bill is currently drafted.
There is considerable surprise and disappointment that Ministers still appear to be committed to requiring the publication of raw examination and assessment results only. Raw data give little, if any, information about the quality of education provided by schools. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary stated the Government's view in another place when he said:
"Our view is that parents have the common sense to judge the [raw] data provided".
I believe that I have a reasonable amount of common sense. Some may disagree. My children think that I am terribly lacking in that department, because I cannot set my video. However, I could not judge the quality of a school just by looking at raw data; nor could I tell whether it was especially successful at obtaining good results from clever children, from children of average ability or from the less able. That is the kind of information that common sense tells me parents want. The Government must come up with a better argument than that if they want to convince people that what they propose is acceptable.
A consensus has now emerged that we must provide a genuine measure of quality, not merely a measure of the quality of the intake of the school, which is all that the raw data will provide. Just doing that will, I regret to say, seriously mislead and therefore be totally irresponsible. Let me make it clear that those who hold those views go right across the political spectrum. I am not talking merely about criticism from the Labour Party. They include Conservative as well as Labour-controlled local authorities, the independent Audit Commission, the teachers' unions, the National Commission on Education, academic researchers who have expertise and work in the field, organisations representing head teachers of state schools, and all the organisations representing the independent schools.
I should like to quote one or two representatives of that last group, the organisations that represent the independent schools. I shall begin with Averil Burgess, the past president of the Girls' Schools' Association, who said:
"I do not favour league tables which are brutal and over-simplified".
Mr. David Woodhead, the director of the Independent Schools Information Service, said:
"It is disappointing that Mr. Clarke is content with raw results rather than a presentation which allows intelligent comparisons to be made between schools with different intakes. He should think again and concede that the quality of information is just as important as the quantity of information in helping parents decide their children's future".
I refer next to Mr. David Jewell, the headmaster of Haileybury, last year's chairman of the Headmasters' Conference, who made the following comment on a league table of A-level results:
"It is totally valueless. It tells you nothing at all except the degree of the selectivity of the schools in question. I hope that parents are not foolish enough to take it on board".
Finally, I quote Mr. Peter Owen, chairman of the Independent Schools Association Incorporated, who said:
"I am all in favour of publication, provided it is clearly understood that comparison can only be made if there is an equal comparison of the entry requirements and intakes of particular schools. A non-selective school or special school may have less good percentages than a selective school but may have done a much better job in educational terms".
In the light of those comments from right across the political spectrum, will the Government now concede that the Bill must make some provision for taking into account intakes through the measurement of value added? Will they concede that some schools full of clever pupils may not be doing a good job for those pupils, and other schools, with far fewer such pupils, may be doing a much better job, but that raw data will not reveal that?
As I said on Second Reading, the danger of raw results is that they lead to complacency. We must not let our teachers get away with that. Schools with an intake of high achievers can cover up poor performance because they have "good" examination results. On the other hand, schools with poor examination results may justify poor performance because they have an intake of lower achievers. Those schools doing well with a large intake of low achievers in a disadvantaged area will not be given the credit that they deserve and will become demoralised. Only by assessing the value added by the school, using statistical analysis, can school effectiveness be measured properly. The overwhelming consensus now is that multi-level modelling is the best means of providing such information. That is why the Association of Metropolitan Authorities has recently set up a major study which focuses upon that approach on the reporting of examination and assessment results. It is being conducted across the country by Conservative and Labour-controlled authorities and is supported by LEAs in a variety of areas.
The work is being carried out by leading academics in the field. The first report of the study has been published. I am sure that the Government must have been sent a copy. That is not the only study of value
590
added that has been or is being carried out. The Audit Commission is making similar studies of post-16 examinations and recently published its first report on schools' and colleges' A-level performance. This month the National Commission on Education published its first briefing paper on measuring added value in schools.
All those studies confirm earlier work by academics such as Professor Peter Mortimer and Professor Harvey Goldstein of the Institute of Education; Professor Tomlinson at Swansea University; and Professor Gray at Sheffield University, showing that with the use of modern methods of computing data analysis, it is now relatively easy—I do not say as easy as publishing raw results—to go beyond those crude measures. Until recently, however, the Government appear to have shown little, if any, interest in the provision of information which indicates value added.
However, we saw a little chink of light on this matter in July of last year in a debate in this place initiated by my noble friend Lady David which focused upon the importance of multi-level modelling as a means of ensuring that tables of examination and test results are truly comparable. In a letter to my noble friend following that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said that the Government had not rejected the multi-level modelling technique of the statistical analysis of examination results and noted that it was a research tool that now had widespread acceptance and was of value in helping to discuss factors that underlay the observed results.
More recently, in a speech at the North of England conference in January of this year, when setting out his proposals for changes in teacher training, the Secretary of State said that in selecting partner schools for the schemes,
"I believe that value added indicators could well be applied to exam results … because it will be important for student teachers to experience schools that are successful in difficult circumstances".
I was delighted at the time to hear that the Secretary of State at last appeared to be coming round, having realised that those new and sophisticated methods of statistical analysis make it possible to get at the real performance of schools. On Report of the Further and Higher Education Bill in this place the Government moved an amendment, further amended on Third Reading to widen its effect, relating to the information that the Secretary of State may require the governing body of any institution within the FE sector to publish. In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said that its purpose was,
"to give the Secretary of State the power to require the publication of information showing the value added—in terms of student qualifications—by the institution".—[Official Report, 16/1/92; col. 434.]
If it is appropriate for such information to be provided within the FE sector, why should schools not be expected to provide equivalent data? If such a provision can be written into the Further and Higher Education Bill, why can it not be included in the Education (Schools) Bill?
The amendment would write on to the face of the Bill a similar requirement for schools to that in the Further and Higher Education Bill for FE colleges. This is a golden opportunity to ensure not only that

591
parents have good information rather than misleading information but also that schools, local authorities, registered inspectors and Her Majesty's inspectors have information that will help us monitor the work of schools properly. That is something we all want to do. It will help us to intervene to bring the average and below average schools, including those with good intakes, up to the standards of the best. It is our responsibility to do this so that we can raise standards. There are now revolutionary new techniques which allow us to achieve that. To reject them would be the height of irresponsibility. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I wish to add a word from these Benches in support of the amendment. If my remarks depart a little from what the Committee expects, I hope noble Lords will bear with me and realise that they have relevance. One must bear in mind when considering anything of this kind that no statistics can possibly tell us the most important attributes of a school. As the noble Baroness said, good results may just reflect a good intake or they may reflect the fact that the school has concentrated rather narrow attention on the national curriculum and nothing else.
What the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said during our previous debates in Committee is true and to the point. I do not remember her exact words but she spoke about the approach of most parents to the problem of where to send their children. They were less concerned with exam results than with the atmosphere of the school, the happiness of the children, the discipline to which they were subjected, the absence of bullying and such other matters which are immeasurable. The trouble with exam statistics is that there is an implicit suggestion that they are the most important characteristics of the school. They are not.
A further point is that a good atmosphere in the school, the happiness of the children and the absence of bullying, as well as the moral and ethical atmosphere which we discussed during a previous Committee stage debate, produce results in exams. Good exam results depend on the good atmosphere of a school. If a child is happy, it will produce results which could never be produced in any other way. That is why I believe that concentration on bare statistics is dangerous. I fully support the amendment. More sophisticated information must be offered to parents, bearing in mind that statistics cannot tell the whole story.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I heard the noble Baroness's speech with great interest and she made a number of valid and important points. It would be nice if there were a means of effectively evaluating in an agreed way what a school succeeds in doing for its pupils. However, I doubt very much whether we have yet reached that stage. That is what Amendment No. 87A proposes. It requires the insertion of:
"having regard to any information published in relation to `value added' at the school".
I am cautious of the slightly glib term "value added".
592
We know what it means when we talk of a tax. We can add 17.5 per cent., and what we are adding it to is readily qualified because it is a sale price measured in pounds. Thus we can calculate what 17.5 per cent. value added will be.
However, it is much less clear what it would be in terms of received educational benefit. So far as I am aware, social scientists have not yet adequately quantified this somewhat nebulous concept. The noble Baroness referred to multi-level modelling, but I was impressed—as she was—at the howls of alarm that went up on many sides when tables of A-level results were published. At least there was not much doubt that those results were the A-level results. It is true that for them to be properly interpreted we need the explanatory background. But, my word, imagine the howls of dismay that would go up if it were not the A-level results that were published but some massaged set of figures according to principles that had not been universally agreed.
The strength of the present provisions is that the Bill will require information that would include public examination results, national curriculum test results, truancy rates, the destination of school-leavers and other raw data. These are all readily ascertainable. Whatever the imperfections —and I have no doubt that it is difficult to measure truancy rates when there is unreported illness—they are results that can be determined in a fairly reproducible way.
However, I am doubtful that the noble Baroness can justify the concept of "objectively assessed evidence"—sthat is the terminology in Amendment No. 203—in relation to value added. For one thing, she referred to the comparable concept in the higher education sphere, but there at least we have examination results on admission to university and examination results on leaving university. Thus there are two sets of data which we can play with in the multi-level modelling.
What are the results, however, on admission to the school? Admittedly, on leaving the school there are various tests in the national curriculum, GCSE and so on. But on a child's admission to school at the age of five, what are the comparable data and the objectively assessed evidence? That is why I am sceptical.
"Objectivity" is a key word. It is a term beloved by those who call the nebulous or complex discipline sociology a social science. Yet I am not sure that we can use the word "science" in this way if we are talking about mensuration and metrication. These are difficult to measure, though I take the noble Baroness's point that studies have been undertaken on how they might be measured.
The problem is that, before we make it part of the nationally applied system, we must have universal confidence that the measures are valid and in a sense objective. I fear very much that if we came down to discussing exactly how the value added would be assessed, there would be every measure of disagreement, not only on both sides of the Committee but between the different parts of the different sides of the Committee. For that reason, I believe that it is

593
premature to introduce a requirement for the notion of value added until we agree what it means. I do not believe that we have yet reached that position.
Lord Dormand of Easington: In supporting my noble friend Lady Blackstone, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 190, 194 and 195 in my name in this group. I wish to refer briefly to what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has just said. Frankly, I am astonished that, if I understand him correctly, he does not realise that if we are talking about raw data, exam results are governed by the very factors to which he referred. I see that he agrees. I should have thought that that was relevant to what he said. I shall deal with it in a little more detail later.
It seems to me that on the more material matters which many of us on this side of the Committee have talked about since 1979 such as the state of school buildings and shortages of teachers, either generally or in specific subjects, all these factors are relevant to the proposition which we are dealing with today.
Amendment No. 194 was put down by the Opposition on Report in another place. It was selected by the Speaker but was not debated because of the guillotine. I shall not complain too much about guillotines as I have been a member of a government which also used guillotines. Certainly over the past 13 years the present administration have used the guillotine on some pretty fundamental matters, not least educational matters. That must be said in the context of today's debate.
Baroness Blatch: Will the noble Lord elaborate on the point he is making about the guillotine as it applies to this Bill?
Lord Dormand of Easington: I was not speaking about the guillotine with reference to this Bill, although it has reference to the amendments we are debating at the moment.
Baroness Blatch: Absolutely not!
Lord Dormand of Easington: The noble Baroness disagrees with me. I have merely stated a fact. In another place the guillotine was operated on this issue. I am saying that this is a major issue. We contend that the matter is fundamental to one of the main purposes of the Bill.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that the term "value added" came from the Audit Commission. I am the first to say that the Audit Commission would think in terms of accountancy as distinct from the ethos of a school. However, I believe that value added is a good shorthand term for denoting that a school can contribute a number of factors to a pupil's development during the pupil's stay in the school.
The Government plan to compel governing bodies and LEAs to publish raw data, sometimes in league table form, which do not distinguish between what a school has done for its pupils—that is the so-called value added provision—and non-school factors such as pupils' abilities and social and economic background, so that the data really cannot be said to show the performance of the school as it purports to
594
do. That is misleading for parents and the public. It allows governing bodies to present false colours where the data exaggerate the so-called performance of the school and handicaps the governing body in its work where the data understate that performance. My amendment obliges the Secretary of State to explain in a statement, which can be published alongside the raw data, what the difficulties of interpreting the data are. I believe that to be a fundamental provision.
It is irresponsible for Ministers to claim that it can be left to the good sense of parents to draw sensible conclusions from the raw data when such conclusions are impossible, or at least very difficult, to draw without detailed knowledge which even the experts may not have on some occasions. The responsible course is to alert parents to the difficulties. The right person to do so is the Secretary of State who has decided that particular data should be published in a particular raw form.
Without such an explanation by the Secretary of State, LEAs and governing bodies are left to make their own statements. Where the performance of a school has been exaggerated, governors are unlikely to issue a statement casting doubt on the raw data. That seems fairly obvious. Where the performance of a school has been understated, governors may have difficulty providing an authoritative explanation on a matter of great technical difficulty.
On this matter, the Bill, unbelievably, ignores some of the most important aspects of school life. I feel compelled to repeat what I have said on previous occasions when speaking on education legislation. Who on earth do the Government listen to when they prepare Bills? The cultural aspects of school life—the building of character, courtesy, thoughtfulness, self-discipline, respect for others, responsibility, and a host of other matters which those of us who have spent some time in education realise form a large part of a full and rounded education—are not necessarily shown, at least not directly, in examination results.
Earlier I mentioned non-school factors. The social and economic background of pupils affect their ability and performance. Hundreds of books and hundreds of pamphlets and research documents have been published on the issue. Surely no one can now doubt the general findings. To publish and rely on raw data would be one of the most fundamental errors ever perpetrated in educational practice. These amendments will go some way to mitigating the error. I hope that the Government will recognise the folly of what they propose to do. It is a matter of the utmost importance.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: This issue of league tables, raw data and value added is disturbing, not just for itself but for what it symbolises. This Government are out to demystify a profession whose practices they do not much like. I sympathise with that aim; I have the same feelings about other professions. But in trying to make things simple there is always the danger of being simplistic. I believe that the Bill crosses this boundary in a number of places. When that happens, some much-needed professional skills and expertise

595
get lost. I was alarmed, for example, when the noble Baroness the Minister last Monday accepted an amendment which deleted the words "good practice." On the surface the arguments looked good, robust common sense, but I felt that on closer scrutiny it was another nail in the coffin of legitimate professionalism which was no more acceptable in the educational field than it would have been in the medical or architectural.
The matter of interpreting and presenting data which are designed to lead people to a correct judgment is a field par excellence where some expert help is needed. I understand the point of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, but I do not think the wording we have put down here is hostile to it. Let me give two examples. Not long ago there was a medical trial of a certain treatment for cancer. It transpired that nearly three times as many patients died on treatment A as on treatment B. Those were the raw figures. But close examination showed that treatment A patients were sicker when they entered the trial, their age range was different, and there were other factors. When these were taken into account it emerged that it was treatment B that was nearly three times more dangerous. I wonder how many Members of the Committee would have liked to be a patient given access to the raw data only in this case.
My second example is the ILEA. The arguments for its abolition were wholly spurious in so far as they were based on examination results. The authority was far down the league table, but its disadvantages were such that its real worth should have placed it about half way up. It was able to add quite a lot of value to the material it started with. The trouble was a political unwillingness to recognise that.
None of this is "muddying the waters"—the phrase used by one noble Baroness at Second Reading—still less "cooking the books." It is a correct use of professional technique, applicable across the range of research data everywhere. When the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, gave the example, also at Second Reading, of two A-level institutions with intakes of 50 students, one producing one grade A and the other producing 10, he asked,
"am I being completely irrational in believing that the second institution has a better chance of getting my son a grade A at A-level?" [Official Report, 11/2/92; col. 651.]
The answer, I am afraid, is yes—or, if not completely irrational, then largely so. Until you have evidence that the second institution is not sitting on its laurels, and that the first is not excellent at teaching clever pupils but seldom gets any in its local area, you are safer to draw no conclusions from such raw data.
This is the kind of evidence I want as a parent. It is the kind of evidence that, by implication, Sir Graham Day's School Teachers' Review Body says we should have. I quote from paragraph 67 of the First Report:
"We are also conscious that performance indicators of this sort—"
that is, raw data—
"tell us little about what has been achieved by a school".
It is also what HMI in a review of indicators in educational monitoring in the USA says we should have. It is also what the National Commission on
596
Education is saying we should have. We have heard another list of experts say likewise. How can it be otherwise when we know, and have known for years, that some two-thirds of the differences in educational achievement are due to factors outside the school?
But as a parent I want the raw data as well: there is no argument about that. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, I would not, however, consider myself competent to judge how well a school might do for my child—and I speak as someone who has worked a bit on performance indicators—without a lot more information. That is why I support this amendment.
Baroness Young: To a large extent I welcome the cross-party support for the publication of information about schools. The remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, about demystification are valuable. For far too long parents have known too little about what goes on in schools. There is a tacit assumption, which underlies some of the debate this afternoon, that every school can provide an equally good education for every child—a kind of homogenised education system. The fundamental fact is that that is not the case.
Having said that, I do not think that the example of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, of medical research was a valid analogy. As we all know, medical research is an extremely difficult matter from which to draw conclusions, whereas in this case what is required for publication is facts about examinations, tests, truancy rates and where pupils go after leaving school.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, thought that my noble friend Lady Faithfull had said that parents were not worried about examination results. That is not my recollection of what she said, but she will speak for herself. Many parents mind very much. They want their children to do well at school. Why not? It will help them in higher education and for the rest of their lives. Even if they do not articulate their wish very clearly, parents want their children to be able to get a job. It is therefore of value to know where children go after leaving school and the proportion who go into training, to further education, or to a job and what proportion, tragically, end up unemployed or in a dead end job. That information is very valuable.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is right to say that the issue has given rise to a great deal of anxiety. I recognise that. The problem which has confronted my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is that when one considers the alternative measures, which the noble Baroness enunciated very clearly and to which my noble friend Lord Renfrew responded very well, so much of educational explanation is unintelligible. It is unintelligible to those of us who try to follow the issues, let alone to anyone else. That has caused a great deal of doubt to be cast on the value of reports of one kind or another. I regret to say that some of the inspectors' reports are so convoluted that at the end of the day it is not at all clear what is being said.
To answer that point, the information will be published, but in addition the school can also publish information which it believes to be in its interest. That would answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, who spoke of the character and

597
culture of a school. Of course, that is part of the school. As I understand it, there is nothing to stop the school publishing information about itself, its character and its culture and what it regards as its good features. It is quite proper that the school should set those out. It would no doubt set them out as part of its aims, but certainly it can publish all of those matters.
It seems to me that the existing provision would cover the kind of explanation which is needed. There would be the raw data on which someone can make a judgement on various grounds, but if the school chose to do so that would be qualified by what the school wished to say. I therefore think that the amendments are unnecessary.
Baroness Faithfull: I refer to Amendment No. 203, to which I have put my name, and which is intended to elicit information from my noble friend the Minister. I wish to refer particularly to the 1981 Act and the position regarding statemented children. The principle behind the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and the subsequent Act was that children should be allowed to stay at home and to go to schools in their locality, particularly in the case of statemented children. A number of statemented children do not aim at high academic achievements because they may be backward, but not mentally handicapped, children. I should be grateful for clarification from my noble friend the Minister on two points.
If a parent wants her statemented child to go to a nearby school, and to a school which is a happy school where her child would be able to make progress, but the child is not able to go to university or to reach a high intellectual level, how is the parent to know which school the child should attend? Will the tariff show a school that will help children with certain difficulties? Secondly, will the school be prepared to accept that child knowing that it will reduce the standard because he or she does not have high academic ability?
I refer to two specific cases involving dyslexia. I am dealing with one boy who attends a school that does not have high academic levels but nevertheless uses up-to-date methods with dyslexic children which involve using a word processor. That boy achieved 14 GCEs in spite of being dyslexic. Another boy I am dealing with went to a school which has reasonably high academic standards but because the school did not give him the proper help his work has deteriorated.
The purpose of Amendment No. 203 is to clarify how one measures what a child achieves from a given starting point. He may not go very far, but for that child the progress made represents an achievement. Another child may start from the same point and go a long way. The situation is very confusing and the Bill does not make the position clear for parents of statemented children.
I should like to make it clear that I am referring not to children in primary schools but to older children who have been statemented and whose parents want to work within the 1981 Act.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: The amendments address themselves to Clauses 9 and 16. We are all agreed that those are two of the most important clauses in the Bill. I have total sympathy with the concept of value added in education. It is extremely important that when one looks at data covering examination results, and so on, one should know something of the nature of the schools which have achieved those results.
It is important to remind ourselves that the two clauses are equally important parts of the Bill. Not only will parents have the key data of raw examination results, truancy rates and the information which will undoubtedly be added to the list as our information becomes more exact, they will also have a full inspection report every four years. The kind of information for which Members of this Committee have asked in the last half hour is precisely what an inspection report will provide.
My noble friend Lady Young has already commented that some inspection reports may be too complex and difficult to understand. Nevertheless, their very complexity will commend them to those who have anxieties about the raw nature of some of the data. HMI reports—and the practice will be carried over into registered inspector's reports—explain the nature of a school, the nature of its intake, what is done and how well it is done in terms of children with special needs, and so on. Interpretation of the data over each four-year period will involve the reading of the raw data against the inspection findings and inspection descriptions. We should not forget that the value of the Bill is that it provides that totality of information for parents about schools in their area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, mentioned the disgraceful proposal to use crude data. None of us is in favour of anything which is crude and misleading. But she also quoted someone else who said that all such data—the data of output, if I may call it that—will tell you is the nature of the input. That, as the discussion since has made abundantly clear, is simply not so. One of the most worrying features of our education system is the fact that there is enormous variation in output data. There is tremendous variation in the success achieved by the children, even where the population of schools or classes is identical. Variation occurs from class to class within schools, particularly in primary schools, and from school to school in both primary and secondary schools.
That means that there is a great difference in the amount of value added that the different schools offer. So the end results will still indicate something extremely important when parents compare like with like. When they compare two similar schools, they will still discover that the output data, the raw data, the crude data, are very different. The inspection reports and the parents' own knowledge of the locality will enable them to make very good use of the raw data. If it is known that of two schools with similar catchment areas, both of which are within an area in which parents might wish to send their child, one achieves very good SAT, GCSE and A-level results and the other does not, one has very clear reasons for choosing the school which has good results. Moreover, the

599
school which is under-achieving and has poor results with a similar population of children will have maximum motivation to improve its raw data statistics.
For that reason, therefore, and because of the assurance that the flexibility in Clause 16 will allow more sophisticated data to be required by Secretaries of State as more sophisticated techniques become available, I would reject the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: I shall not keep the Committee for very long. Things have changed greatly in the past 20 to 30 years. There is now a national curriculum. The duty of the Minister and Parliament is to do all they can to ensure that it is a success. A good flow of information is essential and it is much better than we ever had before.
Why did the old HMI inspections fade away? They did so because they were such a difficult business. They took so long and did not produce much result. A system is wanted whereby the best information can be made available as often as possible. Parents do not want to wait for four years for such information. Moreover, it will be much longer than four years between full inspections. Members of this Chamber always want to make the inspections more complicated and the inspectors will not be able to comply. That is not the way to use our expert people, the people who are troubleshooters and can obtain the information that we want.
One should not ask highly educated academics in the social services and so on for the kind of information that is required. One should ask parents, employers and the ordinary people. One should ask them: what do we need to know that we do not know? They will not say they want very complicated details. They will say that they want simple things on which to judge a school. They want information which will enable them to judge whether the national curriculum is being successful. That is the main point.
There has been an enormous reform in our education system. We must now erect the right administrative sections and recruit the right people to put that reform into practice. Such very complicated, general inspections will do practically nothing.
Lord Young of Dartington: I should like to speak in support of this amendment. I refer in particular to the remarks that we have just heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. He asked: what do parents want? I ask: are we sure we know what parents—all parents—want?
The district I think of when I ask that question is Bethnal Green in East London, which is the part of London that I know best. The schools there are in great difficulties, partly because such a large proportion of the population comes from overseas—from Bangladesh, Somalia, Turkey, Vietnam and other places. As a result, a high proportion of children start off when they first come to this country knowing hardly any English at all. Partly as a consequence of that, the schools have rather poor performance
600
figures. Certainly when the children are tested at the ages of seven and nine their results—the raw results about which we constantly hear—are naturally inferior since many of the children hardly speak English at all.
Do the parents of those children want to be told year after year—or every four years, which is the period under discussion—that their schools are at the bottom of the league for London or on the same level as other places which have a high proportion of people from ethnic minorities? I submit that they do not. That is not what they want to hear. Nor do the teachers in those schools want to hear that they are at the bottom of the league table. Nor do the children want to hear it. Very often they are making a very great effort to overcome the handicap that they have to bear. I submit that parents want to hear about the progress that their children are making at school. They want to know the kind of job the teachers are doing for their children against all the difficulties that the teachers, children and parents suffer.
That is the situation. It applies not just to Bethnal Green but to the inner areas of all our great cities. They suffer under the same kinds of difficulties. The fear of many Members who would support this amendment if they were in the Chamber is that those parents will feel prejudiced and disheartened. The teachers will be disheartened unless full allowance is made for the difficulties of their task.
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, who is not now in his place, earlier made a powerful statement about the difficulties of adding to raw results something that would be useful and understood by parents. If he were here I would ask him to think back some years, to the time when an extremely similar issue was being discussed very widely. In the 1960s I was a member of the Plowden Committee on primary schools. With various colleagues, I put forward the proposal that some schools in the country should be named educational priority area schools. Because of the disadvantages under which they laboured, we argued that they should get extra resources from local authorities in order to add to what they could give to children who were in any case severely disadvantaged in many cases.
There was a substantial debate on that issue. It was said that in fact one could not produce an educational priority area index that would give local education authorities the guidance they needed about which schools suffered such disadvantage that they ought to have extra resources. It was a fierce debate but there was a consensus in the end in Conservative and Labour authorities and indeed all local education authorities in the country. They agreed that the educational priority index worked and stood up to criticism. Throughout the country resources were allocated by local education authorities over 15 years or more in accordance with that index. The whole system disappeared a very short time ago when ILEA was abolished. But the general idea that there are certain parts of the country that need additional resources because of their disadvantages continues in the form of many priority areas which are particularly

601
favoured by the person who at present holds the office of Secretary of State for the Environment. There is a principle there and a means to make it work.
The same kinds of consideration—the social and economic disadvantages of particular schools being set out for the parents whose children attend those schools—could well apply in this case. There would have to be some variation but not such substantial variation as to undermine the whole case for doing something apart from producing figures which will be misleading. Of course we accept that there are absolute standards about examinations and tests. However, what is misleading is the conclusion which people are so ready to draw from such figures; that a school which according to performance criteria is low on the list is in some ways inferior to others. It is inferior only in certain respects. We want to point out the areas in which it is not inferior and in which the teachers are doing an excellent job—perhaps better than those in nice, leafy suburban areas. There, the job of a teacher is a great deal easier than in a place such as Bethnal Green.
Baroness Warnock: There is a certain amount of humbug in the talk about what parents will make of the raw figures when they are published. Many parents, certainly not all, know perfectly well that good A-level results and good tests results throughout go with the kind of social advantage that they wish their children to have. Therefore, many parents will choose a school which is at the top of the league table not because they are particularly academic parents or value high grade A-level results but because they believe that the school will have what in my day was called "a nice type of child". I believe that parents are absolutely capable of drawing that social connection between social class, or comfortable suburban surrounding and background, and good examination results.
Therefore, the publication of raw figures will inevitably lead to the kind of competition between schools about which we have heard. There will be a league table. However, to include other schools in it, showing the value added and all the other good work that the teachers in those schools have done, will not affect the reaction of parents to the original league table.
I believe in the demystification of education but I also believe that mystification may be another name for the existence of an educational policy over a whole area rather than simply and blindly trying to persuade parents to decide to which schools their children will go. If parents are left to choose the schools which come at the top of the league there is no doubt that there will emerge non-academic schools which fall into the trap which the old secondary modern schools fell into. They will be regarded as inferior schools to which children go whose parents do not care about education or who cannot be bothered to read the league tables. We all know that whatever information was given about secondary modern schools the concept of parity of esteem remained totally mythological and never got off the ground. Comprehensive schools were introduced mainly to try
602
to bring together the needs of all children whether they came from inner cities, were handicapped physically or mentally, or were the most brilliant children.
While the league table in whatever form is published—and I continue to call it that because that is how it will be regarded—I see little hope for an equal opportunity for education for children of varying social backgrounds, varying ability in the English language and varying physical and mental abilities which may be congenital.
I believe that the only remedy for what I consider to be an absolutely disastrous Bill is to ensure that there is full access through the inspectorate to all the other kinds of information that people will want about a school if they have the intelligence to realise that their children will not necessarily be in the high-flying academic league. I support entirely what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, about the need of such parents to be able to find out what the good schools can do for their children, even if they cannot get them A grades at A-level.
I should have more confidence that that were possible if I had more confidence in the inspectorate in its new form. The two bad aspects about what I believe is a bad Bill come together at this point. If one cannot trust the inspectorate to understand about the needs of children—not necessarily the disabled but those who are unable ever to perform at a high academic level—one cannot trust the inspectorate's report. But that is another issue to which we shall doubtless come later.
For the time being I do not believe that it is worth arguing about whether to include such information in what is published. After all, as was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, if schools include their own information the document will become another prospectus; it will be a plug for the school. Of course, schools will give the good news but one wants information that is objective, dispassionate and comes from outside the school. If that is demystification all well and good. I believe that we are lacking an educational policy that is fair to all children. No parent can, and no parent should be expected, to give rise to educational policy.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I support the amendment but as I listen to the debate I wonder whether we are on the wrong track in this section of the Bill. In assessing and reporting on schools we are trying to do two different things and I doubt that we ought to be trying to do them in the same way. One is to give parents the right kind of information that they need in order to choose a school. That must be right, but I have more doubt than the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, about the parents who need the information most making good use of it. We in this Chamber are a rather middle-class lot and the parents who we know are accustomed to diving into such data. However, when I think of some of the people who are not represented here I find it unlikely that they will go through value added data, or any other data; though that is another issue. But parents need information. How it should be presented—and I suspect that it should be presented in many different ways—is another matter.

603
We also need to know how well the schools are doing and we need information from the schools. Obviously the teachers are anxious about how they will be judged professionally from the data that are made available. I do not believe that both tasks can be carried out in the same way. I do not believe that one should try to meet the parents' need for information and at the same time give the kind of detailed information that will enable the department, the inspectors and the governors to know whether the teachers are doing a good job. That is really what it is all about. I do not believe that one can satisfy the teachers that the information about them that is made available is fair and appropriate and is a proper part of judging their professional competence. I suspect that we should be carrying out the two different tasks in two different ways, although it is probably too late to do so now.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Members of the Committee must know that there is nothing hypothetical about league tables in Scotland. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is no longer in his seat. On Friday last week such information was published in Scotland. It was not published in tables but alphabetically. The newspapers set out information about all the secondary schools in Scotland, listing the pupils who had attained three or more A-levels in their examinations. It was devastating and has done great harm to Scottish education.
I was surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for whom I have great respect, said that after publication of the league tables, the school could publish other information to demonstrate to parents the other achievements of the school. How can schools compete with league table lists published in the tabloids in such a sensational way?
The national press in Scotland took the matter very much to heart: practically all newspapers condemned the system. The newspapers publish lists which show the "good" schools—that is, those which are high on the lists. The experience of Glasgow is that house prices in the areas of the good schools shoot up because parents wish to get their children into those schools. That will be perpetuated as upwardly motivated parents try to get their children into those schools.
I prefer the attitude of a fine old headmaster whose school was in one of the most deprived areas of Glasgow. He told me, "If I can get only one child from my school into higher education"—none of the children in his school had even a parent or relative who had been in higher education—"that will break the dam. The school will be able to build on that." Of course, in such schools it is harder work for the teachers than it is in schools where the pupils are eager and anxious to learn. That headmaster did get pupils into higher education, and slowly the school built up its reputation. It was a constant struggle because the school was in an extremely deprived area of Glasgow and the headmaster was fighting a cycle of deprivation. However, such schools are beginning to come through.
604
I believe that it was a great disservice to Scottish education to publish tables with no comment whatever. If anything was doctrinaire on the part of the Minister of State for the Scottish Office, that was it. He has done great damage. I hope that we can find a way of giving more self respect to the schools which have lost a great deal as a result of that action.
Lord Beloff: Having listened carefully to this long debate, I am obliged to say that it is rather like a heavyweight match in which both contestants are now on the ropes.
The arguments against the utility of raw data without any background explanation are overwhelming. They have been made for Bethnal Green and can be made for any set of circumstances affecting the intake to a particular school. Clearly, there is no way of judging schools effectively merely by saying that such and such a school has done better.
On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to see how that situation can be remedied statistically. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, talked about multi-level modelling. I do not have a clue what that means and I doubt whether one parent in 100,000 would know. It sounds to me like something that primary school children do with clay. However, I take it that it is more sophisticated than that.
One can feed information into computers. That is probably what has got our economy into such a mess. But that does not help. It is human understanding which helps. We need to find a way in which the human element, the professional element—the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, spoke effectively about that—can be put alongside those results.
As I see it, the danger is that people will accept part of that argument and say, "Let us think of something simple to show what 'value added' has been." We shall then have something which is as absurd as the Audit Commission deciding that one can test "value added" by reckoning whether people had improved at A-level compared with their GCSE grades. However, everyone knows that the performance at GCSE level is a fairly good pointer to the same child's performance at A-level, although there are obvious exceptions. Therefore, one must not go for simple solutions.
In the end, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that the solution cannot be achieved statistically and that our hope must be with the inspectorate. Unless we can get the inspectorate and inspections right, all statistical discussion is beside the point.
Lord Elton: It seems to me that we are discussing this matter as though we are all academics discussing an academic question. In fact, we are legislators discussing a practical question. To assume that parents everywhere will look at vast masses of raw data published by local education authorities and repose on that their confidence in choosing schools for their children is ridiculous. They will do a great deal more than that to find out information and will be assisted by looking at their local newspapers. All local papers write about their local schools on a regular basis. For example, in a town like Loughborough the

605
local community newspaper will have reports of speech days and performances together with special articles on the various schools in the town. From those articles parents can discover aspects of educational information for which we should not legislate and which will not appear in the tables.
The tables deal with academic factors with the exception of truancy, which is an important indicator which everybody understands. Parents will then have recourse to reading what papers have to say about schools and what parents of other children say about them. In many cases parents do not have the choice which many of your Lordships have of sending their children to schools in the South West or North East or a foreign country. Most parents have a choice of three schools within the distance of a bus ride. Making that comparison is a simple choice which will not be made on these statistics.
The Marquess of Salisbury: The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, mentioned backward children. I suggest that as regards backward children, the main aim is to ensure that their disability is recognised at an early age and that they are given additional help at primary stage and not later. Many of them never have a chance to catch up and the rest of their education is wasted.
Secondly, I should like to follow up what the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said about inspectors. Dealing with schools over a great many years, I have only once had the advantage of an inspection by HMI. I found that most useful because it was possible to discuss privately any shortcomings. For example, if a teacher needed help with a particular subject, it was possible to suggest privately to the teacher that he should take an appropriate course. It seems to me that the weakness of the past is that there have not been nearly enough inspections. That is one of the causes of the problems which we face.
Thirdly, as regards choice, I am not sure how valid it is to give choice. I have two examples which I wish to relate to the Committee. The first example was that of a new school. Parents were invited to send their children to that school but did not wish to do so because they wished to send them to an established school. But that was not possible. Of course, in due course, the school established itself and was then in considerable demand.
The other example I wish to give is of three schools in a row. Inevitably, comparisons arose. The more successful school in the view of the parents was the one which was oversubscribed. The third school found itself short of numbers. There was not a great deal to choose between them. The parents followed like sheep and I am not sure that their judgment was satisfactory.
Lord Peston: I contribute to the debate in a mood of complete despair. I should not feel able to comment on the subjects of, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, or the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, with quite the degree of ignorance with which they feel able to contribute to the discussion on areas which my noble friend and I research. I say that because Members of the Committee know how acerbic I can be on these matters.
606
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will have been briefed by her officials. There is nothing outré about these discussions. Her officials will have drawn to her attention the vast amount of serious research which has been carried out into this matter. There is nothing original or particularly 1992 about "value added". That kind of research has been engaged in in the United States and in this country for many years. We know what we are talking about and the noble Baroness will have been briefed on the matter. The DES knows as much about the subject as I do. There is nothing peculiar or odd about it. I emphasise that as my first point. Whatever one feels about the matter, it cannot be about whether this is a sensible way to do it. All researchers in the field believe that it is. It cannot be about whether we can do it, because we know how to do it.
We may as well get the concept straight in its origins. "Value added" is a term in economics. It has nothing to do with taxation. It is to do with the correct way of measuring productivity. To my certain knowledge it goes back some 55 years and is simply concerned with asking any organisation, in measuring its productivity, how well it deals with the material at its disposal. If one is asking a firm how efficient it is, one looks at what it takes in and compares that with the value it adds in order to judge what comes out. It is a commonplace idea. I hope that my explanation has been helpful to noble Lords. It may improve their contributions to the debate. That is another of my acerbic remarks and I have not yet finished.
We know what we are talking about. We know how to do the work and that the concept is well defined. By "we" I certainly include the DES. That is that side of the matter.
Perhaps I may now refer to the important contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. She put her finger on the point. One's suspicion is that a great number of schools are not doing as well as they ought, even measured by simple output figures like examination results. But we cannot answer that question—the noble Baroness understands that as well as I—unless there is some way of judging what the schools ought to do. That is what "value added" is about. We must know what the start line is in order to know how far the schools have gone beyond it. That is why the issue is so important and why those on this side will not let it go. Obscurantism, all kinds of ad hoc anecdotes about what people think or claim parents want, cannot get round the simple fact that for once we know what we are talking about and how to do it.
Finally, I refer to the incentives and efficiency side of the matter. I do not mean simply the parental choice side, although I do not deny that. The reason one measures value added in industry is that one wants to provide the appropriate incentives to management to achieve the ends one is hoping to achieve. That is why value added is important and why it is not simply a question of what one produces. It is a question of what one produces with what one has available.
The important point in regard to teachers, emphasised by several noble Lords, is that we want to give them the right incentives. We want them to

607
believe that it is a race they can win. We want them to believe that they can achieve something. If they ask what they can achieve, we answer that they can achieve value added. That is why value added is so central. I am not arguing that other matters are not important. At no point does my noble friend say that other information should be suppressed. Both she and other noble Lords argued that the central concept is not only an option but is also value added. There is no other way of judging efficiency for anybody who has ever looked at organisations.
I must press that point home to the Committee and emphasise how much I resent, from my academic background—I never use that word to mean anything bad; I always use it to mean something good, but that may not surprise people—what was said. People have done a great deal of research into the matter. For those who do not care for the sociologists of our country I can cite an army of Right-wing sociologists in the United States who in many ways would be supporters of this Government. They say that value added is the only right way to do it. No other way is correct.
5 p.m.
Lord Beloff: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, was so overcome by indignation that he failed to follow my argument. I was not suggesting that he and his professional friends cannot work out to the nth degree the value added to a specific pupil. I was suggesting that that mathematical or statistical material is not something which can be imparted to an ordinary member of the public like myself.
Baroness Blatch: It was unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, chose to say that a number of noble Lords who have spoken spoke from positions of ignorance. Since my arrival in this Chamber I have respected viewpoints from every corner. I believe that what is said are legitimate viewpoints. It has never been my belief that such things are said from ignorance. I certainly rise to the defence of my noble friends Lord Beloff and Lord Renfrew, both of whom made valid points which are just as important as those made by any other person who has spoken in the debate.
Lord Peston: Perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to continue. We have already taken 18 minutes and I have a lengthy response to what has been an important debate.
Lord Peston: The noble Baroness seems to do this all the time. Our normal procedure in this Chamber is that noble Lords courteously allow other noble Lords to intervene. Several times I half rose and then sat down in order to allow the Minister's noble friends to speak. The point I was trying to make, and the noble Baroness can make it also, is that those noble Lords insulted my noble friend, myself and many of my colleagues. No one on the opposite side offered a word
608
of apology. I do not withdraw my remarks regarding the two noble Lords. They are free to speak but their speech was based on ignorance.
Baroness Blatch: I do not believe that they insulted anybody. They made good points to support the viewpoint that they were pressing at the time. I fully appreciate the arguments of those on all sides of the Chamber who would like to see information published about the "value added" by schools in terms of the measurable progress made by their pupils between one age or stage and another.
Having listened to the debate, I believe that a great deal of what has been said was said almost in isolation from the raft of information that is and will be under the provisions of the Bill available not only to the Secretary of State but also to parents. It ignored the fact that there would be systematic and comprehensive inspections of schools each four years, measuring not only the achievements of those schools but also providing commentary on the ethos of a school, in particular on the social, spiritual, moral and cultural dimensions.
The debate also ignored the fact that examination results would be published annually, with commentary from both local authority and individual schools, and that annual reports would be made to parents which would set out the aims and objectives of schools and supply all the information that would help and enhance the information available to parents upon which they could make choices. We also disregarded the important amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and supported by Members throughout the Chamber regarding the dimensions of social, spiritual, moral and cultural education, and my promise that we would do something in that regard before Report stage.
We must not underestimate parents' ability to make choices about schools. However, I must say to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, that he belongs to a profession of educational administrators who have drawn back year after year from advising parents what is a good school to attend. They will not say because they do not believe in making a statement that may favour one school over another. In that vacuum parents have been left to make their own judgments on schools. Many amendments on the Marshalled List will allow the noble Earl to come back—
The Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Perhaps the noble Baroness will permit me to say that I stopped being an LEA man around four years ago.
Baroness Blatch: I said "belonged".
It is our reforms which for the first time have opened up the possibility of tracking pupil progress in a nationally comparable way. When the national curriculum assessment arrangements come on stream, with pupils assessed at seven, 11, 14 and 16 on a consistent 10-level scale against the same national targets, it will be possible to calculate securely for the first time the value added by schools as between one key stage and the next.
I am sure that as more results are put into the public domain through this Bill and earlier Acts, work will

609
continue on devising and developing ways of measuring educational value added. There will be a range of possible ways of calculating and presenting the information, and it is important for all the issues to be fully explored. The recent Audit Commission report on value added between GCSE and A—levels, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Beloff, recognised that the science of value added calculation is still in its infancy.
We expect the Department of Education to have a role to play in all this in due course. My right honourable friend is keen at this stage not to try to steer this experimental work in any specific direction. We are confident that it will continue and build upon the new information. This debate has told me more than anything that there is no consensus in regard to the nature of value added. But when in due course a consensus begins to emerge on the best way of calculating and presenting value added information, that will be the time to consider putting the requirement to publish into regulations.
We certainly support the publication of value added data when these become available in usable and reliable form. But we must resist those who try to tell us that until those data are available we should not publish any information; that those are the only legitimate measures of schools' performance. We have had to manage without them up to now, and will have to manage for a good few years longer before they can be calculated for all schools. It would be quite wrong to wait any longer before putting the raw data into the public domain. Indeed if we did so, the necessary work on value added could not be taken forward, as it is on such raw data that it depends
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, who is not in his place, in publishing his national commission's paper on value added, was quite clear that he fully supported the publication of raw data and would not wish to see it kept from parents. Parents recognise, as Members of the Committee do, that schools take pupils from varying catchments and of varying ability. They will form their judgments in that knowledge, and will see the information in comparative tables as useful background to their further reading of prospectuses and visits to schools. As we were reminded in last Monday's debates, parents want a school at which their child will be happy and fulfilled. Information on examinations, attendance and leavers' destinations will certainly not be the only factor affecting their decision.
I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, when I believe he was fairly critical of what my honourable friend the Minister of State for Scotland had done in producing data. Perhaps I may also say that the noble Lord was wrong. My honourable friend the Minister of State's covering letter to Mr. Tony Worthington was released to the press in full. It explained that examination results did not give the full picture. I now quote from that letter:
"The information concerned will not of course be restricted to examination results, but will include information about leaver destinations, truancy rates and school finance. Nor will this information be intended to give a full picture of
610
a school's performance. Rather it will provide a starting point for parents who may then wish to seek further and more detailed information about individual schools through the school handbook or discussion with the head teacher".
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, wishes special mention to be made of the need for the published information to cover the provision being made for pupils with special educational needs. That is in his amendment, but he did not speak to it. He is concerned lest publication of raw data may work against the interests of the least able. But I cannot accept that this will happen. Unless they are grammar schools, schools simply cannot turn down any pupil on grounds of his or her ability. My noble friend Lady Faithfull was concerned about that. They must apply their published admission criteria fairly, and are open to challenge if they do not. They are unlikely to know of the pupil's ability when a decision is made. And of course for the large majority of schools, the local authority is the admission authority, and the school does not have the final say.
So I believe that the argument about admissions is a red herring. There is certainly no evidence that I am aware of that the publication of examination results since 1981 has made it more difficult for less able pupils to get into the schools of their choice. But we do have consistent evidence of low expectations limiting the horizons and achievements of less able pupils, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. I remind the Committee that we shall require publication of results in a way which will show how the least able as well as the most able are doing in every school. We shall be exposing under-achievement and allowing parents to press for a better deal for their children. That under-achievement will apply just as much to a school serving a very good catchment area where the children are expected to achieve rather better results. If they are not, it will of course show up in those reports.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull was concerned about special needs children. I accept that there are particular arguments in respect of schools which take pupils with statements of special education needs. We shall have an opportunity to debate these points at a later stage. It might help if I were to say at this point—here I speak also for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland—that we agree that comparative tables would be improved by the addition of information about the number of pupils in each school with a statement of special educational needs, and perhaps whether or not there is a special unit at the school. I believe that that will satisfy some anxieties and is far preferable to leaving such pupils out of the tables, which would run the risk of perpetuating low expectations.
We shall not attempt to set national rules in this tricky area before all the issues are fully understood and much more experimental work has been done. But we shall act, when and if appropriate, to establish consistency and to ensure ease of access by parents and others. That is the right role of government.
Amendment No. 87A would require registered inspectors to look at relevant published information about a school they inspect. It really is quite inconceivable that such material would he ignored.

611
The amendment had, I suspect, a much more practical purpose of securing an early debate on this important topic. I am sure that, having served its purpose, the amendment will not be pressed.
Amendment No. 203, which we have already seen in another place, would require the Secretary of State, in discharging his functions in respect of comparative tables, to seek HMI's advice on ways of measuring value added. As I have explained, we hope and expect that very wide public debate and experiment will continue, and we shall consider carefully all that emerges.
But, with all due respect to HMI, I do not think we should give them a monopoly or even a primacy in respect of advice on this topic. There are many others who will have much to offer. We know already of the Audit Commission work. Some university departments have done very useful preliminary work on examination data. The expertise needed to take forward work on the emerging mass of national curriculum information will be found as much among statisticians and information scientists as educationists. Of course HMI will have an important role to play in advising on the educational considerations which should underpin this work. But they will be part of a much larger team tackling these big issues.
It is clear that HMI will be able to give their views on value added to the Secretary of State alongside all the other information and advice they will be offering publicly or privately as they see fit. Amendment No. 203 is not needed for that. It would not be a useful addition to this Bill, and I hope it too will not be pressed.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, has tabled several amendments on this topic. His Amendment No. 190 would remove the power to publish information about educational standards, and so would prevent the publication of information giving unadjusted scores and results. I do not believe that I need say more about why that is unacceptable. Amendment No. 194, identical to one tabled in another place, would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement whenever information is published saying how far a school's achievements are due to the governors and teachers and how far to other factors. I do not understand how he expects the Secretary of State to do this. It would be a mammoth task. Registered inspectors will be making this sort of professional judgment and setting it out in detailed reports about each school every four years.
The noble Lord seems to have in mind that all publications should be embellished by a general statement from the Secretary of State about the effects of non-school—mainly, from what he socioeconomic—factors on performance. As I have already said, there is no general agreement on the extent to which adverse socio-economic factors actually cause low performance. They are, I accept, linked in overall statistics. But those statistics reflect a number of things, including the low expectations which have been rife in our schools and which have particularly affected those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
612
I do not think we shall do schools or parents a service if we reinforce such low expectations by publishing frequent statements to the effect that being from a low income family is linked with doing badly at school. That will not help to motivate and encourage the bright children from disadvantaged backgrounds for whom schools can do so much.
Schools must include in their prospectuses a range of information about the work of the school and must include any changes in that information in their annual report. They may choose to mention the nature of their catchment area, although, with the new powers of parental choice which we have put in place, that term has a rather outdated ring. Schools are taking pupils from much wider areas and are keen to do so. They do not want to give the impression that they serve only one area or indeed one socio-economic group.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, is also concerned in Amendment No. 195 to see that the information should be presented fairly and accurately and so as to enhance schools' effectiveness. I can reassure him that the clause as drafted will secure all those ends. Without a sound and comparable basis the performance tables would lack credibility and would therefore be worthless. A glance at the documents on which we have just been consulting will show the noble Lord the care with which we are trying to ensure accuracy and fairness. Indeed, part of our objective in making these provisions is to counter the use of partial and unauthenticated information by the press to produce so-called league tables which are anything but accurate or fair.
As to enhancing schools' effectiveness, I am sure that the publication of the tables will encourage effectiveness by giving parents and the wider community the information they need to press for action to remedy apparent deficiencies. It is very hard to prove a case for action without hard information. Through the tables and the published regular inspection reports we shall be supplying that information.
My noble friend Lady Young referred to all the other information which is in the public arena. She also made a very important point about the ability of local education authorities and local individual schools to publish a commentary on the reports that are published by HMI. As I have said, it will include comment about ethos, about spiritual, moral, social, cultural, academic, physical and all other dimensions of the life of a child in school.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, referred to a school in a part of London where deprivation is a very real factor and the problems of the schools where the background of the children make particular demands on the teachers. Again, it does not argue against measuring performance; it does not argue against using the information both to build on the strengths and address the weaknesses. Those parents will have some very positive information about all the different dimensions of the school. It is possible that if that school is doing a very good job for the children in those circumstances the report will pick up all of that. The report can be just

613
as glowing, albeit the achievements of that school may not measure up to the achievements of some other schools.
Reference was made to educational priority areas. Personally, I am very sceptical about labelling areas as being of educational priority. I believe that the problem about EPAs is that they lead to reinforcing low expectations of pupils in those areas. It somehow gives the impression that EPA schools are incapable of achieving much. In terms of resources, ways can be made of applying resources where they are most needed. I believe that we should do nothing that reinforces low expectations.
I think I have answered most of the individual points that have been made in this debate. We have heard some arguments against the idea that parents, with the help that will be in the public arena, may be able to make judgments and preferences of one school over another. That is healthy. Parents have been waiting for that for a very long time. I hope that these amendments will he rejected.
Baroness Blackstone: I have been saddened rather than angered by much of this debate. I first take issue with what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said about the social sciences, and I speak as a social scientist. I must agree with my noble friend Lord Peston; I thought that some of the remarks made were insulting and some a little silly.
Much of the work that has been referred to in this debate—I accept that many Members of the Committee will not have read it, but none of us can be specialists on everything so why should they?—has been done not by sociologists, as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, suggested, but by educational statisticians and by some people who are concerned with educational policy but who may come from a quite different background and will not necessarily have studied that discipline.
I was also a little saddened by what I thought, if I may say so, were the unnecessarily disagreeable remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. He referred in a somewhat scathing way to the use of the term "multi-level modelling". I am perfectly happy to give a brief explanation of what that is about. It is a new statistical technique which I believe will enhance human understanding, not befuddle it. It is very backward looking to suggest that new work of this kind, carried out by people doing research, either in higher education institutions or in specialist institutions such as the National Foundation for Educational Research, is not concerned to enhance human understanding. It is. It is merely a more refined version of a very standard and well-proven method of statistical analysis; namely, multiple regression. But because one refers to a particular methodology it does not mean to say that by eventually publishing material that has used that methodology we shall expect every lay person to understand the basis of it; of course not. However, what one wants is to produce information that is fair, that measures quality in education and that helps us to enhance standards. That is what this is all about.
I do not dispute what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said about the necessity of also having good
614
inspections, but one important clause of this Bill is about the publication of information on our schools. All that these amendments do is to make sure that that information is of the highest quality possible. I regret that some of the debate was scathing about attempts to do that. That was wrong and quite unjustified.
There are a couple of other points made by speakers on the Government side of the Committee which need picking up. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, suggested that a school can qualify its results by any methods it prefers. That is true. A school can produce all kinds of defensive and misleading reasons to excuse its poor performance. The noble Baroness referred to discussions about the area, the community and the culture. It is in order to avoid low expectations, to which the Minister referred, that we should not allow schools to make those kinds of excuses. Instead we should make use of these new techniques so that we can look at which schools are really performing well, taking into account their intake, and which schools are not doing their best, given that intake.
I was extremely puzzled by the logic of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. It seems to me that the fact that intakes can differ in similar catchment areas—and from all her experience she will surely accept this—means that there can be adjacent schools with quite different intakes. Therefore, we should endeavour to let parents know that the performance of those schools should not be judged only on the purely crude data.
I want to reassert that we are not suggesting that the raw data should not be published. We are suggesting that there is now a technique available that will allow us to publish data which have been qualified by taking intakes into account. The Minister implied that we should be holding up the publication of raw data if these amendments were accepted; we would not. All that would happen is that we would move forward with the work that is required to look at value added at the same time as publishing the raw data. That is surely what the Government wish.
I thought that the Minister, in replying to the debate, was much more open-minded about what is required than some of the noble Lords sitting behind her. She suggested that it was important that the DES should have a role in this kind of work. Again, that is what these amendments propose. One of the amendments argues that the Secretary of State should be required to seek the advice of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector on how to move forward. That would involve the DES.
The Minister suggested that the nature of the methodology was complicated and that the very fact that there was disagreement around the Committee demonstrated that it would be impossible to agree on it. But we have not discussed the methodology at all. All we have done is to have a series of speeches, some of them better informed than others, but none of which addressed the issue of whether the methodology could be used. We could provide a long reading list which would demonstrate fairly clearly that that could be done.

615
I regret to say that, because of the very widespread concern not simply, as I said when opening the debate, among people in state schools or those who support the Opposition but among many, many representatives of the independent schools sector and because I feel that we have not had a satisfactory response from the Minister, I have no alternative but to divide the Committee.
5.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 87A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 135.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jay, L.

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Aylestone, L.

Judd, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Birk, B.

Listowel, E.

Blackstone, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bottomley, L.

Longford, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carter, L.

McNair, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Molloy, L.

Desai, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donoughue, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Faithfull, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkland, V.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Richard, L.

Galpern, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L. [Teller.]

Gladwyn, L.

Rochester, L.

Glenamara, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Grey, E.

Serota, B.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hamwee, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hayter, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Underhill, L.

Hooson, L.

Warnock, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hunt, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Borthwick, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Annaly, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Arran, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Astor, V.

Butterworth, L.

Auckland, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Balfour, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Carnock, L.

Beloff, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Bessborough, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Birdwood, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Blatch, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Blyth, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Boardman, L.

Cross, V.

616

Cumberlege, B.

Milverton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Denham, L.

Mountevans, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Moyne, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Munster, E.

Eccles, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Nelson, E.

Elibank, L.

Northbourne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Elton, L.

Orkney, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ferrers, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gainford, L.

Pender, L.

Geddes, L.

Pennock, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Greenway, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Gridley, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Quinton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Reay, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Harrowby, E.

Rennell, L.

Henley, L.

Renwick, L.

Hertford, M.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Rodney, L.

Holderness, L.

Romney, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hood, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hooper, B.

Seccombe, B.

Howe, E.

Selkirk, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Strange, B.

Jellicoe, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Kinnoull, E.

Knollys, V.

Sudeley, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swinton, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Teviot, L.

Long, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Tollemache, L.

Lyell, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Ullswater, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Waddington, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Margadale, L.

Wise, L.

Marlesford, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Marsh, L.

Young, B.

Merrivale, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Mersey, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disgreed to accordingly.
5.38 pm
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): The next amendment is Amendment No. 88. If the amendment were to be agreed to, I should not be able to call Amendment No. 89.
[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 5, line 15, after ("may") insert ("by order").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 127, 152 and 153. My comments will concentrate on Amendment No. 89 and the similar amendment but I am intrigued by Amendment No. 152 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
I am seeking clarification. The word "prescribed" appears at line 15 on page 5, at line 3 on page 20 and in various other places in the Bill. On page 14, at line 14 the word "prescribed" is defined as meaning,
"prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State".
That is what we are supposed to understand. Does it mean that the Secretary of State will be laying an order before Parliament? Is that what "regulations" means? If the answer is yes, will that be an affirmative or negative order? I am asking for some clarification of what "prescribed" means and, since we are offered a definition of "prescribed" which I do not understand, of what the definition of "prescribed" means. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I was merely seeking an illustration of who will be doing the prescribing and how. I regret to say that 1 have nothing with which to enlighten the noble Lord on the issue.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I hope that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Peston, some clarification. I am sure that he tabled the amendments in good faith. However, I must make clear that they would have no effect. Clause 18 of the Bill sets out the definition of "prescribed" and that definition cannot be, and does not need to be, qualified. As the noble Lord will see, in the Bill the word "prescribed" means,
"prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State".
It is an entirely normal provision. The addition of the words "by order" would be futile. The Bill enables the making of regulations. There is no significant difference between regulations and orders. I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate those points and not press the amendments.
I turn now to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Elton with regard to giving a stronger role to the chief inspectors. That is in welcome contrast to most of the amendments tabled by Members opposite. I believe that he probably appreciates that his amendment is defective in that it clashes with the definition in Clause 18. But I shall not dwell on the technical points but rather on the underlying issue.
My noble friend wishes to give the chief inspectors the power to determine the period within which an inspection has to be carried out; that is, not the frequency of inspection but the period—as later paragraphs in Schedule 2 make clear—allowed for the preparation and publication of the inspection report and of the governors' action plan. I cannot accept that it would be right to allow the chief inspectors the power to determine how long should be allowed for the whole process. It is a matter of policy for government to decide upon and then put to Parliament, as Clause 18 allows.
However, where I do agree with my noble friend is in believing that the chief inspector is the right person to determine how long the process of inspection ought to take—that is, from the first preliminary visit to the presentation of report. I imagine that that will be one key element of HMCI's guidance. Of course the Secretary of State will take that into account in setting the period within which inspection and related activities must occur.
618
It is the need to cater for related activities which makes this properly a matter for the Secretary of State, alongside his other regulation-making powers in Schedule 2. I hope that my noble friend will accept my explanation and not press the amendment.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Baroness for that response. I am especially grateful for her answer, emphasising what I did as regards the definition of the word "prescribed" in Clause 18. Indeed, I congratulate the noble Baroness even further because she answered at least one question that I meant to ask but forgot to do so. Therefore, I am doubly grateful to her.
However, I am still a little lost. This may perhaps reveal my ignorance, but does the reference to "regulations" mean regulations laid before Parliament? I also asked whether there was anything in the Bill to tell us whether such regulations were affirmative or negative. In other words, to someone who understands such matters, is it obvious that the wording means negative or affirmative? I should like those questions to be answered.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: The noble Lord places great confidence in me. Clause 19 makes clear that the regulations are subject to negative resolution.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to my noble friend not only for answering all the questions but also for repelling an imagined threat. I was not seeking to give the chief inspector more powers but merely, as I said in my letter to my noble friend, to elucidate the information that she has now given.
Lord Peston: I apologise to the Committee. In my haste to allow the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to speak I omitted to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 5, line 15, after ("prescribed") insert ("and having regard to any information published in accordance with section 16(1) below concerning pupil-teacher ratios, class sizes and pupil costs").
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to the information that parents have a right to expect before deciding to send their child to a particular school. I am not speaking here about the kind of information which we have been discussing for the past few hours; but in this case I am speaking about such things as the pupil-teacher ratio, the class size and the money spent on a child's education.
The Government propose that information about a school—what one might call a school's output—should be published in a comparative table; for example, the exam and test results, the truancy rate and so on. But I believe that it is equally important that parents should be informed of the matters specified in the amendment. We have spent a certain amount of time this afternoon talking about why parents choose particular schools. I am sure that one reason is class size. Some parents who are confident in their child's ability will automatically choose the school which produces the best exam results. But

619
others who are less confident and whose child is of only average ability or below average ability will be anxious to know about class sizes in a school.
As the Committee will know, many parents who can afford to do so choose an independent education for their child because he or she will be taught in small classes. Therefore, it seems to me that class size and the number of teachers available for a given number of pupils is of vital importance to parents when choosing a school.
I believe that many parents with children of average ability are apprehensive about how their child will progress in what they think may be a school with high achievements. They will be most anxious about that aspect of the matter. Therefore, such information as is suggested in the amendment should be part of the information given by schools to prospective parents. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: We believe that Amendment No. 90 is unnecessary. The inspectors will be bound to report on the quality of education provided in a school, the standards achieved by its pupils and the efficiency with which its resources are managed. They will have to comment on anything which affects those matters. The way in which resources are used —for example, the relationship between pupil-teacher ratios and class sizes, which show the relative priority the school gives to what is termed "non-contact" time—will be relevant and will, I am sure, feature in reports. I expect that key input indicators will also be quoted in reports, as they are now in HMI reports. The information in question is certainly readily available within each school and so can be taken into account by inspectors when they consider how far quality and standards might be improved by the better use of resources, including staff, in the context of the school that they are inspecting.
Amendment No. 186 is equally unnecessary. It is open to the Secretary of State under Clause 16 as presently drafted to require the publication of this information so long as it is judged to be of assistance in the ways set out under subsection (3) of the clause. But we have no intention of requiring such publication at present, since, as Members of the Committee will be aware and as HMI confirmed in recent evidence to the Teachers' Pay Review Body, no clear-cut connection has been established between class size, pupil-teacher ratios or level of resources generally and the quality of teaching or levels of attainment in a school. Therefore, it would be wrong to give the impression that such a connection did exist by requiring the information to be published alongside public examination and national curriculum assessment results.
The corollary of the fact that no clear connection has been established is that different schools and LEAs take different views of what is necessary and desirable in these respects; for example, in deciding how to weight formula funding allocations for different age groups. This means that, in considering the position in different schools, one would not be comparing like with like, in the sense of money and resources having been allocated in the light of
620
generally agreed criteria. So one would be misleading rather than helping parents and others to compare schools' performance.
We are aiming to establish a national standard that will be understandable to parents. The amendment would not help in that and I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, will agree not to press it.
Lord Peston: I understand what the Minister has been saying, but bits of it puzzle me. I suppose that the more important of the two amendments is the latter because that is the one which attempts to put on the face of the Bill the information that the Secretary of State shall require by regulations. I accept that some of the research evidence is a bit obscure, but other parts of it—those parts relating to class size and pupil-teacher ratios—are not. If small class sizes and low pupil-teacher ratios are not a good thing, why do the independent schools go to such trouble to emphasise their small class sizes and the personal nature of their teaching? They clearly think that that is a good thing, so I should have thought that there might be something in it.
I want to probe the Minister on the fact that she is not saying that the Secretary of State has set his heart against publishing some information. I understand her to be saying that his view at the moment is that he is doubtful about whether he wants to include it in regulations. Will the Minister confirm that she did not say categorically that it is the view of the DES that such information should not be included in regulations; it is simply that the department has not decided to do so?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: In response to the first point, there are perceptions of class size being important, to which the independent schools market themselves, but there is no evidence on that. Indeed, there is much to indicate that the quality of the teacher is by far the most important factor. However, there is no uniformity on that.
That leads me to the second point raised by the noble Lord, which is that it is possible for the Secretary of State to require publication of the information, but it is the Government's intention to stick to information that is readily measurable across the whole of the nation and does not have the variables that I discussed in my first answer.
Baroness Seear: I do not think that the Minister has quite answered the point that my noble friend was making. Although she said that smaller classes and lower pupil-teacher ratios do not necessarily mean better results, common sense suggests that they do. I am interested, however, that research into that matter is now being given great attention by the Government because they have scoffed at research into other matters, but that is by the way.
Some parents look for a gentler, less crowded environment for a shy and gentle child. It is not only a question of whether one might or might not get better teaching in a certain school, but also of the fact that the atmosphere of a particular school and its smaller classes might be more suitable for some children. I recall my old headmistress telling some

621
parents that their daughters might do better in a place containing rather less tough people, fewer numbers and smaller groups. That was not because those children were bad or stupid, but because although the environment was all right for elderly people such as me, who were good at dealing with tough situations, it was not particularly good for nicer, gentler people.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: The noble Baroness makes an interesting point about the value of parental choice in education. The Bill will establish a report on the quality of education. As was rightly said earlier, for most parents the choice is between free schools, in which parents can easily establish the class size, if that is what they feel is important for their child, but that does not necessitate publishing such information on a national basis.
Lord Glenamara: I am sorry, but I almost find myself on the Government's side on this one. The amendment gives the impression that the three major criteria in judging schools are pupil-teacher ratios, class sizes and pupil costs, and I do not think that that is so. There is a great deal more to a good school than those three things. One of my complaints against the Government is that they try to quantify everything and believe that a school can be judged on the tests that they have instituted. However, good manners, courtesy and other such qualities must be taken into account. It is the whole ethos of the school that is important. I object to the amendment on the grounds that it looks as though those three things are the most important criteria when judging a school and I do not believe that they are.
Lord Elton: I want to seize this most unusual opportunity to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. I invite him to support my Amendment No. 105 later. I hope that it will also satisfy the Minister as a means of setting out, not in national statistics, but in reports, the things that many of us feel are among the most important in schools, such as the way in which the school is managed and the children's response to it.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, for his comments and my noble friend Lord Elton for his endorsement. Although the quality of teaching and leadership are not directly the subject of the amendment, this debate has shown their importance.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I should like to make only three quick points. The Minister said that there was a perception on the part of parents that class size was of great importance but that that was not supported by evidence. That seems a somewhat suspect argument. Usually, the Government are on the other side, saying that whatever the perception of parents, it is of paramount importance. However, in this case, that is put second. Secondly, I am always extremely suspicious of any statement that begins, "There is no evidence that", because it often seems that the whole world knows something, but that there is no evidence to show it. In this case, I feel that the public's perception is likely to be right. As I have said
622
"Secondly", I must now say, "Thirdly", I am a little worried that the Minister said that parents could always find such information in the inspectors' reports. Many parents will not read those reports. They will not delve into them to discover a thing like that. All that they want to know is the class size straight out. Of course, some parents will read the reports, but by no means all—and I doubt whether the majority will.
The Minister also said that such information could be misleading and that, when parents were told that a certain school had small class sizes, they might he misled into thinking that it was a better school than it was. That is what I understood her to say. That would be a hard fact. I think that it is bound to mean that, on the whole, the lessons or the teaching in that school is likely to be more effective. However, I do not feel that I can press the point now. I must accept what the Minister says and hope that it will work out satisfactorily. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 5, line 15, after ("inspector") insert ("and inspection team").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 91, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 120, in my name, and to Amendment No. 183, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, which has been grouped with it.
Amendment No. 91 asks that members of the inspection team, as well as the leader of the team, should be registered under Section 10(1) on a register kept by the chief inspector. Similarly, Amendment No. 120 to Schedule 2 asks that the members of the team, as well as the inspector, should be registered by the chief inspector in order to carry out an inspection of a school. Those suggestions seem eminently reasonable if there is to be confidence in the team that goes into the school to perform that serious and important work. We want to know more about what sort of people are to perform that task. All that we are told in the Bill is what they are not to be. The governors and the parents will want to know about the people in the teams.
We learned last Thursday that the big educational consultants, Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte, who are the market leaders in the educational consultancy world, have decided that they do not want to be involved in that inspection work. What about the other big consultancy firms? Are they also pulling out? Were the Government proposing to use many of the education consultants from those firms in inspection teams? Are LEA inspectors to be on the list? We do not want inexperienced, unqualified people making up the inspection team. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Beloff: As Amendment No. 183 is in my name, perhaps I may briefly say that it fortifies what the noble Baroness said. After hearing my noble friend the Minister again today, it seems that the Government are relying heavily upon the confidence of parents—actual or prospective—in the inspectors' reports. That is the key to the Bill. These amendments,

623
and others which I may move later, are designed to ensure that all the members of the inspection team, not just the heads of the team, are persons whose identity has been established by being on a register of persons qualified for such a task so that no one can say, "We do not know who these people are. How did they come to be here? What qualifications have they to put forward a tender?" and so forth. So far from being a wrecking amendment, the amendment is entirely in keeping with the spirit and intentions of the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will accept it.
Baroness Blatch: We have given careful consideration to the most effective means of securing quality control of the new inspection system. We could indeed have required the central registration of all team members as well as leaders, but formal registration would carry with it the duty to renew and review registration, and to monitor every individual's work. That is, quite rightly, how HMI will proceed in respect of the 600 or so registered inspectors; but it would be cumbersome and bureaucratic to require that for every inspector. That is why we chose instead the more flexible and, in our view, more effective method set out in the Bill: a two-tier system of quality control under which the registered inspector is given primary responsibility for the suitability and standard of his team members.
The registered inspector is responsible for the quality of the inspections he or she conducts. It is right, therefore, that he should be responsible for the quality of his team members. He will be in the best position to judge their strengths and weaknesses on a daily basis. He will have a strong incentive to ensure that they meet the necessary standards. Any failure by the team to inspect and report as required by the chief inspectors will put the team leader's continued registration, and hence his livelihood, at risk. He will not want to use incompetent or ineffective staff; nor will governors want to employ a team which cannot demonstrate appropriate expertise in relevant areas. The governors are free to ascertain that information. There is an obligation upon the registered inspector, in responding to a tender, to tell the governors not just how they will carry out the inspection but the competences and skills that will be used to do so.
Inspectors will all have to be trained. We shall come later to amendments which seek to strengthen the chief inspectors' role in deciding whether that training has been effectively completed. I shall listen to the arguments on that point with great care; but it is certainly not the same as creating and maintaining a full register of all team members.
The Bill gives HMCI close control over the registered inspector and how he does his work. It requires his team to have the necessary training and competence to carry out the task in each case. I believe that that offers an effective route to high inspection standards.
The competence of the teams will be of interest to the chief inspector. He will have all the discretion he needs to set the conditions he wants. The Bill does not
624
fetter him in any way. The Bill secures that the team members should be trained and should meet the test of impartiality.
It is true that we do not expect registered inspectors to work constantly with the same team. They will have to choose their team according to the particular inspection task in hand, and those qualified to inspect in some subjects—ancient Greek, for example—are likely to be working far more intermittently than those dealing with, say, French, but that does not invalidate our argument that the registered inspector is best placed to judge the competence of a team member. If the chief inspector finds someone's work unsatisfactory, even on the basis of one inspection, he is likely to be wary of using that person again. And that inspector will not find it easy to get further work without a reference from his previous team leader. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness David: I am afraid that I do not consider that a satisfactory reply. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for saying what he did. This is an important job. The Minister said that if team members had to register there would be a duty to review the registration and that that would be cumbersome and bureaucratic. But this matter is important. These people will be doing an important job; it is necessary to have the confidence of the public, governors and parents. I shall not waste time arguing. It is an important matter, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 91) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 112.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Addington, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ailesbury, M.

Hooson, L.

Airedale, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jay, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Jeger, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Beloff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Birk, B.

Judd, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Listowel, E.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Longford, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

David, B.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Desai, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Donoughue, L.

McNair, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Galpern, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Nicol, B.

Glenamara, L.

Ogmore, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L [Teller.]

Peston, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Grey, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hampton, L.

Rea, L.

Hamwee, B.

Richard, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rochester, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Seear, B.

Hayter, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

625

serota, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Stedman, B.

Underhill, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Warnock, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

White, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Tordoff, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Annaly, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Arran, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Astor, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Auckland, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Balfour, E.

Long, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bessborough, E.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blyth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boardman, L.

Mancroft, L.

Borthwick, L.

Margadale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Milverton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Nelson, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Orkney, E.

Colwyn, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Craigavon, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cross, V.

Pender, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Denham, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Quinton, L.

Eccles, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Reay, L.

Elibank, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rennell, L.

Elton, L.

Renwick, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Ferrers, E.

Salisbury, M.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gray of Contin, L.

Seccombe, B.

Greenway, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gridley, L.

Strange, B.

Guildford, Bp.

Strathclyde, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.[Teller]

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Sudeley, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Swinton, E.

Harrowby, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Tollemache, L.

Hesketh, L.[Teller]

Trumpington, B.

Holderness, L.

Ullswater, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Waddington, L.

Howe, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wise, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 5, line 16, at end insert ("having regard to the funds available to them for inspection").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 92, I also wish to speak to Amendment No. 167 which is grouped with it. In this amendment we are
626
modifying the wording of the Bill at the end of line 16 to find out how much inspections will cost and from where the funds will come.
If the Minister will bear with me, I wish to ask a broad question on whether the Government have any more to say about the global sum available for inspection following the argument which I thought I put forward fairly cogently on Second Reading. I endeavoured to argue that the sum available, converted into an average cost per inspection, would not make a worthwhile inspection a viable economic activity. That was the position I took then and I did not feel that it was rebutted at the time. From what I read in the newspapers at the end of last week, several reputable firms of consultants which might have gone into the inspection business accepted my view that they could not do the job properly with the funds available. That is my broad, probing question to the noble Baroness.
I have a long list of questions and I shall not read them all out. But I wish to know whether I am right that what will be called a proper inspection will be defined and set out in precise terms by Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors. Will they do it by providing a pro forma, a standard specification stating, "When the school puts the inspection out to tender, it must be done in the following way"?
Related to that, the DES must have thought this through to some degree, but I am not clear whether there will be a standard figure for the cost per inspection, I assume sub-divided by the type of school, or will there be flexibility? If there is a standard cost and the school asks for a better inspection, would it be able to use some of its devolved funds and say, "We would like you to spend more time with us", or "We would like you to look at this, which we know may cost a good deal more"? I am trying to obtain a vision of what will happen as a practical matter.
Since we are discussing tendering, the alternative may be to do it the other way round. It may happen that the school puts up a notice—I am not sure where, nor to whom one would apply—saying, "Would you please tender to inspect our school along the following lines?" At the bottom, apart from stating what the inspector will do, as with builders, the notice will state, "Our tender price is the following".
My question then becomes: supposing the two tender prices are beyond the means of the school, how will it work? Will the school have the right to go to the LEA and say, "That's the lowest tender. We agree that it looks a lot of money and more than the DES implied when the Bill was discussed in their Lordships' House, but that is our best tender. You have told us that we must have an inspection. May we have the money?"
That is what lies behind the amendments. I assure the noble Baroness that they are probing amendments. I am genuinely interested in how it will happen. It may be that this is all covered in some DES document which the department must have prepared in considering the legislation. It would not put the proposals before us unless it had the answers to all these questions. In that case, rather than spending a long time worrying the Committee with everything I have asked about model contracts, standard contracts

627
and so on, perhaps I may be given brief answers and then look at the appropriate DES document. That may be a better way of doing it.
It seems to me that since we are dealing with the Bill—and from what the noble Baroness said earlier, we must take it seriously and assume that it will be an Act of Parliament—we have a duty to find out how it will work in practice. I have that duty because I assured noble Lords on Second Reading that I was convinced that the Bill could not possibly work in practice. I must ask further questions in order to see whether I can be persuaded to change my mind. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The duty in Clause 9(1) to arrange an inspection by a registered inspector is an absolute one. I am sure the governors will have regard to the funds they have available when they carry out their duty for it would be irresponsible to do otherwise. But the duty is not in any way modified by the addition of the words of the amendment.
As for HMCI's reserve power, we want that left as open as possible. There may be a range of exceptional reasons why the governors cannot arrange an inspection. In fact the most likely (though still very rare) will be the case of a particular type of special school which no registered inspector is competent to inspect. Funding would not be a relevant factor in that case. To add these words to paragraph 22 of Schedule 2 might be taken to imply that the chief inspectors can act only if finance is an issue. I am sure on reflection the noble Lord would not want to limit the chief inspectors' powers in that way.
Our reforms involve making better use of existing funds for local inspection and advice. Some £135 million is spent by local authorities each year on inspectors and advisers. We estimate that just over half that total—some £70 million—will be needed to meet the costs of inspection for the quarter of schools that must be inspected each year. I have written at length to the noble Lord about the effect of VAT on such payments.
Those estimates cannot of course be finalised until the chief inspectors' guidance is known, and we are still some way off the first inspections in September 1993. But they are based on a range of costs from £6,000 for a small primary school to £30,000 for a large secondary which reflect current HMI practice in terms of the length of a full inspection leading to a published report. I expect the chief inspectors' guidance will leave some flexibility for more or less efficient inspectors to modify the precise number of days used, although it will be essential that time spent observing teaching and learning is the same in schools of similar sizes.
The noble Lord asked about flexibility for governing bodies if they wished to add more money to the money that has been allocated for inspection. That flexibility will be allowed to governing bodies. We have used a central estimate of around £350 for the daily cost of an inspector, but I expect there would also be some variation about that figure depending on the area concerned and on the overheads of different inspectors. I have already written to the noble Lord explaining about VAT, as I have said. I have explained
628
that VAT need not be included in these net figures because where it is payable it is reclaimable and it must be returned to schools. We should beware of helping those who may be in the market for inspection work to talk up the figures so as to increase their profits. I am talking now about outside companies that have been vocal in these matters.
If the Committee believes the funding will be tight, it should welcome the pressure that will be put on private firms as well as LEAs to operate as efficiently as possible. I have said that the level of overheads will be a critical factor. I understand that Coopers & Lybrand believes there needs to be a mark-up of around 300 per cent. on the salary costs of its inspectors. I am not sure all firms and LEAs would share that view. But it is hardly surprising that some firms are suggesting that more money is needed. It is in their interest to push costs up, as much as it is in the public interest to contain them. But the department has already had many expressions of serious interest from those already working in education in a range of capacities as well as from consultants in related fields. We are confident that there will be no shortage of competent inspectors applying for registration both within and outside local authorities. If Coopers wants to remain in the education market, I suspect it will join in before too long. It will have to accept healthy competition in the process. We are talking of a central figure of £350 net of VAT. That is rather over £400 a day if (as I believe Mr. Thompson of Coopers did) one includes VAT. That is not as far as has been suggested from the £500 to £600 he has mentioned.
It is also important to remember how little of all this is firmly fixed. We do not object to speculation. We have had to speculate ourselves for the purpose of giving some indication to Parliament of our plans. But we must remember that speculation is what it is. Until the chief inspector has issued his guidance and we know what the length of inspections will be, until we have then consulted LEAs on the right formula for allocating funds and until we have adjusted LMS schemes for the first secondary inspections in September 1993, no one can be certain about the exact figures.
I apologise that I have not been able to provide concise answers to the questions put by the noble Lord. The Bill stands silent on how schools are to receive their funds. However, I am happy to explain what we have in mind. We propose that schools should be in receipt of funds in the year of inspection. There is no question of their having to save up over the four years, or even of the first schools having to get into debt to meet their commitment.
The money will flow to schools through LMS schemes. The variations will ensure that each school to be inspected has sufficient money to buy an inspection which will meet HMCI's guidelines. No central rate for an inspection will be set centrally; the precise cost will be subject to market forces in each area. If schools can make modest savings they will be able to deploy them elsewhere. But the scope for this will be limited by the central guidance to inspectors. If schools wish to top up the money available, that also will be a matter for the appropriate authority.

629
We have yet to take decisions on the precise method by which LMS schemes will be varied. Our plans will be subject to consultation with local authorities and they will of course have to consult their schools before making variations. The variations will certainly need to take into account the fact that different sizes and types of school will require different levels of funding for the purposes of inspection. We will ensure that all schools get what they require to enable a proper inspection to be carried out. I hope with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: I have also added my name to this amendment. I believe we are near to one of the points which concerns many of us. Inspection is of the greatest possible importance. So far as I am aware, nowhere in the Bill are we told what the minimum qualifications and standards of the inspectors will be. We are told that the chief inspector will settle that. The Minister said something that gave me cause for some alarm. She said that if a school could save money on an inspection it could use that money elsewhere. The money is not ring-fenced. The temptation to get inspections on the cheap will be considerable because money will be tight. If we drop the standards of inspections, there is a danger that we shall obtain cut-price inspections. After all, people will compete for the job on price. That is an important element. The last thing we want is cut-price inspections. That will do no good in terms of raising quality in schools. Will the noble Baroness give us some idea of what the minimum standards will be as opposed to what the chief inspector has said?
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness makes an important point. She is absolutely right to say that this provision will be central to the way the whole inspection system works and to its effectiveness. However, we have taken the view that the chief inspector is to be free to set standards and to set the qualification standards for entry to the register. He will of course have powers to deregister if inspectors do not come up to the qualification standards. The chief inspector may set conditions. In other words, when a registered inspector performs his activities he will have to conform to conditions. One of those conditions could relate to the previous amendment which concerns using competent skills held by members of the inspection team to inspect a school. That is a fundamental difference. We are relying on the professionalism of the inspector.
The information about qualifications and standards will be in the public domain. That information will be seen and understood by the schools and by the public at large. That is an important provision. The choices made by the appropriate authorities—in most cases, the governing bodies—will, we hope, be made on the basis of quality and price. But given the fact that anyone who is a registered inspector will have gone through a quality threshold, he will have the expertise to meet the professional standards and also the needs of the school.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I have one simple question for the noble Baroness. Let us suppose that a school decided to spend rather more on an inspection than it needed to or more than other schools spend on inspections. What will the school receive in exchange for having spent more money? If I go to Fortnum and Mason as opposed to McDonald's, I know what I shall receive. But under this scheme what will a school receive for paying more money?
Baroness Blatch: If a school pays more than it needs to, parents, and certainly governors, would have to be called to account for having done so. The governors will describe the school and the nature of the inspection to be carried out to conform with all the requirements of the Bill. If they choose to pay over the odds, that governing body will be accountable to the parents and, at some stage, to the Secretary of State.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: The school may not be extravagant. It may simply want to buy what it considers is best. What more would it receive that it would not receive if it did not pay that sum?
Baroness Blatch: In terms of competence and quality of inspection a school cannot buy more. For the purposes of the inspection the school will employ a competent, fully registered inspection team. If the school chooses to pay a high price for that inspection, it will have to be accountable to the parents and explain why an expensive option was chosen when cheaper options were available under which the job could have been done as competently.
Viscount Eccles: The Government estimated the cost at £70 million before we started work on the Bill. As the Bill proceeds it is obvious that the cost of inspections is increasing because we keep adding to the tasks which the teams must carry out. I am anxious that all the money which is available should not be spent on inspections without consideration being given to whether that is the only way to obtain the information which the public want for the money which is available. Can I have an assurance that the inspectors will not merely carry out inspections and certainly would never be able to carry out, for example, 6,000 inspections a year which is quite beyond administrative possibilities? It is more important to consider how to obtain the information which parents and employers want.
Baroness Blatch: That is another important point. However, I pointed out in relation to an amendment moved in Committee that approximately three-quarters of HMI's time will be spent doing the very important work to which my noble friend Lord Eccles referred. That is what I refer to as "dipsticking" into the system—in other words, looking at the system on a random basis. We now have a system of inspection which will help HMI to identify the pressure points where inspections are most needed and to provide that information to schools and local education authorities.
Baroness Faithfull: What would be the position in the case of a small but very good school which is a charity, providing a special service for special children, which does not have the money for inspections?
Baroness Blatch: That would be a wholly independent school which is a charity. I shall take advice on that matter but my understanding is that the school would not be in receipt of fees from the Government for inspection. I shall have to take advice on the extent to which it would be required to undergo inspections.
Lord Peston: I do not think that such schools fall within the ambit of the Bill, but I am not entirely sure of that. I apologise for not thanking the noble Baroness earlier for her letter of 18th February. I have tried manfully to understand it. I think that it amounts to the fact that all the sums under consideration are net of VAT.
I do not want to prolong the discussion since the matter is rather technical, but I am still a little puzzled. If the Bill becomes law it will be a statutory duty on the part of the appropriate authorities to have an inspection. I am not sure what happens if they cannot achieve that at the price which is quoted. In other words, money may be set aside but the authority may not be able to obtain an inspection for that sum. We are talking of business enterprises which may not quote prices which the authorities can afford. That is one matter which puzzles me. I do not want to prolong the matter now but perhaps the noble Baroness will obtain advice as to what would happen if authorities could not afford that statutory duty. That is my main question. However, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Young of Dartington Lord Young of Dartington moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 5, line 16, at end insert ("who has completed a course of training in respect of which he has received a certificate issued under paragraph 5A of Schedule 2 below.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 93 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 131 and 133 to 140. Amendment No. 131 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is particularly important in my view, as is Amendment No. 135 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
What I say in relation to Amendment No. 93 also applies in particular to Amendment No. 140. I should like to apologise for not having been able to be present last Monday. That may mean that I have missed some important nuances in debate; if so, I shall stand to be corrected later.
The underlying concern of most of the speakers in the debates on the Bill relates to the capacity of the new inspectors to do the job which is intended. The question is whether they will be competent. Last week the Government accepted an important amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young. That went some way to allaying anxieties on the issue. The functions of the chief inspector were enlarged.
It will now doubtless be said that that amendment makes unnecessary the amendments which we are now to deal with. For my part I infer exactly the opposite. I argue that the amendments go in the same direction and complement last week's amendment. My proposition is that if one accepts the Renfrew/Young amendment of last week, then one should logically accept these amendments today—Young supports Young.
Amendment No. 93 in particular is designed to strengthen the chief inspector's powers in another respect—in relation to the training of the ordinary inspectors. That is a matter on which the Bill stands silent—to use the attractive words of the noble Baroness a few moments ago. My contention is that on that important matter of training the Bill should not stand silent but should speak.
Training is clearly a very important matter. No one in this Chamber would deny that. It is important in any profession and it is important in the new profession which is projected in the Bill. If the training is inadequate, the whole new system could be weakened. It is not too much of a stretch of the imagination to suggest that it could be weakened to such an extent that the whole new system might become a farce. That is all the more important in my submission because at present there is no requirement in the Bill for previous qualifications of any kind for the new inspectors who will form the inspection team.
The registered inspectors are to be accredited but the ordinary inspectors and inspection teams are not, or at least there is no provision as yet for such accreditation. No doubt, as we have been told many times before, ordinary inspectors will ordinarily have previous experience which is relevant. They will have been teachers, and many will have been local authority inspectors. However, it is not necessary for that to be the case. Even if it were the case it does not follow that anyone who has been a teacher is qualified to be an inspector. A nursery school teacher may not be the best person to inspect science in a secondary school. In any case, there is bound to be a worry, which I am sure is not confined to me, that there could be a minority of people who do not have relevant previous experience and who manage to be appointed to the new inspection force.
One of the great banes but also great beauties of education is that almost anyone can hold an opinion about it. Very often the firmness of people's opinions varies inversely with the extent of their knowledge of the subject. We know from our own sometimes bitter experience that people can become extremely cranky about education. They can be cranky about anything of course but it seems that education offers a great field or dominion for cranks to occupy. We can all surely imagine people who see in this Bill the creation of a whole new profession, with thousands of new posts being set up and a certain amount of new money being made available. There will be people who believe that the great opportunity has now come for them at last to get their views across in such a way that it will influence what happens in the schools; and what better

633
way can it be achieved than by becoming a member of the new inspection teams? There will also be a certain amount of money in it for them.
There are people who believe against the evidence—sometimes with the evidence—that they in particular have the nostrum which will save education from what would otherwise be a terrible fate. If many of those people—retired this or retired that with strong opinions—want to undertake the course of training, they can do so. It is the only requirement laid down in the Bill for the new ordinary inspectors. Unless those people were very dull indeed, they could complete it without having absorbed very much of what they were taught.
I can certainly imagine that, once it is announced that there will be thousands of jobs available for people who complete the course of training, some shadier commercial correspondence colleges (which unfortunately still exist in this country despite some improvement) will turn their eyes to the syllabus for the course of training set out by the chief inspector. They will soon offer courses to run alongside the chief inspector's course and coach people in how to complete it. Whether or not that turns out to be the case, the chief inspector will not have any obvious way, as the Bill stands at the moment, to stop unsuitable people from completing the course, unless he is given specific powers to do so. An unsuitable minority could complete the course and some of the cranky butchers, bakers and candlestick makers who we all know exist could get through the course. They could achieve notoriety, making an absurd mess of what they do and issuing public statements, and could go far to bring the whole new system into disrepute.
I argue that the chief inspector should be able to exclude from courses people who are not fit and proper persons to take the course, just as he can exclude people on that ground once they have taken the course. We may hope that he does not often have to exercise that option but he should have the power to do so if it proves necessary.
In my view the most important point raised by these amendments concerns certification. On this side of the Chamber we believe that the Government have gone much too far in testing children in relation to the national curriculum. Testing has gone to the Government's head. However, in this Bill all that seems to have been thrown aside. There is no mention of testing or examination to find out whether those who have taken the chief inspector's course have understood or benefited from it. They are to complete the course—I underline the word "complete"—but that does not mean that they will have done anything more than go through the motions. That does not guarantee that they have learnt anything from the course or know much about the way in which schools work or the arts of constructive inspection. A course may be completed without that completion being in the least satisfactory. On that point the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, fully hits the nail on the head.
In my opinion it is vital that the chief inspector should have the power and the duty to award certificates to those who complete the course
634
satisfactorily. The schools and the public would then know that those who inspect the schools have undertaken a course of training, have benefited from it in a positive way and have passed muster with the chief inspector as being people who have the right kind of training for the job. Without that provision any training could be worse than useless. I hope that my arguments can in general be accepted. The amendment is very much in line with the one accepted by the Government last week and I hope that they will feel able to accept it. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: The noble Lord paints a very gloomy picture which causes great alarm. If such cranky people with views on education which have been derived from nothing but the experience of their own childhood were to become registered inspectors, it would be very bad for the education service and for the reputation of the inspectors. However, I do not share his gloom.
I see nothing in the way that these arrangements for training are described which is different from the current position with HMI. The training course and period of training which HM inspectors undergo is taken after appointment and after they have been selected as fit and proper people to undertake inspection. The selection is based on their experience, background and academic qualifications, where appropriate. They will then be given the course of training which makes them fit to conduct the inspections. I hope that more than that will be done. As with HMI at the present time, I hope that they will be given suitable mentoring arrangements which will enable them to learn on the job in a structured and proper way.
I should like to reassure the noble Lord that at the present time there is no requirement for specific sets of qualifications for existing HMIs. It has not resulted in any more disastrous errors and mistakes than is the normal average among human beings. In the current inspectorate there are people inspecting schools who have never taught in a school but who for other good reasons are the appropriate and right people to inspect schools. There are certainly people who are not graduates in the current HMI.
Lord Young of Dartington: I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that there is an important difference between the present HMIs and the new inspectors that are suggested in the Bill. Many of the people who might be suitable HMIs are known from personal knowledge. They might be known from what they have already done in education and be appointed because of what is known about them. But the Bill suggests something quite different. Anyone in the country is a potential inspector. No one in the HMI service or anywhere else will know anything about them before they start on the job.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I do not see the distinction. In theory at the present time anyone can apply. The jobs of HMI are advertised. At times many thousands of applications are received—certainly many hundreds on each occasion that they are

635
advertised. The applications come from a variety of people. They are sifted and sorted, as I assume will be the case under the new arrangements, until an appropriate short list of people is drawn up. They are then interviewed for their suitability.
I do not share the noble Lord's gloomy view of any drastic changes in the arrangements. I see absolutely no reason why the arrangements for inspection as proposed in the Bill should not be as good or better than those which currently exist.
Lord Beloff: We return to the central problem in dealing with the Bill; it is that it is difficult to seize on the actual intentions of the Government. The news that important firms of consultants do not wish to participate is important. It was not made clear on the face of the Bill that it was expected that existing firms would do so. Unless the newspapers are wholly wrong, we now know that some firms have been approached. Before we come to the important points of selection, training and registration we need to know what is the Government's thinking not only as regards the first crop but as regards those in the future. Presumably if one puts legislation on the statute book one intends it to last.
I am afraid that I am irresistibly reminded of the Education (Student Loans) Bill. When it was before this Chamber the Government said that the loans would be administered by existing joint stock banks. Some of us pointed out that it was highly improbable that student loans was a business that would suit them but we were brushed aside. Nevertheless we were right; the Government were wrong. They had to set up a money lending instrument of their own. I do not say that action was wrong but it was not where the Bill started.
We are now asked to accept a system of tendering for the inspection teams. We are told that we must not ask that the people who take part in the teams shall be registered, because that is bureaucratic. That was what the noble Baroness said in reply to an earlier amendment of mine. Doubts are expressed about whether any formal provisions are needed for their training. We should be told about the kind of people who are expected to tender and what is to be the incentive for them. The financial point was raised by my delightful colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, at an earlier stage. We do not know the full financial provisions, and so forth, which are all in the air. Therefore, how can we be asked to legislate for the future of an important part of our educational system unless we are told precisely by the Government that they expect inspectors to come from the Royal Marines or wherever and that they expect them to make a reasonable profit amounting to so such and such?
All those issues could be made precise. Why are they not being made precise? Is it because for some reason which is obscure to Members on all sides of the Committee there is a desperate hurry to get the Bill through? If it had been brought before Parliament in the next Session there would have been time to explain in detail to the educational world what is intended. I
636
do wish that my noble friends on the Front Bench would explain these matters to me. I should find it much easier to vote with them if they did.
Lord Elton: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 135, standing in my name. I can do so without adducing the great principles that have excited other speakers in the debate. Provision already exists in the Bill to enable HMCI to exercise control over the quality of inspectors. However, we are now examining the quality control of other registered inspectors. I am worried about one aspect. The provision which already exists is in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2. It states:
"No person shall conduct an inspection of a school in England, or act as a member of an inspection team for such a school, unless he has completed a course of training".
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, would like the chief inspector to stop people getting on to the course, to get them booted off the course if they are not going to succeed and to pass a test at the end of which they will be certificated as having completed the course successfully. I believe that only the latter requirement is necessary. Most of the wordage produced by the noble Lord and by my noble friend is unnecessary.
I wish to be assured that people who are trained have not merely completed courses but have completed them successfully. I am sure that that will also be the wish of the chief inspector. Having tried to dismiss a registered inspector for being unqualified I should not like the chief inspector brought up before the court to be told that he was qualified because he had completed a course in the way in which one can claim to have a failed BA as a qualification.
Mine is a simple request. I do not believe that a great deal of administrative expense is involved other than that which one would expect in a prudent arrangement already existing. I hope that the Government will be a little more friendly towards my friendly approach than doubtless they will be towards the others.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Members of the Committee have raised many points and I shall try to reassure them. The noble Lord, Lord Young, in Amendments Nos. 93 and 140, my noble friend Lord Beloff in Amendments Nos. 134 and 137 and my noble friend Lord Elton in Amendment No. 135 are all interested in tightening up the process of training of team members. They variously wish to ensure that no one is admitted to a course unless judged suitable for inspection work, which is right, that they should be required to reach a certain standard in order to complete it and that they should be offered a certificate if they do so successfully. In addition, in Amendments Nos. 136 and 139 my noble friend Lord Beloff wishes to remove the ability of HMCI to waive the training requirement where he thinks it appropriate to do so.
Perhaps I may first deal with that latter more narrow point. We consider that flexibility to waive the training requirement should be retained for what we expect to be a few cases in which it may be justified. For example, a future HMI well versed in the new inspection system—perhaps himself or herself running training courses for inspectors—might wish to leave the national inspectorate to become a registered

637
inspector. That is probably an ideal career-break path. I would not like to see HMCI forced to require that individual to attend his or her own course to learn what he or she had been teaching to others!
Lord Elton: I believe that my noble friend is misunderstanding my request. I was not asking whether people are competent in their subject. I was asking that they should have passed a course which would make them competent in the inspection of their subject. That is rather different.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I am replying initially to the narrower point in the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Beloff relating to the simple opportunity of HMCI to waive training if necessary. We expect that in the early days all inspectors will need training in what will be a very new system—but we are legislating for a longer timescale. I hope that the trust in the HMCI will allow the amendment to be withdrawn.
Turning to the need for closer control over the training process, my honourable friends in another place have made clear that the HMCIs can be expected to look carefully at applicants for training. It seems to us that the fulfilment of his duty to keep standards under review will ensure that HMCI will want to take particular care to secure that inspectors are suitable and appropriately trained. His ability to carry out his job depends on that. We do not consider it necessary to hedge the HMCIs round with conditions. A competent HMCI, keen to secure a successful national system, will I am sure not accept those who are clearly unsuitable or lack the appropriate qualifications and experience for the task. I believe therefore that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Young, that is unlikely that HMCI will accept nursery teachers to inspect science. The noble Lord expressed doubts, but a competent HMCI will have arrangements in place so that anyone who showed himself during the course to be unable to cope with the training would not be allowed to complete the course.
As regards certification, some written evidence of completion of training will be required by inspectors which can be produced on request when work is sought. That evidence is likely to take the form of either a letter or a certificate validated by HMCI who will have a register of those people. Therefore, I believe that the Bill's provisions taken together already secure the sort of assurances which Members of the Committee seek.
As regards Amendments Nos. 131 and 133, it seems that my noble friend Lord Beloff is trying to reopen the debate which we had on the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Renfrew, which were accepted by the Committee. Perhaps I can refresh the memory of my noble friend by saying that those amendments provided for the chief inspector to be able to offer advice to governing bodies on the tenders received and, indeed, to exercise a power of veto if necessary. When we discussed those amendments we said that we thought they swept up the power which my noble friend Lord Beloff sought to introduce to Schedule 2 through those amendments. I still think that.
638
Perhaps I may draw my noble friend's attention to the changing flexibility of employment which those rolls of registered inspection teams will sweep up. I stress that there is a vast difference between the student loan requirement from the private sector and that required from individuals to make up the teams. I must disagree with my noble friend when he suggests that there has not been sufficient time for discussion of the Bill and that it has been hurried through.
7 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: With great respect, the Bill was guillotined in another place. Therefore, it cannot have had enough time.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: It was guillotined after a Committee stage when all the time allowed to it was not used. There was adequate time for discussion. On the day of the guillotine most of the discussion was on political rather than educational matters.
Under the Bill we are establishing a two-tier system of quality control—a system which will be tight but flexible. No one will be employed as a team member unless he or she has successfully completed a course of training provided or approved by the chief inspector.
Lord Elton: Did the Minister use the word "successfully" advisedly? Is she saying that what I have asked for is in the Bill? She said that no one would be accepted as an inspector unless he or she had successfully completed a course. That word does not appear in the Bill.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Such a person would not be on the register without training, as I said earlier.
Baroness Blackstone: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness but I am still rather perplexed, as I suspect is the noble Lord, Lord Elton. A person may undertake the training without successfully completing it. He may have failed to meet the kind of requirements which HMCI believes to be appropriate. What happens in those circumstances?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I shall repeat for the noble Baroness and for my noble friend what I said earlier. As regards certification, some written evidence of completion of training will be required by inspectors which can be produced on request when work is sought. That evidence is likely to take the form of a letter or a certificate.
I return to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Beloff. The registered inspector must be satisfied, in the light of the guidance from the chief inspector about the composition of teams, that a person is suitable and competent for the task in hand. Furthermore, the governing body commissioning the inspection will wish to be satisfied as to the qualifications of the members of the team to be used by each registered inspector tendering for the inspection. That is a further strand of quality assurance. Yet another strand has been built in through the acceptance last week of the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. Those

639
amendments mean that assessors appointed by HMCI will help governors to examine the credentials of the whole team.
I assure my noble friend that the Government have not approached any firms of management consultants. They approached us, as have a wide range of education consultants. The important piece of news is not that Coopers & Lybrand will only participate if there is more money on the table but that there are plenty of others who will tender. I hope that my noble friend Lord Beloff will rest content with the considerable safeguards that I have listed and will, if necessary, be able to vote with us.
Lord Young of Dartington: I thank the Minister for that winding-up speech. I was surprised when the Minister expressed her view that a certificate or some form of written evidence of completion would be required. If that is so, I should have thought that the obvious course to pursue is to accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, so that it is quite clear that certification will be required. I am only sorry that the Minister was not able to go that far.
However, let us always hope that, the intention having been stated—and stated clearly—it will at a later stage it will be put on the face of the Bill. That would reassure many people who may have doubts. However, it is now seven minutes past seven—
Lord Elton: Before the noble Lord invites us to have dinner, which I believe he is about to do, perhaps he will allow me an opportunity to speak because the convention is that one does not speak to an amendment which has already been spoken to. Therefore, I shall not again have the opportunity to address Amendment No. 35.
I shall read carefully what my noble friend said. I was rather beset by the idiosyncrasies of the grouping which I tried to sort out while she was replying to the amendment. I hope that the Minister gave a firm indication that the Government intend that a criterion of success will be embodied in practice when it comes to seeing who has and who has not satisfied the requirements of training for that function. If I do not find such an assurance in Hansard, I shall return to this matter.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I assure my noble friend that we are sympathetic to the spirit of his request. I should like to explain to the Committee that I may have inadvertently mentioned registered inspection teams. I apologise for that. The team leaders are the registered inspectors and the team members will be given recognition for successfully completing training. I am sorry for the confusion I caused.
Lord Young of Dartington: It is now eight minutes past seven. If we obey the dictates of the clock, I believe that in the longer run time will definitely be on our side. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that the Committee stage begins again at 10 minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Coal Industry Bill
7.10 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Further grants for workforce redeployment and reduction etc.]:
[Amendment No. 1 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Repeal of Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908]:
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("following the application of collective agreements concluded between the two sides of industry which are more favourable to the protection of the safety and health of the workforce").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 2 repeals the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908 which limited time worked below ground to seven-and-a-half hours. The proposal caused widespread anxiety because the 1908 Act was the foundation stone of the health and safety reforms in this country. From discussions on Clause 2 in this House on Second Reading and in Committee and from debates in another place the Minister will be aware of what was the basis of that anxiety.
It is partly historic sentiment; that is, losing the historic security that miners felt with the 1908 Act. It is also much sharper and more real. It is based on the feeling among miners that the underlying purpose of the Bill is to loosen and worsen their working conditions and thereby make it possible to increase the profits of the new private owners of the intended privatised coal industry. It is felt that the underlying purpose of the Bill is to prepare the way for that privatisation, for which it is a stepping stone.
Whatever the different views may be on the advantages or otherwise of privatisation, it is hard to escape one broad conclusion—that on the face of it the clause will mean that miners will work longer hours per shift below ground and will not be paid overtime for above seven-and-a-half hours. I am sure that the Minister will not lightly deny that simple conclusion.
The Minister replied to those arguments and anxieties with his customary patience, courtesy and helpfulness. He rightly pointed out that health and safety are no longer dependent on the 1908 Act; that more recent legislation is more relevant. He argued also that the 1908 Act is outdated because mechanisation has transformed the mines and many miners work longer hours in breach of the Act. We on this side accept much of that, subject to the qualifications I made at Second Reading concerning the undoubted continuing unpleasantness of working conditions underground, however transformed from 1908, and that miners work longer hours of their own choice with a right to overtime.
The acceptance by us of many of those arguments does not cover the whole issue which we address in the amendment. It does not cover the vital issue of the involvement of the miners in the safety of their own working conditions. Complaints have been made by the miners regarding the lack of consultation on the Bill. My noble friends Lord Dean and Lord Stoddart echoed those complaints in Committee. At Second Reading I reminded the Minister that a previous Secretary of State promised consultation before any moves were made towards introducing longer hours. That did not take place.
The Minister assured us that there will be consultation between British Coal and the miners' representatives on new working arrangements, which presumably means shifts of longer hours—he may wish to clarify that—in advance of the implementation of the new EC directive. We welcome that. But the amendment seeks to build on that and build it into the Act to ensure that safety is a normal part of collective agreements in the future, whatever that new future may be for the mining industry.
The heart and main thrust of the amendment concerns the involvement of all sides of the industry, especially the workers underground and their elected representatives, in both the construction and the implementation of the laws and rules relating to safety. The belief underlying the amendment is that safety is the prime concern; that it is the highest priority of those actually working underground. Where men are working in dangerous conditions—mining underground is still dangerous, as the tragedy at Wearmouth demonstrated only two weeks ago—it is both their right and the most effective way of achieving safety to involve them in the negotiation and implementation of safety procedures.
As my noble friends Lord Dean and Lord Stoddart, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said so convincingly in Committee from their wide practical experience, safety involves everybody. The safety procedures will be most widely obeyed by miners if the miners' representatives are involved in negotiation and especially in ensuring that they are enforced and obeyed by their own members. That is what the amendment, which I stress is constructive in intent, seeks to achieve. It also seeks in its wording to encourage collective agreements, freely negotiated, which are more favourable to safety than the 1908 Act or than the EC directive, which allows for conditions minimally worse than the 1908 Act. I cannot believe that the Minister will object to that.
In passing, perhaps I may say that we all welcome the most recent information on the state of the EC directive and the Government's attitude to it. As the Minister has often said, we have moved a long way since 1908. I am sure that he would wish that movement to be forward in safety terms. That is what the amendment seeks. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, raised once again an issue of considerable importance which was raised at previous stages of the Bill. While it is accepted without question that much has happened since 1908 and that the relevance of legislation in that year is no longer what was
642
intended, nonetheless we feel that Clause 2 is stark in referring simply to the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908 ceasing to have effect without indicating what is to replace it.
The Secretary of State in another place and the Minister in this place indicated that the clause would not have effect until either the Community's proposed directive on working hours or some other provisions were put in place. Our anxiety is that whatever replaces the Act of 1908 should be discussed in this House and that the specific issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, should be borne in mind. Although it is strictly correct to say that the 1908 legislation was not concerned with safety but with hours of work, nevertheless hours of work have always traditionally impinged on safety. While it is correct to say that under present mining conditions the hours of work need not be restricted to those laid down in previous legislation, there must be safeguards, otherwise the whole operation underground could be relatively uncontrolled. I support the underlying intention of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue.
Lord Haslam: My Lords, I wish to make some general observations concerning this amendment. I believe that the role of the 1908 Act continues to enjoy an importance in our debates which it does not deserve. The Act has been virtually obsolete for many years. In recent years it has been widely ignored by management and mineworkers alike. Is that really surprising? Can one really expect a detailed Act, now over 80 years old, to have relevance in an industry which meanwhile has experienced vast technological change? The year 1908 represents the early pick and shovel era, which placed extreme physical demands on miners. The current highly mechanised mining methods now employed are light years removed from those conditions and thereby have dramatically reduced those punishing demands on mineworkers. However, one cannot deny that any underground working environment will always remain a harsh one.
The importance attached to safety in British Coal exceeds anything I have experienced in other industries. This is evident in the regular and continuing safety dialogue which exists between management and miners at colliery level. I do not know whether noble Lords appreciate that every month and at every colliery there is a meeting between management and mineworkers concerned with the issues of safety and other related matters. It is sometimes implied that British Coal is sacrificing safety on the altar of productivity or profitability. That is totally unjustified. Indeed, the converse is true, in that higher productivity has led to improved safety standards. For example, since 1985 British Coal's productivity has more than doubled while over the same period the accident rate has more than halved. The actual figures are that the all-accident rate in 1985–86 was 43.8 accidents per 100,000 man shifts worked. The current figure for the present year is about 21.4. I believe that that performance reflects great credit on management and miners alike.
Comprehensive and demanding legislation for safety in coal mines already exists centred on the

643
Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and the overriding Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Interestingly, the 1908 Act does not form part of that legislative structure. This is allied to the important role of the Mines Inspectorate—one has to emphasise its role—whose thoroughness and dedication in over-viewing all aspects of safety, including working hours, contributes to British Coal's safety standards being at the top of the deep mine world league. Undoubtedly a major factor is the dominant safety ethos which exists within the corporation itself.
I hope that this overall perspective of the safety situation within British Coal will be reassuring to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, but I feel that it would be more appropriate for my noble friend Lord Cavendish to respond to the specific theme of this amendment. I believe that this whole Bill, as it was originally conceived, will be a most welcome and positive factor in ensuring that the UK coal industry will be best placed to meet the very formidable challenges it obviously faces.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I was not going to speak to this amendment because I believe that my noble friend Lord Donoughue covered it fairly comprehensively. However, I find myself in contention with some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Haslam. I respect his views as a former chairman of British Coal, but that does necessarily mean that I agree with them. It should be made quite clear that the amendment in the Marshalled List is not a figment of a political brain which wants to appear to be casting some doubt on the veracity of what the Government are trying to do. The amendment has been included in the Marshalled List at the express wish of the people employed in the industry.
The amendment is also in accord with what was said by the Select Committee of another place when it suggested that, before any legislation is brought forward to change the situation, there should be the fullest consultation with the people involved. What that means to noble Lords on this side of the House may be different to what the Government believe, bearing in mind the past legislation that we have dealt with. Very often the Government say "This is what we are doing. We are going to legislate" and so they do. Now they say "Now that the legislation is on the statute book we shall consult with those whom it affects".
That is not my view as to what is meant by consultation. If there is to be a specific and definite change in something involving workpeople—I say this as a former factory worker myself—there is no point in telling them that they can consult when the Act is a fait accompli. So far as the workpeople are concerned, consultation is meaningless unless they are able to form particular views on the subject. When the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, referred to present aspects I believe that he was talking about the situation between pit and pit. I am not so familiar with the mining industry as he is or the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, was talking about what can be done with the present Coal Board and its activities.
644
However, we are not dealing with that situation. There is no question at all but that, if the Government are returned, and if they can, they will pursue some form of privatisation of the coal mining industry. That is no secret. The Secretary of State has made public his views on that subject. We are saying that, whatever happens in terms of who is in control of the mining industry, the miners and their representatives should have the right to be involved with such safety measures which are designed to operate within the industry.
I was a factory worker. I said at Committee stage that I believed that a mine was a kind of factory. It is a production unit and a very dangerous type of factory. Unless one involves the people who are employed in those dangerous jobs and the representatives whom they appoint or elect, they will not have the necessary strength to deal with the situation. Some time ago I went to the site of the Channel Tunnel. That project was given serious consideration because of the number of accidents which were taking place. What was undertaken was carried out immediately. The union representatives or the men's representatives on site were involved at the point of contact. It would be a dereliction of duty for the Committee merely to say tonight that everything will be all right and that the mineworkers are consulted at present.
The point was eloquently made by my noble friend Lord Donoughue. We are simply stating what was said by the Select Committee of another place; namely, that whatever happens the mine workers should be consulted before legislation is brought before the House as they are being asked to give up a very long and well-proven system of employment in the mines. That is the situation as we see it. That is a little different from what the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, said with his first-class knowledge on the subject. I believe that we are on two different wavelengths. I support what my noble friend Lord Donoughue has said on the matter.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for introducing the amendment in the name of his noble friend. I also thank other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I was not entirely convinced that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, had his heart in this amendment to the extent that he seemed to acknowledge that there was a symbolism about the 1908 Act. I am not sure that I did not notice the same flavour in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. Flavour counts in these matters. There is a long tradition in the coal industry and it is as well and reasonable for people to be suspicious of change.
I should say straightaway—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, will acknowledge this—that this Bill would be necessary whether or not the industry was privatised. I shall not go into the matter of whether or not there are secrets. Of course there are no secrets in that area. We are dealing with the coal industry today just as much as we might be dealing with the coal industry at any future date. In talking about the symbolism, or the sentiment behind the

645
1908 Act, I have to agree with my noble friend that it continues to enjoy an importance in our debates which it really does not deserve—to which, I might add, any more.
Noble Lords opposite must decide whether they want to make the regulation of health and safety at work a matter for the Government or for collective bargaining. The Government believe that the regulation of health and safety is a matter for government. There is a legislative system of health and safety protection for mineworkers in place in the United Kingdom. The 1908 Act does not form part of that legislative structure. The principal statutes relevant to health and safety, as I said at Second Reading and again at Committee stage, are the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. I do not think that that is disputed.
There are also a number of other important measures relating to specific aspects of safety in mines. This system has been strengthened progressively over the years and there is no question of it being weakened. Safety for mineworkers is and will remain paramount. The Government, I can promise, will not take any action which threatens the safety of mineworkers. I was grateful to my noble friend who spoke on this matter persuasively and with authority.
Collective agreements, however, do have a role to play. They can assist good industrial relations. Indeed, the Government are taking powers to repeal the 1908 Act well in advance of implementing the repeal precisely so that the management and the workforce will have ample time and a suitable basis to negotiate sensibly on new working agreements which will be needed when the 1908 Act finally goes and the EC directive on working time is adopted.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked what was the exact status of the directive—an update, so to speak. The directive has been drafted on the basis of Article 118A of the EC treaty. The main provisions of the latest version of the directive, dated November 1991, are as follows: a minimum daily rest period of 11 hours (Article 3); a minimum weekly rest period of 35 hours, including a daily 11 hour period and, in principle, including Sunday (Article 5); a maximum working time of 48 hours a week, averaged over three months (Article 6); four weeks' minimum annual paid holiday (Article 7); a maximum of eight hours a day for night workers averaged over an agreed reference period (Article 8).
The Social Affairs Council discussed the draft directive on 3rd December 1991. The next formal meeting is not until April. The Portuguese presidency is, however, expected to make a strong effort to reach a common position by June. The present draft provides for compliance within three years of the adoption of the directive. The previous draft included a compliance date of 31st December 1992. It would be brought into force in the UK by regulations made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The Department of Employment is in the lead in consultation with other interested parties, including the Department of Energy and British Coal. British Coal feels it will not be able to comply with both the
646
directive and the Coal Mines Regulations Act 1908. The 1908 Act restricts the period underground to seven hours 15 minutes, plus one hour winding time. British Coal is worried that the directive, in conjunction with the 1908 Act, will debar many of the flexible working arrangements upon which its increase in productivity is founded.
British Coal has to give six months' notice before re-negotiating working hours agreements. The negotiations could easily take a number of months beyond that. I hope that noble Lords will see that powers to repeal the 1908 Act are therefore needed very well in advance of the date when the directive may be adopted.
I have sought to say that we expect consultation and that there will be consultation. Furthermore, I hope to have illustrated that, through the Bill, no consultation will be denied. Under the United Kingdom system of statutory regulation of health and safety the employers will have to pay due regard to health and safety when concluding new working arrangements. The Health and Safety Executive can take action if health and safety are put at risk. With that explanation I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, perhaps I may first say to the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, that I felt he had written his speech before he heard what I had to say. My approach was constructive and I stated, and feel, nothing negative about the safety situation in British Coal. The Minister said that he senses that our hearts are not in this amendment. I reject that totally. My heart is not in any negative, partisan, broad, or shotgun approach to this Bill. It contains few proposals and I am fully in support of those relating to the redundancy payments to miners.
Where my heart is fully relates to the helpful statement made by the Minister in defining the difference between our two sides. He said that health and safety was for government, not for the people in the industry. That is quite a telling quotation. My heart is fully in opposing that view. Of course governments do and should set the general framework for safety and they should certainly establish minimum standards of protection. However, I restate —and this is the core of what we are saying—that those in the industry, those facing the dangers in mining and working underground, must be involved. They must be involved in defining the procedures and especially in implementing them, because it is their lives that are at risk.
That is the distinction between the two sides. We are trying to be positive. I cannot see any reason why this amendment should not be added to the Bill, because it is a supportive elaboration. It is not in any way destructive and it does not undermine anything else in the Bill. I am sorry that that has not been accepted. Having heard the arguments and in view of that distinction between the two sides I feel that I must divide the House.
7.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 78.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jay, L.

Birk, B.

Jeger, B.

Blackstone, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Judd, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

David, B.

McNair, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mayhew, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ezra, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Foot, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Seear, B.

Gregson, L.

Serota, B.

Grey, E.

Shackleton, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hamwee, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Underhill, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Kimball, L.

Annaly, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Arran, E.

Lawrence, L.

Astor, V.

Long, V.

Auckland, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Balfour, E.

Lyell, L.

Beloff, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Boardman, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Borthwick, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Mountevans, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Carnock, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Coleraine, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cross, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Reay, L.

Denham, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rennell, L.

Eccles, V.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Faithfull, B.

Seccombe, B.

Ferrers, E.

Selborne, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strange, B.

Greenway, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Harvington, L.

Sudeley, L.

Haslam, L.

Swinton, E.

Henley, L.

Teviot, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

Howe, E.

Waddington, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Killearn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.46 p.m.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.46 to 8.10 p.m.]

Education (Schools) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 9.
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): I should point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 95 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 96.
[Amendments Nos. 95 to 102 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 5, line 37, after ("school") insert ("are sufficient having regard to the duties variously to be performed by the headteachers and the governing bodies of those schools and by local education authorities under this or any other enactment and").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 191. Although the amendments refer to different parts of the Bill I believe that the wording is almost identical. Perhaps I may briefly draw the attention of the Committee to page 5, line 37. We have put on the face of the Bill the provision that the registered inspector has to look at certain matters; namely, quality, standards and efficient management of resources. I believe that my noble friends and I and other noble Lords when debating the matter on Second Reading said that there was a further matter which ought to be put on the face of the Bill—not simply whether the resources were managed efficiently but whether there were sufficient resources initially.
It is a relevant factor. Everyone agrees with that. In fact I think that Mr. Eggar in another place referred to it as being something which could be taken into account. Therefore, the only question is whether it should be taken into account and put on the face of the Bill. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Denton. She said earlier that education equality is not all about resources. But I believe that she would also agree that one must not then go to the other extreme and say that it has nothing to do with resources.
Therefore, as I said, the only matter is whether the provision should be on the face of the Bill. My judgment is that, having gone this far and having got the efficient management of resources on the face of the Bill, logically it would make sense to say, "Well, yes, maybe they are doing as well as they can; but they can't do their education job properly because they didn't have enough resources in the first place". That is the reason for the amendment. After the remarks I made on Second Reading, I felt that I could not let the matter rest. Therefore, I draw the matter to the attention of the Committee and hope to get something by way of a positive response. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I should like first to express my agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Obviously resources have much to do with the

649
quality of education. That is what the inspectors will be measuring. The amendment before the Committee seeks to give registered inspectors the duty to report on the adequacy of resources.
It is certainly the duty of inspectors—whether HMI or registered inspectors—to report on the way in which resources affect the quality and standards of education being offered in schools. If they feel a lack of resources is having a detrimental effect on a particular school they must say so. That view will be made public in the published report. That is not in any doubt. It is precisely the way in which HMI has interpreted its remit over the years and the basis of the expenditure reports which the Government have published since the early 1980s.
But I do not oppose Amendment No. 103 simply because in that narrow sense I deem it unnecessary. I do so because I believe it to be misconceived. It cannot be for registered inspectors to comment on what the absolute level of education spending needs to be. Whether resources are "sufficient" for the broad purposes of the school is not simply a professional judgment. It will always be possible to spend more on education, as it is always possible to spend more on other public services. A judgment must be made by those accountable for public spending about how to balance those various purposes within available resources. Inspectors can report objectively on the effects of those decisions but not on such a subjective concept as "sufficiency".
The decision about what resources are allocated to individual schools is largely for local authorities. It is for them to make judgments about sufficiency in the light of competing claims on their budgets, just as the Secretary of State must do centrally. Schools in their turn must manage their budgets efficiently. That is what the registered inspector will chiefly be assessing.
Inspection evidence is one important factor which my right honourable friend considers when setting public expenditure plans each year. In future, because of the great increase in local inspection evidence, local authorities will also be able to take into account evidence about how their schools are doing and how they are affected by available resources. It is for inspectors to feed objective evidence into those important decisions but not to comment subjectively. That is why I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I have a brief comment to make. It is all very well for the Minister to say, as she has just said, that allocations are a matter for local decision. It is important for the Committee to realise the background to the matter. Since 1979 education has received a declining share of the gross national product—down from 5.5 per cent. to 4.6 per cent. Central government spending is 30 per cent. lower in real terms than in 1979–80 when the present Government came into power.
The prospects for education largely depend upon the criteria for local government capping. That is another aspect of the difficulties. Local authorities continue to face a squeeze on spending. Purchasing policies and priorities have had to contend with yet another education Bill. I should remind the
650
Committee that this is the fifth such Bill since 1979. The strategic role of local authority planning and the supply of services to schools have been severely undermined. The demands for a national curriculum, about which we hear so much in this Chamber, requires the necessary resources for a national education system which is locally delivered.
The latter are only a few of the matters which ought to be taken into account when considering the amendment which has just been moved by my noble friend Lord Peston. Unless we can get the background right—some of us have grave doubts about that in terms not just of money but as regards the whole question of resources, teacher supply, buildings and so on—the Government will not be able to deliver what they expect the Committee to accept in the context of the Bill. I hope that the amendment will be supported.
Baroness Seear: Did not the noble Baroness say that it was for the local authorities to judge sufficiency? How can they adequately judge sufficiency if they are not given the right to inspect?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: In reply first to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, local authorities have the full information resulting from the inspections. If they have cause to be concerned that something is out of line in a school, they have the right to inspect, but they will have a higher level of inspection information than was the case in the past when only 154 inspections were carried out in a year. On that basis, I believe that they can make judgments.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, perhaps I may quote figures that are somewhat less depressing than he would have the Committee believe. Spending per pupil in primary and secondary schools rose from £515 in 1979–80 to £1,485 in 1989–90, a real terms increase of more than 40 per cent. Spending per pupil in primary and secondary schools on books and equipment rose from £20 in 1979–80 to £55 in 1989–90, a real terms increase of more than 35 per cent. Spending per pupil in primary and secondary schools on repairs and maintenance rose from £28 in 1979–80 to £75 in 1989–90, a real terms increase of more than 30 per cent.
The local authority grant settlement for 1991–92 allows for local education authorities in England to spend £17,486 million on education, which is 16 per cent. higher than the 1990–91 total. The Government's recently confirmed proposals for the local authority grant settlement for 1992–93 allow for total spending by local authorities on education of more than £18.7 billion, which is an increase of 7.1 per cent. over this financial year. Furthermore, an additional £56.5 million has been made available to local education authorities in England to help them to meet the cost of the 1992 teachers' pay award.
I repeat my earlier statement that, of course, it is always possible to spend more on education and on other public services. However, there is no doubt that much has been spent. It is the quality of education that we are asking the inspectors to judge.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Before the noble Baroness sits down and in view of that battery of statistics, is she now saying that all the teachers' complaints have been unjustified?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Everyone will have a personal view about their own needs and requirements. As has been said on many occasions in this Chamber, difficult decisions must be reached about priorities in education and health. We are saying that that, to a very large extent, is for the judgment of the local education authorities.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may thank the noble Baroness for her reply. My noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington has made a number of good points but I suppose that to some extent they go slightly wide of our current scrutiny of the Bill. I shall reflect on how to get an entrée into the question of total resources because it is not a matter I can let go. I shall certainly read carefully what the noble Baroness said with a view to returning to the point that my noble friend made. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 104 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 5, line 38, at end insert:
("( ) the standard of behaviour which is regarded as acceptable at the school by—

(i) the governing body; and

(ii) the head teacher;

and
( ) the measures taken by the head teacher to—

(i) promote among pupils, self-discipline and proper regard for authority,

(ii) encourage good behaviour on the part of pupils, and

(iii) secure that the standard of behaviour of pupils is acceptable.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 107, which addresses the same point. We have been talking a lot about the means by which people assess the sort of schools to which they want to send their children. When one is inquiring about a school, one certainly inquires about its academic performance, and we have discussed that exhaustively. One wants to know what the children will know and learn as a result of going to that school, how they will behave while they are at the school and as a result of attending it, and the sort of people they will be. The trouble with legislation and with the material with which we have been dealing so far is that it is so mechanical that, although it may produce an accurate answer in mathematical terms, it does not do so in human terms. Anybody wanting to decide whether to send a child to school A or school B wants to know what sort of schools they are and will not be satisfied simply by looking at tables of statistics and results. That is not only for the reasons that have been adduced already —that what comes out of a school relates to some extent to what goes in—but also because pupils acquire more from a school than learning in the academic sense.
When I started addressing this problem I did so with a picture in my own mind of what constitutes a
652
good school in the non-academic sense. In my view, what constitutes a good school is a happy and purposeful community in which the staff lead unanimously towards a shared objective, which the children share also. A school is a good school if its pupils feel that, in a sense, they belong to it and, in an equally important sense, that it belongs to them. It is also important for the school to have relations with the community, but that is not the subject of the amendment.
I sought assurances earlier that in this all-important area, without which stark academic success on its own may be worse than a less good academic performance, there might be some way in which the inspectorate could be engaged in reporting on such things, other than by expressions of goodwill on the part of Her Majesty's Government and all those involved in the system. I started with the second of my two amendments —Amendment No. 107—which was handed to me. Some of its phraseology is not to be found on the face of ordinary statutes. As the phrase,
"the general atmosphere of the school"
would be difficult to define in a court, I started looking for provisions which were already on the statute book and which used language suitable for the occasion. I found precisely what I was looking for in Section 22 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. It states:
"The articles of government for every county, voluntary and maintained special school shall provide—

(a) for it to be the duty of the head teacher to determine measures (which may include the making of rules and provision for enforcing them) to be taken with a view to—

(i) promoting, among pupils, self-discipline and proper regard for authority;

(ii) encouraging good behaviour on the part of pupils;

(iii) securing that the standard of behaviour of pupils is acceptable; and

(iv)"

which I have unaccountably left out of my amendment,
"otherwise regulating the conduct of pupils".
To do that effectively, staff do not operate on their own. They have to work within a programme and to objectives that have been agreed with the governing body and by the head teacher. The code of behaviour should be worked out and agreed between the staff and the governing body. Ideally, it should also contain marked input from the pupils, which will make them recognise it as their code also. When one has that, the discipline of a school is not dependent merely on the staff enforcing the rules, but also on the pupils enforcing the rules on each other because they see that they are conducive to achieving the sort of community to which they want to belong. The pupils then find that they are members of the sort of school to which they want to belong and will resent damage to, or defacement of, the property just as they resent unsocial or anti-educational behaviour from their friends.
I hope that I have not spent too long describing what I am after. I hope that the Committee will recognise that the amendment provides for those policies to be agreed between the governing body and the head teacher and—it goes without saying—with the rest of the staff. The amendment addresses all those aspects of school behaviour, bar one, that are mentioned in the Education (No. 2) Act. I am

653
confident that the language is correct. I am confident that the objectives are correct. I am not so confident that I shall not be told that the aim will be achieved by some other means. I await with great interest my noble friend's reply. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness David: I support the noble Lord on Amendment No. 107 in particular. I appreciate he chose to table Amendment No. 105 because of using the words of Section 2 of the 1986 Act, but I prefer Amendment No. 107 because it looks at the whole life of the school not just discipline, stance and behaviour. When the All-Party Group for Children had a meeting about the Bill, I remember that he mentioned the need for inspectors to see ancillary staff as well as teachers. Amendment No. 107 includes the relationship between staff, pupils and other members of the school community. It also covers the school's physical environment which, given the state of repair of a good many of the schools in the maintained sector, could well be a crucial factor in assessing the success of the whole school generally. I support Amendment No. 107 in particular.
Lord Elton: It may be appropriate for me to mention now that the term "staff' includes of course all the staff. The noble Baroness has given a nice little illustration of the way that too many people assume that it does not. The staffroom does not have all the staff in it. Many of the staff are in the kitchen, the playground or the caretaker's hut. But they are staff, and if that is forgotten a valuable aspect of the school community is lost sight of and discipline or behaviour is weakened as a result.
Baroness David: I heartily agree with that. I should be surprised if many members of the ancillary staff are found in what is usually called the staffroom.
Baroness Blatch: I shall start by wishing my noble friend a happy birthday. I have only just discovered that that is what it is today. It is entirely characteristic that he should be sitting in the Chamber at this hour of night fighting for what I know he believes to be in the best interests of the education system and the children.
The Committee appreciates my noble friend's special interest in the whole question of discipline, behaviour and atmosphere in schools. He has a very particular knowledge of those matters as a result of his expert chairmanship of an inquiry a little while ago into school discipline. He has taken care to model Amendment No. 105 on the relevant section of the 1986 Education Act (Section 22) which sets out the particular responsibilities in disciplinary matters of the governing body and the head teacher.
We have agreed to consider adding some general words to the Bill to make it clear that all aspects of school life—not just the subjects taught to pupils in lessons time—are to be covered by the report. That is very much in the spirit of Amendment No. 107. I suggested in our debates that the spirit of Amendments Nos. 107 and 105 might be served by
654
adding the concept of social development to those of spiritual, moral and cultural development urged upon us by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and others.
I hope that my noble friend will agree that such an amendment would also render Amendment No. 105 unnecessary. That amendment deals in detail with just one aspect of the report. I accept it is an important aspect, but it is one which, given the need to report on the development of values within the school, inspectors clearly could not ignore, as was said by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady David.
My noble friend will recognise that the Bill is only intended to set the broad framework within which HMCI's guidelines will operate. Clause 9(4) does that in six lines at present. An addition on values might add a further two or three lines, but I believe that it would unbalance the draft if we were to add 11 more detailed lines on discipline and behaviour without parallel additions on other matters.
The adjustments that we are considering will establish clearly that matters such as discipline and behaviour policy are proper concerns of the inspectors. I hope that my noble friend will agree that we do not need to go beyond that in primary statute.
Lord Northbourne: I welcome the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and agree with him about the importance of the leadership given by staff, the ethos of the school, the involvement of pupils and their feeling of belonging. I am a child in matters of drafting. I do not know how the amendments can most usefully be integrated into the amendments which the Minister has suggested that she might bring back and which I originally proposed. I support the principle behind the amendments, especially Amendment No. 105. I should be happy if a reference to social development were included in the amendments, as I suggested.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, for their interventions. I should be grateful if my noble friend could manage to get her suggested drafting of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, with the addition of the social element, onto the Order Paper as soon as possible so that I might have a chance to look at it to decide whether it is sufficient or whether I should add something else.
I should like also to emphasise the importance I attach to the matter. So often the first thing one hears about a school is the disgraceful behaviour of its pupils. From that moment the school is sunk within the community. The way that pupils behave within the community springs largely from the way they are encouraged or allowed to behave in their schools. It is worth giving some weight to that aspect of the matter. The Secretary of State or HMCI may by direction or regulation be able to ensure that what I regard as an essential aspect of school management should be the subject of a specific report. Together with that, an amendment to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, might suffice. With those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 5, line 38, at end insert:
("(4A) The registered inspector shall inspect—

(a) details of punishments administered to any child in the school, and

(b) details of any complaints made by any person about the school.

(4B) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to—

(a) the manner and form in which punishments shall be recorded, and

(b) the procedures to be established for consideration of complaints about schools.").

The noble Baroness said: The amendment aims to introduce inspections of punishment books and details of complaints. It is possible for schools and other institutions to disguise failings during an inspection visit. One way of revealing problems which have occurred since the previous inspection is to look at the record of complaints and the punishment book. The amendment requires inspectors to examine those records. It mirrors provisions made under the Children Act for the inspection of residential child care institutions and independent schools with boarding facilities.
At present, only special schools are legally required to keep a punishment book. There are no requirements for schools to establish complaints procedures for parents and others, except on aspects of the national curriculum. Again, under social services and health legislation, most other public institutions are required to have complaints procedures for their consumers.
The second part of the amendment allows the Secretary of State to make regulations on those two matters. The Government will undoubtedly announce that the governors are already under a duty to establish a complaints procedure, but the only requirement, as I said, is to establish arrangements for considering complaints against the school curriculum. That comes under Section 23 of the 1986 Act.
The DES circular on that duty makes it clear, for example, that those procedures would not be used for complaints about the actions of individual teachers or the head teacher. That is a common complaint. Given that all other institutions for children have established complaints procedure, many incorporating independent elements, it is outrageous that schools do not.
At the all-party meeting, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who has now left the Chamber, said that he thought that punishment books would be too bureaucratic, but given the conflicts about punishment which arise and the degree to which people disagree about the level of misbehaviour in a school, it is essential that all formal punishments are recorded accurately. It is difficult to see why education establishments should be treated differently from establishments set up by social services and health legislation. If the Minister does not accept the amendment, I hope that she will give a full explanation as to why there should be that distinction.
If the wording of the amendment is not acceptable, perhaps the Minister could take it away and come forward with another amendment which covers this important consideration. Under the Citizen's Charter
656
complaints can be made. It would be odd, therefore, if the amendment were not to be accepted. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: In the groupings, this amendment is linked with Amendment No. 108A. Is the noble Baroness moving both amendments?
Baroness David: My noble friend Lady Blackstone was going to move Amendment No. 108A but she does not wish to do so and this is another occasion when we shall not speak to an amendment. I am sorry I did not make that clear.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the noble Baroness, Lady David. Punishment books in children's homes taught one a great deal, as much about the staff as the children, and were extremely useful. I am sad that I did not ask for the insertion of a paragraph (c) on non-school attendance. It is important that attendance records should be noted, particularly for children who do not attend school.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I have listened to the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady David, in support of the amendment. It has been carefully drafted to stay within the scope of the Bill but we inferred that the real intention was to establish a formal system of recording punishments and complaints in each school.
This is a matter which we believe is quite properly left to heads and governors as part of their responsibilities. We should be very much against drawing up statutory regulations which create a whole new set of definitions of various forms of punishments or complaints. It is very difficult to know where we might draw the line between, for example, where a reproving word becomes a punishment, or when a concerned query turns into a complaint. In the case of corporal punishment, now banned from our schools, there was one clearly defined type of punishment on which, for obvious reasons, records had to be kept. But there has never been a requirement to record the use of the wide range of other disciplinary measures found in any school. We do not need to invent such a requirement now.
The head teacher has the prime responsibility for securing proper standards of behaviour and disciplinary measures. Governing bodies already have the right under the 1986 Act to produce a written statement of general principles regarding discipline, in accordance with which the head teacher must act. That seems to me a sensible distribution of functions and a sufficient description in legislation of what is required.
In the case of complaints about the curriculum, under the 1988 Act all local authorities must establish procedures for the consideration of such complaints, and have them approved by the Secretary of State. We chose that route deliberately to allow for flexibility rather than the imposition of one national pattern through regulations.
I certainly do not accept that registered inspectors will be unable to report effectively without access to standard records. They will be looking at discipline in all its aspects during their inspection and will be looking to see how it affects the ethos of the school

657
and relationships between staff and pupils. The policies expressed, and records kept, will form part of the evidence and inspectors would no doubt express concern in their report if the school had no idea about how often its major disciplinary sanctions were used. Inspectors will certainly also look at relations with parents and the wider community, and at how outside representations of all kinds are dealt with. Perhaps most importantly, through the meeting with parents which the Bill requires, inspectors will have direct access to first-hand views from parents and will pick up any concerns on those points.
Before the 1986 Act, when corporal punishment was lawful in maintained schools, there was a requirement that the head should keep a punishment book recording all instances of corporal punishment. The requirement was withdrawn formally in 1991. Some maintained schools still retain punishment books from choice, but with the abolition of corporal punishment their significance diminished.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull raised the matter of attendance, which is one of the issues with which the inspector will be concerned, together with punishment books. We would not wish to see them reinstated. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Lord Glenamara: I do not know what is happening, I find myself for the second time agreeing with the Minister and against the amendment. It seems to me that it would do exactly what we complained about the Government doing under the Education Reform Act 1988. It lays down the minutiae of the running of schools, which is a matter for teachers and their professional judgment. Punishment books used to be kept in the days of corporal punishment. I made dozens of entries in one, but it is not necessary today.
As the Minister said, where does one draw the line? Jimmy was detained for 10 minutes after 4 o'clock; Willie had to spend half an hour picking up papers in the school field; or someone else had to write 10 lines. Where do we draw the line? It is absurd to say that punishment today should be recorded in a book. I am sorry to hear that some schools still keep punishment books. I hope they will burn them straightaway.
Secondly, as any head teacher will know, schools receive dozens of complaints. Most simply require an explanation from the head teacher, or someone else. Should we keep a record of these? I hope not. If there is a serious complaint, then of course it should be recorded in the log book of the school. But for heaven's sake let us not impose any petty new regulations of this kind upon our schools. We should leave it to the professional judgment of the teachers.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. He puts it concisely and precisely from his experience.
Baroness David: I do not wish to be rude to my noble friend, but his experience as a head was quite a long time ago. I would not dare to divide the Committee after what he said. He supported the
658
Government, but the Government saw fit in the Children Act and the Health Act to retain records of punishments and complaints.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. It can be left to heads and governors, but one would not altogether trust some of them. I shall read carefully all that has been said on all sides of the Committee and decide whether to conic back with the same or a slightly different amendment at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Atnendments Nos. 108A to 110 not moved.]
8.45 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 5, line 45, leave out from ("the") to end of line and insert ("Chief Inspector for England or Wales as the case may be").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name, that of my noble friend Lord Young of Dartington and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The purpose of the amendment is to try, yet again, to see whether we can make sense of the Government's legislation.
The Bill has been referred to as "silly" and I do not dissent from that. However, when we are in Committee we have at least some duty to say "Let's see whether we can convert the provisions before us into something more sensible". The purpose of the amendment, on a theme which we have debated previously, is to add some sense to the Bill. If we ask what is the most objectionable part of the Bill, it is a difficult question to answer. There are several contenders for the title. The privatisation of the inspectorate is one, but it is nowhere near being the most stupid.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, pointed out the notion of competitive tendering, and it is certainly a contender for the most bizarre part of the Bill, but I believe that the prize must go to whoever thought up the idea that schools should choose their own inspectors. That seems to me to beat almost anything that I could think of if I were asked to think of the silliest provision possible. When I was a young man in the Civil Service we used to play a game where we tried to think of the most stupid provision we could put before a Minister. Whoever drafted this part of the Bill has beaten anything I ever thought of when I was in the public service. I was quite good at inventing idiotic activities for Ministers.
Lord Borthwick: Oh!
Lord Peston: Some of those provisions may even have got into legislation. Perhaps that is what the noble Lord was referring to. The notion that one can choose one's own inspector is ridiculous. Every time I look at it I wonder how the draftsman could possibly have thought that was a good idea. That provision also involves elaborate bureaucracy which in a sense limits the choice.
I believe that the way into the problem is to return to that part of the Bill which concerns an appropriate authority and essentially change how we would define that appropriate authority. This amendment is simple

659
and it does not wreck the Bill. On the contrary it moves the Bill into an area of potential rationality rather than the reverse. The amendment removes a school's governing body from the appropriate authority list. I refer to the bottom of page 5 of the Bill. The amendment essentially removes the final part of subsection (5) (c) of Clause 9 and substitutes the words:
"Chief Inspector for England or Wales as the case may be".
The amendment seeks to state simply that an independent person—someone who is not in the school—will choose the inspectors. I shall not get into the business of tendering at this point. The amendment seems to me at least to provide the one simple safeguard that we need. Given the fact that essentially the Government have accepted the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, which will involve considering this matter in great detail—at no point did the Minister answer my question as to why it was not bureaucratic to accept that amendment whereas other amendments have been rejected on the basis that they are bureaucratic—and given the fact that the Government have accepted what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, had in mind, it would be sensible to move with this amendment; namely, to determine that the chief inspector should be the central element in terms of choosing who will inspect the schools. That will guarantee the independence we need. Those of us who believe in state education in this country and who send our children to state schools—
Baroness Blatch: Oh!
Lord Peston: The noble Baroness must not be sensitive. I did not imply that no Conservative Members sent their children to state schools. However, I wish that more did so. We should be much more impressed with reports of inspections that were carried out independently by the chief inspector. If I were rewriting this legislation, I could think of other ways of tackling this matter but I have to work with the existing material which is this Bill. Therefore I commend the amendment to the Committee. I believe it improves the Bill as it would remove what I consider to be the Bill's weakest part. I hope the Committee will feel able to support the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: We on these Benches support this amendment wholeheartedly. I know the noble Baroness will say this is a wrecking amendment. I assure her it is not a wrecking amendment. The Bill is about improving inspection. We all want to improve inspection. The Bill is about improving the quality of education. We all want to improve the quality of education. Those two things are closely linked with all the changes that are going on in education at the present time. The only way in which we can be sure—as far as one can ever be sure about anything—that we are improving education, in view of the many changes that are taking place, is by having the highest possible quality of inspection.
It will be said that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has dealt with the objection that was made to the governors choosing their own
660
inspectors. His amendment improved that matter to some extent but the governors are still left with the final choice, even though the people from whom they choose have been previously vetted. In our view good inspection requires genuine inspection. We believe that the inspectors should be in every way totally independent from the people they are inspecting. That is the heart of the matter. Although the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, went a considerable way in that direction, it did not go the whole way. We believe our amendment is at the heart of obtaining good inspection and that good inspection is at the heart of obtaining the quality of education that we require.
The Government will argue that governors want good inspection and that they are interested in obtaining the best possible inspection. I find it difficult to accept that argument. The governors—if they are doing what we want governors to do—are themselves closely involved in the running and the management of the school. We want them to be closely involved in that. That is what they are there for. They will identify with the school and they will be sensitive to criticisms about the school. Any one of us who has run an organisation knows that that is the case. One is committed to the organisation of which one is a governor. One does not wish to see bad reports of that organisation. One may say that governors are so broadminded and high-minded that they will willingly accept adverse criticism. I think that is pie in the sky, frankly. Governors will want to obtain good inspection reports and they will tend to approach people from whom they think they will obtain good inspection reports.
Then there are the doubts about financing. We did not sort that matter out satisfactorily before the dinner break. We did not determine what constituted good value in terms of inspection. Is it good value to obtain the minimum adequate inspection for the lowest possible amount of money? That is one interpretation of what good value means. That is especially valid as an interpretation as we were told that schools that saved money on inspection could use it for other purposes in the school. That provision will be a considerable temptation for governors.
Many of these new educational experiments—they are exciting in many ways—are bound to go wrong in a number of places as no one has ever yet invented a new scheme that has not gone wrong somewhere. This is the time of all times when we need to obtain the best possible quality and the most independent inspections. As long as the nonsense persists of people choosing their own inspectors the best quality of inspection will not be obtained and no one will believe that it will be obtained.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: There may be a slight feeling of déjà vu about this amendment. It would not be surprising if the Committee felt it had heard some of these arguments before as earlier today the noble Baroness, Lady David, moved Amendment No. 1088, which would have had the effect of deleting the whole of subsection (5). Now we are discussing deleting only part of subsection (5) (c).

661
Last week the then Amendment No. 109 was discussed. That amendment attempted to modify in a radical way the notion of "appropriate authority". It appears that we keep on returning to this concept of appropriate authority. Due to a grouping that I do not understand, we shall return to it again under Amendment No. 157A. In my view, it might have been much more convenient to deal with the whole boiling here and now.
I speak in these terms because I made effectively the same speech in relation to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady David, a little while ago, in which I pointed out that changing the appropriate authority in this way in some places and not in others leads to rather curious outcomes. Certainly, as regards Schedule 2 and the action plans, the appropriate authority is responsible for various aspects of the action plans. However, if Amendment No. 157A is adopted, that will not be the case. That is fair enough.
I should like to point out to noble Lords opposite, who have used strong language on a number of issues, that they have left the term "appropriate authority" in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 headed "Meeting with parents" to which, so far as I am aware, no amendments have been set down. The same applies to paragraph 9 dealing with inspectors' reports where the term "appropriate authority" appears in subparagraphs (3) and (5). Therefore, the chief inspector is left with the duty of communicating with all the parents of all the schools for which he has general responsibility under the terms of the amendment.
Although the intention may be to remove such matters from the governors, where many feel those particular aspects of Schedule 2 properly belong, they are being put in the hands of the chief inspector. He cannot be expected to communicate with the parents of every child in the country, which is very nearly what is suggested here. The amendments have not been thought through competently so that the term "appropriate authority" is dealt with everywhere it appears in Schedule 2.
I have some sympathy with the notion that the governors are not the appropriate people to select the registered inspector, but I hope that that point may have been dealt with effectively in the amendment which I proposed and which has been accepted. I must take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who said that the ultimate power lies with the governors. The ultimate power is the power of veto which, under the terms of the amendment which was proposed and accepted, will lie with the chief inspector or his representative.
We keep returning to the term "appropriate authority" and apparently are doomed to do so again under Amendment No. 157A. Each time we seem to do so in a way which does not deal comprehensively or satisfactorily with the various aspects—which are really governors' aspects. Arranging meetings with parents or disseminating reports are appropriate matters for the governors and scarcely for the chief inspector.
9 p.m.
Baroness Seear: We are dealing with Amendment No. 111. If there are errors in subsequent amendments we can deal with those when the amendments are reached. The point under discussion now is the inappropriateness of the governors choosing their own inspectors. The noble Lord may well be right in his other criticisms, but that is what we are talking about now.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: The purpose is to redefine the "appropriate authority." If one redefines "appropriate authority" in one place one redefines it throughout the Bill. Noble Lords must give attention to the consequences of their amendments.
Baroness Seear: We do not say that we shall not, but we say that at the moment we are dealing with one particular issue.
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend makes a very good point. We have to deal with what is before us. What is before us is, in isolation, defective because it does not deal comprehensively with the objective of the amendment as set out by the noble Baroness.
The amendment seeks to tear the heart out of the Bill by substituting a centralised regime in place of a system based upon choices by governing bodies. The noble Baroness said that I would be likely to proclaim this a wrecking amendment. It is just that. It would replace the Government's preferred scheme with another scheme. It is not a wrecking amendment in that schools would not be inspected but it totally invalidates the scheme which is set out in the Bill.
The amendment would require the chief inspector to arrange every individual inspection—over 6,000 every year. As my noble friend Lord Renfrew pointed out, Amendment No. 111 would make the chief inspector the appropriate authority for every school. That would mean that he also had to arrange the meeting with parents, distribute the report, draw up the action plan and report on progress with its implementation.
In pointing out that effect of the amendment, I am not simply making a drafting point. I want Members of the Committee to realise that the amendment removes a key element of our proposals, namely that those choosing the inspectors should also be responsible and publicly answerable both for the current state of the school and for taking action on the recommendations which flow from the inspections. We believe that that direct link is a major strength and that school inspections should be arranged locally by those with the principal concern and duty for securing improvements.
One of the enduring faults of the present arrangements is that the LEA established inspection does not lead to the improvements we ought to expect because those directly connected with the schools—the governors—have not been directly responsible for initiating the process. Because they are not responsible for initiating the inspection they are less committed to taking action on the outcome.
We discussed those issues in some detail under Amendment No. 32 and rejected the centralised

663
approach in favour of strengthening the Bill as proposed by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. We shall face this debate again and again as we reach further amendments. My noble friend Lord Renfrew was right to point out the degree of repetition in the amendments. As I told the Committee last week, if school inspection on the scale now planned were to be managed centrally we should be setting up an enormous new bureaucracy—an office filled not by inspectors but by administrators.
I am confident that as now amended the Bill offers all the safeguards which the amendment purports to offer but in a much more appropriate way. The need for such safeguards does not detract from the central argument that if inspection is to be a positive force and is to feed into the cycle of planning for progress it is best arranged at school level. Only in that way shall we gain maximum benefit from the greatly increased inspection activity which we propose and secure the higher standards which we all agree are so necessary. I believe that the amendment should be rejected.
Lord Glenamara: As I understand the clause its purpose is to ensure that a school is inspected at prescribed intervals by the registered inspector. It lays down what the appropriate authority for doing that should be and what the inspector should report on. The amendment does not in any way change the criteria on which the inspector should report. It changes the appropriate authority. In the case of a maintained school without a delegated budget the LEA is the appropriate authority. We do not propose to change that. In the case of a maintained school with a delegated budget the governors are the appropriate authority. We propose to make it the chief inspector. In the case of a grant-maintained school the governors are the appropriate authority. We propose to make that the chief inspector. Therefore, there are three categories of school. For one category the appropriate authority is the local authority. How on earth are we tearing the heart out of the clause when one category is already the local authority?
This weekend I visited a small town in the Pennines surrounded by dozens of miles of moors. In the middle of that little town is a school with, presumably, a body of governors. Schools are often in isolated communities and it is quite possible for governors not to bother about inspections. Indeed last week we were told of a school which had not been inspected for 15 years. Nobody checks up. There is no provision for anybody to check.
If it is unacceptable to the Government to put that duty in the hands of local authorities, we believe that there should be a central check and that check should be the chief inspector. We are told that many schools will become grant aided and that if this Government are returned to office in a few years' time most schools will be grant aided. What is the objection to the amendment? Why do the Government object to it? It seems to be eminently sensible and it does not in any way tear out the heart of the Bill, as the noble Baroness said.
Baroness Blatch: My understanding of the amendment is that the school's governing body is replaced by the chief inspector as the appropriate authority. That means that all the obligations and powers that we have given to governing bodies so far as this section applies are put upon the chief inspector. That is the fundamental difference between us. We have decided that the proper authority for these purposes shall be the governing body. Noble Lords opposite have decided that inspections shall be arranged by the chief inspector.
Lord Peston: I thank my noble friend Lord Glenamara for making a number of points that I would otherwise have made and so I do not have to go over them again. I also thank the noble Baroness because she made very clear the difference between us. It is precisely as she said. We concentrate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, on Section 9 in order to get somewhere with the notion that a school should not choose its own inspectors. Those who are sympathetic to our point of view should support this amendment because all the remaining consequences to action plans can be dealt with in subsequent amendments to the Bill. There is no difficulty other than a drafting matter.
I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that I do not intend to move every single amendment along these lines from now until four o'clock in the morning. Even I find it boring to hear myself use the same speech several times in a row. But recycling is the spirit of the day.
The noble Baroness put the position as clearly as she could, but since we disagree I think it would be worth while placing on record our disagreement. I ask the opinion of the Committee.
9.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 111) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 67.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Falkender, B.

Addington, L.

Falkland, V.

Airedale, L.

Foot, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gallacher, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Galpern, L.

Barnett, L.

Glenamara, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Beloff, L.

Gregson, L.

Birk, B.

Grey, E.

Blackstone, B.

Hampton, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hamwee, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hollick, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hooson, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Howie of Troon, L.

David, B.

Hughes, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Desai, L.

Jay, L.

Donoughue, L.

Jeger, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ennals, L.

Judd, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Ezra, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

665

Lovell-Davis, L.

Seear, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Serota, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Shackleton, L.

McNair, L.

Stallard, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mayhew, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mishcon, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Molloy, L.

Tordoff, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Underhill, L.

Nicol, B.

Varley, L.

Ogmore, L.

Warnock, B.

Peston, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Whaddon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

White, B.

Rea, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Richard, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L. [Teller.]

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Rochester, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Russell, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Killearn, L.

Arran, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Astor, V.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boardman, L.

Lyell, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Marlesford, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnock, L.

Northbourne, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Coleraine, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cox, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Denham, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Reay, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Elton, L.

Rennell, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Selborne, E.

Greenway, L.

Selsdon, L.

Gridley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Strange, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Harvington, L.

Henley, L.

Swinton, E.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Teviot, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hooper, B.

Trumpington, B.

Howe, E.

Ullswater, V.

Huntly, M.

Waddington, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.20 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley moved Amendment No. 111A:
Page 5, line 45, at end insert:
("(5A) Subject to subsection (5B) below, any local education authority may cause an inspection to be made of any school maintained by the authority to which subsection (5) (a) or (5) (c) above refers, and any such inspection shall be made by officers appointed by the local education authority.
(5B) Any inspection to which subsection (5A) above refers shall be conducted so as to enable the authority to exercise its statutory functions, except that the authority shall have no power to conduct an inspection of the kind required under subsections (1) or (2) above other than in accordance with sections 10 and 15 below and Part I of Schedule 2 to this Act.").
The noble Earl said: The force of Schedules 4 and 5 to this Bill will be to repeal that part of the Education Act 1944 which gives to an LEA the power to inspect its own schools. We believe this is wrong in principle and practice. This amendment seeks to restore that power, but only in cases where it is strictly necessary. In so doing it aims to meet the concerns which prompted the Government to restrict LEAs' powers in the first place.
The wording is quite straightforward. It concerns all local authority schools, but not of course grant-maintained schools. It applies only in pursuit of an LEA's statutory functions. And it expressly excludes full formal inspections of the type provided for in this Bill, for which an LEA will have to go through the procedures like everyone else.
It is really the statutory functions that are the nub. On this narrow issue, there are areas where LEAs must be entitled to go in and inspect, for they carry the can in law.
The Government have argued that it is not necessary to specify these powers because they are implicit. I do not propose to go into all the arguments in detail here. There is no case law, and no one knows at what point, for example, a visit to a school becomes an "inspection". I am fairly sure that a court of law would look at the Government's repeal of the 1944 power to inspect and would conclude that LEAs were not entitled to have it. I do not believe that we can let such an important issue rest on an inference. This amendment poses no threat to the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: From these Benches, I support the amendment.
Lord Teviot: I expected to join in the debate much later. My comments apply to the county of West Sussex, which my noble friend will know is one of the good boys, in that it was one of the nine out of 116 authorities which had inspections. An amendment was moved in another place supported by Terence Higgins of Worthing, Anthony Nelson of Chichester, Sir Peter Hordern of Horsham and Nicholas Soames of Crawley. I was going to join in the debate on Amendments Nos. 204 and 206 but Members of the Committee would not like me to make the points I wished to make at that time.
However, the noble Earl has given me an opportunity to join in the debate, which I now do with some trepidation. These important requirements are still in force. Therefore, it is necessary that the local education authorities should continue to have the ability to ensure that the statutory duties are carried out and that the necessary guarantees and safeguards are available to parents and the local community.
In recent years, and in particular following the implementation of the Education Reform Act 1988, governors and head teachers have been given significantly increased powers, especially through the provision of local management of schools. Those developments have been widely welcomed, but it is essential that the education service continues to operate as a partnership, recognising the responsibilities of both governors and LEAs. The LEA continues

667
to be an important guarantee of both quality and standards and is a vital agency for investigating complaints or worries. I believe it to be necessary to have a local body outside the school which can be relied on to safeguard the interests and meet the proper anxieties of parents and local charge payers.
There is a good deal of unhappiness about the proposed model of education advocated by the Government. That relies solely on a full inspection carried out only once every four years, with nothing in between. Many LEAs regard that as inadequate. It is essential that there should be available a review of the practice of education at every school. It will be more satisfactory to governors to be given the freedom to choose a more flexible and frequent form of inspection provided that it meets the present necessary criteria. It will not be satisfactory for LEAs, when asked about the quality provision at any of their schools, to have to reply that they knew it was inadequate but that that information was based on a report which was three and a half years out of date.
My noble friend Lady Blatch said:
"Of course there will be inspectoral activity between the four-yearly inspections.—[Official Report, 11/2/92; col. 678.]
That is fully appreciated but it would be extremely helpful if my noble friend could clarify exactly what is meant by that. Perhaps she will give an undertaking that the LEAs will be able to retain sufficient finance to ensure that it is possible for them to conduct such interim inspections as are necessary. It will be helpful also if the Government can state unequivocally that they intend to leave with the LEAs the financial advisory support and follow-up activity after school inspections and that the funds for that will not also be transferred to school governors.
In the county of West Sussex, less than 2 per cent. of the total education budget is spent on central administration at County Hall, which must surely be cost effective. Despite that low expenditure, it can still provide 13 schools with a full school inspection. I have seen a variety of school reports which appeared to be comprehensive and not as boring as those my noble friend Lady Young mentioned today. Each department is seen every four years and in the case of mathematics, English and science, every second year. Added to that, there are 5,000 classroom visits.
My noble friend said that that kind of education authority will benefit by the Bill. I should like her to go a little further. The West Sussex education authority and others are slightly anxious that all their efforts to attain high standards are now in jeopardy.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: Before the Minister replies to the detailed questions of my noble friend, I should like to turn to the general thrust of the amendment and ask why those noble Lords who tabled it believe it to be necessary. It is clear from Clause 15 of the Bill that any local education authority will continue to be able to provide inspection services and, provided it has the consent of the school, will be able to inspect as often as it wishes. The inspectors could pop in once a year, once a term or whenever the school and they agreed that it was useful and helpful so to do.
668
Conversely, the statutory duties of the local education authority in respect of the standards within the school and its general conduct mean that if there was serious cause for concern within a school, no doubt again the local authority would have not only a right but also a duty to inspect and find out what was going wrong. The only possible instance therefore in which this power would be needed or used is when there was no cause for concern—in other words, if the school were performing satisfactorily in every way and the external data published about it and the inspection reports from the registered inspectors were positive—yet for some reason the school did not wish to co-operate with the local authority. The school may not wish the inspectors to attend but the local authority insists that they should. That would be a strange power. The need for it would arise only rarely. We would question the motives of the local authority in wishing to make an inspection when there was no cause for concern about the school and the school objected to such an inspection. For that reason I do not believe that the amendment is either desirable or necessary.
Lord Elton: There is an interesting fluctuation in the attendance in the Chamber. There is an equally interesting fluctuation in the attention paid by Members opposite to speeches made by Members on this side. It clearly takes some time for them to focus their attention on what is being said and therefore there is no cause to make haste in one's delivery because one wishes Members opposite to have time to collect their thoughts and to pay attention to the point one will doubtless eventually make.
I do not address my question to my noble friend the Minister. It is addressed to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester in absentia, to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, or to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee. It is a fairly simple one which I am sure they will be able to answer in simple terms. But I have become lost in the double negatives contained in the proposed subsection (5B).
As I read the amendment, subsection (5A) is subject to subsection (5B) and includes an exclusion; that is, subsections (5) (a) or (5) (c) of the Bill are excluded. I take it that the institutions excluded from the operation of the subsection are excluded because of the locus of the local authority in their case. If I am wrong I should like to be corrected.
More difficult to follow are the provisions contained in subsection (5B) which states,
"Any inspection to which subsection (5A) above refers shall be conducted so as to enable the authority to exercise its statutory functions, except that the authority shall have no power to conduct an inspection of the kind required under subsections (1) or (2) above other than in accordance with sections 10 and 15 below and Part I of Schedule 2 to this Act".
I did not hear the noble Earl explain what was the result of that intricate cross-referencing of statute. If he is going to ask us to vote on it, as I begin to believe it just possible that he might, I should be grateful if he would explain what it is we are voting on in that respect.
9.30 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I do not believe that there is any need to get lost in this matter. It is quite a simple interpretation. Inspections can be done in pursuit of their statutory functions, but not the full paraphernalia for which the Bill otherwise provides. That is subsection (2) and Clauses 10 and 15. To me it is perfectly clear.
Lord Elton: In that case why is it necessary to refer to Part I of Schedule 2 at all?
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Because, as I understand it, that is an integral part of all the inspection arrangements.
Baroness Blatch: I have absolutely no quarrel with Members of the Committee who have argued that LEAs, with their overall responsibility for ensuring that the schools they maintain offer sufficient and suitable education, cannot be excluded from those schools when they need to take action. But we have to be sure that we establish the right balance of powers in this as in any other respect. The 1944 Act left all power in effect with the LEAs. Governors' responsibilities were very limited and those of head teachers not separately defined.
We have moved a long way from that position. The 1986 and 1988 Acts defined the margins of the LEAs', the governors' and the heads' responsibilities. The LEA has an overall planning role, allocates resources and offers services to its schools. The governors bear the main responsibility for the management of the school, for deciding how the budget is to be spent, for appointing and removing staff, for setting curriculum aims and preparing the school development plan. The head will advise on and participate in those decisions and is then responsible for implementing agreed policies and for the day-to-day running of the school.
That balance is reflected in the 1988 Act. Local authorities and governors are each required to discharge their various functions so as to secure that the national curriculum is implemented and that the curriculum meets the broad aims of Section 1 of the Education Reform Act. The head teacher is placed under the absolute duty to see that the national curriculum is delivered. Alongside these changes in role we have been increasing the regular flow of information from schools to parents and to local education authorities. It seems incredible that before local management most authorities simply did not know how much was being spent on individual schools within their area. Now that is public knowledge. National curriculum assessment results are becoming available so that local education authorities can see how all their schools are doing against local and national averages.
We shall extend that principle to other indicators such as pupils' destinations and attendance rates. When the Bill is implemented every school will be the subject every four years of a detailed and comprehensive report applying Her Majesty's Inspectorate standards to the quality of education as well as to an examination of standards of achievement and financial management.
670
I rehearse these matters to set the specific debate about LEA rights of access in its proper context. I do not believe that it is possible to escape the conclusion that, following our reforms, local authorities already know a good deal more about what is going on in their schools than they did a decade ago and will soon know more. If they want to be better informed on any specific matter they have the right under the 1986 Act to call for a written report. The governing body will be obliged to respond. Of course the regular flow of written information will not be the only way in which local authorities keep in touch with their schools. They will remain able to offer advice and support in a range of ways. Most school governors and head teachers welcome that.
It is an obvious benefit to a school to have available a range of legal, financial and educational advice. In those circumstances no problem arises. LEA officers visit the school because it is mutually agreed that when they are in the school what they do then can be called anything one wishes—"inspection", if one likes. They do not need an explicit power to inspect, just as they have no explicit power to advise schools but have been doing so for many years. So in the vast majority of cases things will go on as they do now, not because of some defiant right of entry but because all parties are content.
The issue of substance that we need to address is this. At what point should an LEA be able to require the governors, rather than simply request them, to allow its officers to look at the school? Section 77(3) of the 1944 Act left that entirely to the LEA. At any time, with whatever justification, the LEA could enter a school against the wishes of the governors. If we had retained that subsection the local authority could go into a school the week after a favourable report from registered inspectors and publish its own report against very different criteria. The governors would be guilty of a criminal offence if they resisted. It has been suggested that no sensible LEA would act like that. I must remind the Committee that no sensible governing body would want to keep their LEA out without very good reason.
The issue in this debate is: what powers are needed when common sense breaks down on one side or the other? I cannot believe that a draconian power of enforceable entry at any time is needed, or that it is appropriate, given the greater autonomy and direct accountability which our reforms have given to governors. That is why we plan to repeal Section 77(3). We believe that entry should be enforceable only where the LEA can show just cause and can demonstrate that it needs such access to enable it to discharge its statutory functions. That is the position that will obtain once Section 77(3) is dropped.
There is an implicit duty of co-operation within all relevant statutes. It is unreasonable for anyone to act in a way which prevents another person from meeting his or her statutory obligations. That applies to governing bodies in relation to LEAs. It would be unreasonable for a governing body to refuse the LEA access where that was necessary for the LEA to carry out its duties. If the governors were to be

671
unreasonable the Secretary of State could use his powers under Section 68 of the 1944 Act to direct them to co-operate.
The statutory obligations in question might be very specific—to investigate complaints, to check up on health and safety matters, to make provision for a pupil with special educational needs—or they might be the general duties under the 1944 Act to ensure that sufficient and suitable education is being provided. If an LEA has good reason for concern it may enter the school to seek further evidence and might, in extreme cases, withdraw the delegated budget and take over the effective management of the school.
I fail to see why this should not provide a perfectly adequate fall-back position in the few hard cases of disagreement between governors and LEAs. The power to take governors to court under Section 77(4) is very rarely used. It is the knowledge that it exists which secures co-operation. In the same way, the knowledge that the Secretary of State might step in under Section 68 will do the trick in most cases.
I hope that what I have said about the powers of LEAs under this Bill has been sufficient to reassure those who support Amendment No. 111A that it is simply not needed. We share their aims to make sure that the LEAs have the powers they need but not the power to interfere unnecessarily.
Amendment No. 111A seems to have been drafted in such a way as to limit the LEAs' powers to intervene, although its effect is not entirely clear. I must repeat that an authority's ability to enter its schools where necessary to enable it to meet any statutory function is fully secure. If there is any question of the amendment restoring a wider power and leaving to the discretion of the authority whether it can enforce entry, then that intention must be firmly resisted. If the amendment is not intended to have that effect, then it is not needed and in view of its drafting I do not think it could be pressed as a helpful addition to the Bill.
I hope that the Committee has been reassured. We have struck a balance which will give LEAs the powers they need while in most cases letting governors and heads get on with the job of running schools without the risk of unnecessary and unwanted interference. I was about to say that I hope the amendments will not be pressed, but I am not sure that I can be that hopeful.
Our policy on this issue is quite firm, but I have listened carefully to those on all sides who would prefer to see us not just simply espouse that policy but to see us spell it out on the face of the Bill—which means, in a sense, putting it into legislation twice—and give local authorities an explicit, rather than an implicit, power to enter its schools when necessary. I am prepared to consider further whether an addition to the Bill along those lines might be made to clarify the position and will come back on this issue at a later stage.
I have noticed the negative nodding of the head of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, but it is clear that the noble Earl, even knowing that the power is there in the Bill and even with the Government's assurance that
672
we will consider putting it on the face of this Bill which means that the rights of the LEAs to enter will be there, is not to be persuaded. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I wonder whether the noble Baroness can help me on this issue. She has said that the local education authority will have power to enter a school in order to deal with particular matters. But if a complaint is made by parents or by some other body about two different aspects of a school and if the local education authority thinks that the best way of dealing with that situation is to carry out a full inspection—if there are two aspects about which complaints are being made the implication could well be that there is something wrong with the entire school—are we quite clear that the local education authority has power to carry out an inspection in fulfilment of its statutory duties? I should like to be quite clear about that because if it is not clear, I do not think there is any doubt that a local education authority must have that power if it is to have a responsibility for ensuring that statutory requirements are fulfilled.
Baroness Blatch: I am able to say that the right reverend Prelate gives a very good example of what would give a local education authority a good reason for entering a school in those circumstances. One reason would be sustained complaints from parents, the local community or whatever which would give a local education authority cause for concern about some aspects of the school's activity. That would be sufficient and I believe would stand any challenge whatever to the powers of a local education authority to enter a school in those circumstances. I can give the right reverend Prelate an absolute assurance on that point.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: But the noble Baroness says that the local education authority would have power to enter the school. My question is: would it have power to inspect the whole school?
Baroness Blatch: It would depend on the level of complaints. If the level of complaints was such that the activities of the whole school were in question, the local education authority would have to fulfil its obligation under the 1988 Act, and if the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, were minded to accept my offer that it would be put on the face of this Bill in order to reinforce the powers, the local education authority would be able to take whatever powers it needed under the Act to fulfil its full obligation that a school was delivering effective and efficient education, which could involve inspection.
Lord Elton: If the local education authority is to have the power to enter a school to make an inspection on any occasion when it has grounds to think that that is necessary or appropriate, and if my noble friend has offered to point to that power not only in another Bill but to put it on the face of this Bill, I think that the Committee would like the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, to explain to us what exactly he expects to gain in addition by pressing the amendment which I

673
understand my noble friend has even offered to take away to consider before the next stage. It would be interesting to hear that.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may come back to the right reverend Prelate and confirm that I have been advised that the answer I gave is right. But I can go just that bit further and be even more explicit. Whatever the local education authority deemed necessary to respond to that legitimate reason for going into the school—and that would be up to inspecting the school—it could do that with the powers both under the 1988 Act and the powers that we would repeat on the face of this Bill.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: The answer to that is in an old proverb about a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush. The position is that the noble Baroness might come back with something that we accept. What we have here is extremely acceptable. She has expressed some sympathy with it. My problem is in seeing why she cannot accept it as it is. It is because my advice is that the point raised by the right reverend Prelate is not absolutely clear that I am so keen on this amendment. For that reason, as certain noble Lords have correctly divined, I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
9.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 111A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided*: Contents, 97; Not-Contents, 63.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Addington, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Airedale, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ardwick, L.

Hollick, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E. [Teller.]

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Hooson, L.

Barnett, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Beloff, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Birk, B.

Hughes, L.

Blackstone, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jay, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Jeger, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

John-Mackie, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Judd, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

David, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Desai, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Donoughue, L.

McNair, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Ennals, L.

Mayhew, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falkender, B.

Mishcon, L.

Falkland, V.

Molloy, L.

Foot, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gallacher, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Galpern, L.

Nicol, B.

Glenamara, L.

Ogmore, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Peston, L.

Gregson, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Grey, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Rea, L.

Hampton, L.

Richard, L.

Hamwee, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

674

Rochester, L.

Tordoff, L.

Russell, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Seear, B.

Underhill, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Varley, L.

Serota, B.

Warnock, B.

Shackleton, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Stallard, L.

Whaddon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

White, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Teviot, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Arran, E.

Long, V.

Astor, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Moyne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Northbourne, L.

Carnock, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Coleraine, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Cox, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L.

Reay, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Rennell, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Faithfull, B.

Selborne, E.

Ferrers, E.

Selsdon, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray, L.

Strange, B.

Gridley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harvington, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

Howe, E.

Waddington, L.

Huntly, M.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

*The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 63. The Clerks recorded 62 names.
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.52 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 112:
Page 6, line 9, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I should tell the Committee that the next two amendments have been misplaced on the Marshalled List. Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 strike in Clause 10. If Members of the Committee opposite can turn for a moment from the heady feeling of victory to the hard work that lies ahead of them, perhaps I may suggest that they move Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 immediately after Amendment No. 179. I believe that the Deputy Chairman of Committees will confirm that. Amendment No. 112 comes next and covers matters with which we have already dealt. I do not intend to move it.
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has just

675
said, Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 have been marshalled in the wrong order. We therefore move on to Amendment No. 114A.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 114A:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
("Inspection of teacher training institutions
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the appropriate authority for every institution in England in which the training of teachers takes place and to which this section applies to secure that the institution is inspected, at such intervals as may be prescribed, by an inspector registered under section 10(1).
(2) It shall be the duty of the appropriate authority for every institution in Wales in which the training of teachers takes place, to secure that the institution is inspected, at such intervals as may be prescribed, by an inspector registered under section 10(2).
(3) The institutions to which this section applies are—

(a) universities; and

(b) other institutions.

(4) It shall be the general duty of any registered inspector conducting an inspection under this section to report on

(a) the quality of the training provided by the institution;

(b) the standard of training achieved in the institution; and

(c) whether the financial and other resources made available to the institution are managed efficiently.

(5) In this section
"appropriate authority" means

(a) in the case of a university, the senate of that university;

(b) in the case of any other institution, the governing body of that institution.

"inspection" means the inspection only of those parts, activities and resources of the institution in which training for teachers takes place.
"resources" means resources provided wholly or principally for the training for teachers in schools.
"training for teachers in schools" means

(a) the training of students for the purpose of enabling them to become teachers in schools; and

(b) the training of teachers already qualified to teach in schools, for teaching in schools.

(6) Regulations under this section may, in particular—

(a) make provision as to the period within which the first inspection of an institution under this section is to begin

(b) make any such provision by reference to the time when funds for the first inspection are made available to the institution; and

(c) provide for intervals to be prescribed by reference to times when funds for inspection under this section are made available to institutions.

(7) Part 1 of Schedule 2 makes further provision with respect to inspections under this section.").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall not speak to this amendment in the group as it appears on the Marshalled List because that also is in error. When we reach Amendment No. 114B, I propose to speak also to Amendment No. 115, which has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
Amendment No. 114A deals with matters to which I have already spoken on a number of occasions. It deals with the need to have some means of ensuring that we have a satisfactory standard for the training of
676
teachers because, until we have such a satisfactory standard for the training of teachers, we cannot expect to have a satisfactory standard of teaching in our schools. The process is a long one because people attend teacher-training colleges or university departments of education only at the beginning of their careers. Therefore, it will be a long time before the full effects of any changes in our training colleges are felt. Nonetheless, if that is not tackled now, we shall regret it in the future.
My noble friend has told the Committee that arrangements already exist for the inspection of training colleges, and has made it clear that it would not be acceptable to extend the inspectorate's powers of inspection to all other institutions. In the amendment I have sought to provide a means of giving to HMI the power to inspect teacher training colleges and the departments of education, and only the departments of education, in universities or any other institution.
The new clause is modelled closely on Clause 9 itself in that the subsections are the same where they are relevant. The only change is the substitution of the word "training" for that of "education" where that occurs. The first two subsections relate to the inspection of institutions in England and Wales respectively, and refer forward, as does the parallel provision in Clause 9, to Clause 10(1) and (2). Subsection (3) defines the institutions to which the clause relates. They are "universities and other institutions", providing training for teachers. The Committee may think that that provision goes a great deal wider than would be acceptable in the terms that my noble friend has already stated, but if the Committee waits until we reach subsection (5) it will find the answer to that point.
In subsection (4) there is stated the general duties of the registered inspector conducting the inspection. They are the same as those in Clause 9 except, as I said, I refer to "training" rather than to "education". In the definition subsection we have the definition of an "appropriate authority" which, in the case of a university, is the senate, and in the case of any other institution, the governing body of that institution. Those will be the bodies which will have to carry out the duties of securing inspection and acting on the results of an inspection which in Clause 9 rest upon the appropriate authorities for schools.
The subsection provides that,
"'inspection' means the inspection only of those parts, activities and resources of the institution in which training for teachers takes place."
That excludes faculties of geography, history, the classics, science and so forth. The resources inspected are similarly restricted. Finally there is a definition of "training for teachers in schools" which is not superfluous, as the Committee might think. The first leg of the definition:
"the training of students for the purpose of enabling them to become teachers in schools",
is as the Committee would expect; but I am anxious that in those colleges there should be in-service training for teachers. It is just as important that that should be subject to inspection as is the training of unqualified teachers.
The references to "regulations" in subsection (6) and the reference to Part I of Schedule 2 in subsection (7) are the same as in Clause 9. I spent some time drafting what proved to be a large number of consequential amendments, but as I do not intend to press the amendment at this stage, but wish to hear the Government's reaction to it, it seemed a waste of print; and so I have left only two on the Marshalled List. If I recall correctly, they are Amendments Nos. 115A and 115C. I assume that this amendment will have fallen by the time we reach them, because I hope to take it away with some degree of equanimity in the light of what the Government have told me their intentions are. I beg to move.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I should like to reassure my noble friend that the amendment is not necessary, because the current arrangements for the accreditation of teacher education ensure that every course of teacher education, whether in universities, polytechnics or colleges, must be inspected before it can be approved.
The system is that the Secretary of State has powers which date from the 1944 Act and a duty to approve every course of initial training for teachers. In 1984, arrangements were made to put in position a committee for the accreditation of teacher education. Its job was to advise the Secretary of State on whether or not he should approve any course of teacher education. As part of the requirement under that circular, the committee for accreditation of teacher education was bound to consider the report of Her Majesty's inspectors before it could make any recommendation to the Secretary of State.
Thus, although university departments were still free to invite, or not to invite, HMI to inspect their courses, those who may have chosen not to invite them were at the same time choosing to close down their courses because the Secretary of State could not receive advice on whether to approve them. So, if the Committee is able to follow me, their freedom to invite was somewhat restricted and it would have been impossible for their courses to continue if they had not invited HMI to inspect.
I assure my noble friend that before 1984 and 1987 every course of teacher education in the whole of the United Kingdom was inspected and reported upon. A published report summarises the findings in universities as well as non-university institutions.
10 p.m.
Lord Peston: The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, is the expert in this field and I do not seek to disagree with her. I have two questions which follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said. I believe that the amendment concerns inspecting teacher training institutions. I thought that he would lead us to two other matters. The first, I believed, would be to establish whether those who inspect teacher training institutions will have access to the schools in order to see their side of teacher training. That is one question on which I hope the noble Baroness will be able to enlighten us.
678
I put the second point more strongly. As I understand it, it is the Government's view that they would like to see more teacher training taking place in the schools. That makes the inspection of those schools for teacher training purposes even more important. I hope that when the noble Baroness replies for the Government she can enlighten us on something which is not directly in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, but follows from it. It concerns whether, in inspecting one kind of institution, one will be able to see what happens in the relevant institution which ultimately must be the school. Perhaps I may put those questions to the noble Baroness to supplement whatever she says to the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
Lord Elton: In reply to my noble friend Lady Perry, I have to say that I am less reassured by what she said than she may expect. She started by telling me that arrangements had been in place since 1944. I experienced those arrangements as a lecturer in a college of education for three years and I found them totally ineffective. She said that they were souped up in 1984 by the appointment of a committee which had to base its advice on an inspection. That is admirable, but it is an initial inspection. Unless she omitted to tell me something, once one is through that gate one can continue for the next 25 years doing what one likes with declining momentum, lower standards, less enthusiasm and more exhaustion and soon one will he back where one started.
I believe that the function of inspection is to counteract that process of inertia which asserts itself in most institutions unless they have dynamic leadership or an outside threat. One does not like to talk about inspection as a threat. In a bad institution it is but it is a salutary threat.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, usefully expanded the area of discussion into the changes which we anticipate in teacher training. He is quite right. 1 omitted to put any power in the Bill. I hope that it is something one can elicit from the Government at Committee stage. I have included no power to give the inspectors access to the teaching practice which takes place in practice schools. That is always of crucial importance. My students used to tell me that it was the only part of the course which afterwards they thought had given them much benefit. It was not the most encouraging thing to be told by people whom one had taught in the institution, but I sympathised with them. The noble Lord reminds us that we expect the balance of training, for that very reason, to be carried on increasingly in schools and out of institutions. A fortiori his query and mine become stronger. I believe my noble friend the Minister is now seized of all our concerns. I await her reply.
Baroness Blatch: I thank my noble friend Lady Perry for her intervention. She has brought her great experience to bear on this matter and she has also filled in what was a gap in my response to the amendment.
The drafting of the Bill was designed to ensure that courses of teacher training could still be inspected by Her Majesty's Inspectorate. I am advised that it fully

679
meets that purpose. We do not want to extend the system of published reports by registered inspectors to any aspect of higher education institutions. The registered inspection system is appropriate for the much larger body of school inspections. However, we are as concerned as my noble friend to ensure that all provision for initial teacher training is inspected, in particular so that the Secretary of State can meet his responsibilities for approving courses which lead to qualified teacher status.
We want that inspection to remain with HMI and we have planned on that basis to date. We envisage no reduction from present capacity in that respect. The necessary powers are covered under the Bill. Clause 2 notes for the avoidance of doubt that the training of teachers for schools is one of the functions in connection with schools which may be assigned by the Secretary of State to the new office of HMI. The Secretary of State will seek advice from the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education before approving courses and will ask HMI to advise the council on the basis of inspection evidence. HMI will have no statutory right of entry to institutions offering teacher education. HMI has no such right now in respect of university departments of education. However, if entry is refused, the course will simply not be approved. That is a strong sanction and one to which my noble friend Lady Perry pointed.
Lord Elton: Perhaps it is not helpful to intervene at this stage. However, my noble friend said that in certain circumstances a course would not be approved. But once it has obtained approval—assuming it does—am I right in thinking there is no other provision in the Bill, or in what my noble friend has said, to enable the premises offering the course to be revisited in a cycle of three or five years, or whatever the cycle may be, to make sure that the course is still suitable for approval? If that is not the case, the Bill is defective.
Baroness Blatch: I believe my noble friend is correct as regards the course itself being approved once and for all. I shall need to be advised on whether a course may be approved once again after it has received initial approval. As regards in-service training courses, I do not think HMI will require any explicit right of entry to such courses. No institution will be able to afford to let it be known that it has resisted a visit by HMI. Schools are now responsible for much of the INSET budget and they will be quick to draw their own conclusions from any such evidence. I am quite sure that the Bill, as drafted, adequately covers inspection of this important aspect of education. It does not need to be widened in scope and nor does it need to spell out the powers of HMI in the detail that the amendments would secure. It would not be appropriate, and nor is it necessary, to add a new system of registration of outside inspectors. HMI will retain the capacity to carry out that task, as now, with outside assistance.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, posed two questions. First, HMI has access to all schools at all stages and can certainly look at teacher education in such
680
schools. As regards the criteria for choosing such schools, they are still the subject of consultation. At this moment I cannot pre-empt that consultation.
My noble friend has left at least one questionmark in my mind, but I make no commitment to these amendments as I believe much of his concern is covered. However, he made the point about courses being approved once and for all. I wish to take further advice on that point. I shall meet my noble friend, or write to him, between now and Report stage.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to my noble friend for that helpful reply. Before she returns to this matter I shall think about the implications of the approval of a school which is classed as an institution in one part of the Bill and of a course which is classed as a procedure in another part. Those are quite different concepts. At first glance I would be happier if it was an institution, department or college and the activities carried on there that were being inspected rather than a course which is, after all, a collection of pieces of paper and not necessarily a collection of people.
I see that my noble friend is moving closer and closer to the front of the Bench which I think means that she is about to tell me what a course is in the language of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: I am more likely to say what a course is not. A course is very much more than a process. However, my noble friend has a query about all other aspects. I should like to take advice and come back to my noble friend, either by letter or at a meeting.
Lord Elton: In that case I have only one further question in my grateful concluding speech. My noble friend mentioned the word "scope" and we touched on that aspect last Monday. She referred implicitly to two provisions which are already contained in the Bill—namely, Clause 2(4), which gives the chief inspector for England:
"such other functions in connection with schools in England, including functions with respect to the training of teachers",
and Clause 6(4), which makes the same provision for Wales. Those provisions relate to the training of teachers in schools but the scope of the Bill, at least as it can be guessed from the Long Title, makes no mention of any institution except schools.
If there is doubt as to whether what I propose can be met—and I need to leave the opportunity to act at Report stage if I am to take account of the helpful provision of the noble Baroness on my behalf—then I shall move Amendment No. 207 to add "and for connected purposes" to the end of the Long Title. We shall reach that much later but I thought that I had better warn the noble Baroness now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Religious education]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 114B:
Page 9, line 16, after ("chosen") insert ("must have satisfied the requirements of either paragraph 4 or paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to this Act, but"),.
The noble Lord said: We now come to a matter on which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has a greater claim to be heard than I have. Amendment

681
No. 114B relates to the training of what I call Part II inspectors—namely, people authorised to inspect denominational education under Part II of Schedule 2 to the Bill. The amendment requires that they should undergo some form of training and satisfy the requirements of either paragraph 4 or paragraph 5 of Schedule 2. Paragraph 4 relates to the training of inspectors in England and paragraph 5 to the training of inspectors in Wales when they are Part I registered inspectors. At present under Part II, which deals with inspectors who are not registered but who in practice deal with denominational education, such inspectors are not subject to that requirement. Nor are they subject to registration or any form of selection under the provisions which provide a sieve through which registered inspectors have to pass before they arrive on the register.
Perhaps I should remind the Committee that within the meaning of this legislation denominational education is the teaching of any religious education other than under an agreed syllabus. Any religion means all religions. Therefore my remarks relate to the teaching of all religions and not merely to denominations of the Christian religion. The term "denominational" here is only included in the Bill because no one can think of anything better. It has the great disadvantage that it makes one think immediately of Methodists, Baptists, Nonconformists and Anglicans, and possibly Roman Catholics though that may be lèse majesté. However, it encompasses everybody, including Hindus, Buddhists, Moslems and possibly others.
There are two anxieties which need to be addressed. One relates to our established religion—namely, that the inspection of that religion should be undertaken professionally under the aegis of the established and other Churches. I am sure that that is their intention but, as we are legislating for the purpose, we should legislate not for the theology that will be instructed—that is no concern of the state, nor should it be—but for the competence of the inspection of that theology, which is a concern of the state and ought to be provided for. I should have thought that the ecclesiastical authorities would welcome the opportunity to be brought within the aegis of HMCI in both the Kingdom and the Province, so that they reach in the conduct of their inspections, whatever their theology, standards of professionalism which are as high as in any other subject in this country.
There is a slightly more delicate aspect to this matter. That is the inspection of the denominational education given among other faiths. Speaking as a Christian, I speak, I hope, without any animus. I do not intend it. But it seems to me that there are increasing numbers of people of other faiths in this country and the fabric of the nation depends upon the fabric being maintained whole and not divided into discrete parts. It would not be right for the state, nor indeed for a Christian, to dictate the theology or beliefs that should be taught in the denominational education periods of other faiths. But, as a Briton, I feel that it is quite right to have a concern for the standard of education that is conducted in every British classroom.
Therefore I do not suggest that the inspector should have any right to say: "You may inspect because you believe in the Trinity" or "You may not inspect because you do not believe"—or whatever the difference may be. But HMCI, the secular authority, should be entitled to satisfy himself that those who inspect in those subjects are competent to do so, having been chosen by people of their own faith.
I shall come later to another amendment and speak to it briefly. I apologise that the number does not spring immediately to my mind but perhaps the Minister recalls it. The reports that are turned in by those people should be seen by the inspector, along with all other reports, so that he should have an overall picture and not, so to speak, a quilt from which two squares are missing. This amendment is meant to be constructive. I hope that it will prove extremely useful if some such provision can be introduced at Report stage. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I support the noble Lord in this matter. He put the arguments most cogently and I do not need to add to them. I support the amendment on two grounds. First, if there is to be what is here called "denominational education", it should have the same academic rigour as is applied to any subject in the curriculum. Secondly, as I have argued before on other aspects of the Bill, whatever we can do to cross-reference and integrate the inspection of denominational education with the rest of the curriculum is an improvement. For those reasons in particular I support the noble Lord.
Lord Northbourne: I am a little confused about whether Amendment No. 115 is to be taken with Amendment No. 114B. It might be convenient to do so.
Lord Elton: If my noble friend does not wish to take them together she does not have to do so. I am happy, if the Minister is content, for that to be done.
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend Lord Northbourne is only slightly less confused than I am at this moment. I understood that this amendment was one of a group of amendments. I initially intended to respond to all of them. I should find it a good deal easier if we took Amendment No. 115 as well.
Lord Northbourne: I am very happy to do that. I set down this modest amendment, Amendment No. 115, in part to clarify the issue of what is and is not denominational education. Contrary to the opinion just expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I have been told that it relates only to Church of England and Roman Catholic schools, which are the subject of what I believe is called a charter. Will the Minister say whether that is the correct interpretation or whether the provision applies to Jewish and Moslem schools? In that context I have this evening been informed by my noble friend Lord Jacobovits that Jewish schools are not covered by a statutory requirement for inspection at this time. It is important that all schools

683
which provide denominational or religious education of any kind shall be subject to inspection. I should greatly welcome guidance on that matter.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in seeking that the inspectors should be subjected to training. It is totally wrong that denominational or religious education should be inspected by inspectors who might be regarded as second class. It should certainly not be done by an inspector who is prepared to do the job at the lowest possible price. One must be able to rely on and respect the reports which they produce.
Even if the words "denominational education" refer only to Church of England and Roman Catholic denominational education, there is some justification for Amendment No. 115. Parents need to know more about the denominational education of a school, even simply whether it is good, bad or indifferent. That is what the word "quality" might reasonably be thought to imply. Within the Church of England today there is a wide range of practices and beliefs. If one looks closely, that is probably the case within the Church of Rome.
Another factor is the intensity with which religion is taught. Recently I received a letter from an ex-pupil of a preparatory school with which I have some connection. He wrote, "My new school is very boring. We have so many services and prayers". Some parents may say that that is just the ticket but others may find it counter productive. I hope that my modest amendment, No. 115, will commend itself to the Committee.
Lord Elton: Before dinner I received a note from the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, who stated that he has now ascertained that denominational instruction at Jewish schools is not subject to HMI inspection except by request. However, he stated that for the reasons which concern me, there can be no objection to extending the remit of HMI and he would support that. I do not wish to commit the noble Lord in his absence but at least there is a nihil obstat, to pinch a phrase from another faith.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may say a few words from these Benches in order to clarify the situation. Taking my information from the Notes on Clauses, I had understood that most religious education in schools, which is carried out according to an agreed syllabus, would be covered by Clause 9. Therefore, we are not discussing religious education even though the rubric to Clause 14 uses the expression "religious education". We are discussing a subject which I did not know existed called "denominational education". Again according to the Notes on Clauses, that appears to be what occurs in certain voluntary and grant-maintained schools which are subject to trust deeds. Again according to the Notes on Clauses, such schools are required to offer religious education of a particular type. I understand, therefore, that we are considering a limited class of schools and we must not make the mistake of assuming that we are discussing religious education in general. That is the first point.
Secondly, Members of the Committee will be aware that my views on religion are slightly different from
684
those held by the majority of Members, indeed a majority of the country. However, I was puzzled by Clause 14(5) providing that the person need not be a registered inspector. I should have thought that the one thing that such schools would most want would be a registered inspector. I feel this for precisely the reason advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the right reverend Prelate; that it will add at least to the perceived standard of what they are doing. Therefore, I had always intended to inquire why subsection (5) was included in the Bill. I had assumed, although it appears that I am wrong, that the schools had wanted subsection (5) and that they did not want to be inspected by a registered inspector. Listening to the right reverend Prelate and to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I believe that I am right in thinking that the schools would prefer the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, so that they are inspected by a registered inspector. In my judgment that would not undermine their freedom or, indeed, what they can do under their trust deed.
I have no desire to become involved in religion per se but I hope that, since we are not debating religion per se but merely how we treat denominational education, the Government can respond sympathetically to the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Religious education in most schools is carried out in accordance with an agreed syllabus for the area adopted by the local education authority following a statutory process involving local churches and faiths. However, voluntary-aided, some voluntary-controlled and some grant maintained schools are subject to trust deeds, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, pointed out, which require them to offer religious education of a particular type: it may be Jewish, Anglican or Catholic. Those schools do not use the agreed religious education syllabus for their area. Until 1870 HMI contained a high proportion of clergymen to cater effectively for the inspection of voluntary schools, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester pointed out. If we are to have school inspectors, it will be better to have good men rather than bad ones.
Religious education in Church schools has been subject to different arrangements for over 150 years. Section 77 of the 1944 Act confirmed that separate provision was to be made for the inspection of such religious education and that HMI and LEAs were not to have a role. It would have been a very great break with that long-standing agreement to have required Church schools to use secular registered inspectors for the inspection of their own denominational provision.
It is because of that that Clause 9 does not cover denominational religious education, which is dealt with separately in Clause 14. We have required regular inspection of this provision and intend that to take place at the same time as the inspection of the secular curriculum. That is very much in line with what the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues wished. We have at the request of the Anglican and Catholic Churches added provisions to ensure that reports of all inspections are sent to diocesan authorities, and that action plans are prepared on all aspects of the curriculum including this one. We share their hope

685
that in most cases inspections under Clauses 9 and 14 will take place at the same time, using one team of inspectors, and that a common report and action plan will be written.
I must stress that the division of inspection powers is in no way the product of this Bill. It is not our purpose to reinforce divisions between the sacred and secular, which I accept are not easily made in the context of education. But we all accept that the national curriculum in all schools must be inspected according to HMI's common standards by inspectors whom HMI has registered. Unless the religious elements of Church school provision are also to be inspected by secular inspectors registered by HMI, which would not be appropriate, we must set up a separate statutory regime for that purpose. That leaves the governors of aided schools with the freedom to arrange separately for the inspection of RE if that is what they wish to do. However, as I said, it is open to them to arrange for the inspection to be carried out in practice by the same people at the same time.
We do not want the chief inspectors to have any detailed responsibilities in respect of the system of inspection for denominational religious education, so it would not be right, as in Amendment No. 114B, to give them the right to train inspectors. As I explained, we expect that in almost all cases the teams used and the reports written will be the same for both the Clauses 9 and 14 aspects of the inspection. Therefore, my noble friend's aim will be secured in practice.
I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that Amendment No. 115 is appropriate. The Bill rightly lays down that the inspectors conducting an inspection of denominational education must have the duty to report on the quality of the education provided. That reflects the drafting of Clause 9, and indeed, Clause 2 of the Bill. In no place is there an explicit separate requirement for the nature of what is taught to be reported upon. My noble friend Lord Elton mentioned that. To insert the words at this point might raise questions about what is intended elsewhere.
Clearly, what is being taught will be relevant to reports on quality; for example, on breadth and balance. We have already assured the Committee that such aspects must be reported upon. So the range and nature of denominational provision will be a proper subject for inspectors. If the point at issue is whether the parents will know of the school's denominational attachment, we can be pretty sure that they will. The nature of the curriculum for religious education will, after all, be directly governed by the trust deed of the school. Moreover, we have already agreed to consider making regulations requiring each school to put its spiritual, moral, social and cultural aims in its prospectus. That should ensure that its religious values are fully understood.
Voluntary and former voluntary schools are proud to declare their allegiance to specific Churches. If in future there were new voluntary schools supported by other faiths I am sure that they too would want their religious position known. The title of the school would generally reflect that. I remind the Committee that it
686
is only to such schools, with their own trust deeds, that Clause 14 relates. Other schools are obliged to use the agreed syllabus for the area.
I must also remind the Committee that it is not the intention of Clause 14 to inspect provision made for pupils withdrawn from the school's religious education and given separate provision in their own faith. We would regard that as an extra-curricular activity and not subject to inspection. The governors will not be responsible for that provision. It may indeed take place off the school premises and they should not be called upon to inspect and report upon it.
I hope that with that slightly lengthy reply my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will not press the amendment.
10.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: In response to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, perhaps I can point out that there are over 2,000 Church of England aided schools, and rather more Roman Catholic aided schools. Therefore, the number of schools which could come under this category is fairly substantial. That is my first point. Secondly, the reason why the person chosen need not be a registered inspector is that, as I see it, this clause is trying to ensure that the nature and quality of the denominational education is in accordance with the tenets of the Church, as it exists at the moment, which is providing the school. If the Church were of another faith, then it would equally apply to that.
Under the proposals of the Bill it may be difficult to ensure that there are registered inspectors with that specific denominational theological knowledge to check whether or not a school was being orthodox—if I may put it in that way. I am surprised to hear the Minister say that she does not think it appropriate that the nature of the denominational education should be inspected under this clause. I should have thought that this was precisely where it does need to be looked at, as well as the quality. We want to know, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, not only whether it is good, bad or excellent, but also what is the style and thrust of the denominational education. My name is appended to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and I shall be happy to see it accepted.
Lord Elton: I come back to the response of my noble friend the Minister, first, on a minor point. She spoke as though I had intended to give the HMCI in either the Kingdom or the Principality the right to train. I was proposing that he should have the right contained in paragraph 4, which states,
"No person shall conduct an inspection of a school in England, or act as a member of an inspection team for such a school, unless he has completed a course of training—

(a) provided by the Chief Inspector for England; or

(b) complying with arrangements provided by that Chief Inspector".

Therefore, if the theological colleges, for instance, wish to train inspectors there would be no reason why they should not. I rather think that they might. That would be perfectly legitimate for the chief inspector to authorise.

687
However, I am a little unhappy with the response of my noble friend for another reason. As the right reverend Prelate just reminded us, there is a considerable body of Christian schools which would be affected by Clause 14 and Part II of Schedule 2. There is also a substantial number of Jewish schools which might be affected but, if I have understood the Minister correctly, at present are not. There will shortly be a number of Moslem schools. There is a growing Moslem community in this country which is imbued, it would be happy to say, with a considerable number of faithful people who follow a different faith from that of the majority of your Lordships. Under the new provisions which are being made they will doubtless wish to have voluntary schools of their own. They will wish to have denominational education because it will be religious education. As far as I can see, it will not normally be conducted on the agreed syllabus.
That being so, as I said earlier, the chief inspector's patchwork quilt of knowledge about what is going on in the country will be missing a square or two, and possibly an increasing number of squares, if we do not have a provision such as this. In addition, people in those and other schools will be less well served than they might be if the Government did not insist that the people who inspected that aspect of their religion were competent to do so in terms of inspection as well as theology. Theology has nothing to do with government, but education has everything to do with government. Does my noble friend have anything else to say before I make my decision?
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may return to the interpretation of what the right reverend Prelate had thought I said. I repeat what I said. In no place is there an explicit, separate requirement for the nature of what is taught to be reported on. I went on to say that to insert the words at this point might raise questions about what is intended elsewhere. I also said that clearly what is being taught will be relevant to reports on quality and breadth and balance, for example. We have already assured the Committee that such aspects must be reported on, so that the range and nature of denominational provision will be a proper subject for inspection.
When I started speaking to these amendments I said that some voluntary-controlled and some grant-maintained schools are also subject to trustees requiring them to offer religious education of a particular type. At the time I mentioned Jewish, Anglican and Catholic. My noble friend is right to say that in the future there may be schools relating to other denominations. They will be brought into these provisions in the same way.
Lord Elton: The last paragraph was a touch delphic as I heard it, but that may be because of the lateness of the hour. I shall not press the amendment at this stage. I shall read my noble friend's reply with very great care. I cannot promise not to return to the issue at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 115:
Page 9, line 20, after first ("the") insert ("nature and").
The noble Lord said: I thank the noble Baroness for what she said. When I referred to a charter I meant a trust deed. I understand what the noble Baroness is saying about the insertion of the words "nature and" disturbing earlier parts of the Bill. Perhaps enough of that has been done already this evening. I am prepared to look at the Official Report. I hope that what I shall find is that the noble Baroness has said in effect that the word "quality" covers both the nature and the quality of the education given. I am concerned about the question of non-Christian schools, but at this stage I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [School inspections]:
[Amendments Nos. 115A to 117 not moved.]
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 18, line 12, at end insert:
("(2) An appropriate authority shall not enter into any arrangement with a registered inspector for the inspection by him of any school for which they are the appropriate authority unless the selection of that inspector to inspect that school has been approved in writing by the Chief Inspector.
(3) The Secretary of State may make regulations with a view to facilitating the discharge by the Chief Inspector of his functions under section 2(3) (cc) or 6(3) (cc) or this paragraph.
(4) The regulations may, in particular—

(a) require appropriate authorities to give the Chief Inspector such information as may be prescribed or as he may specify; and

(b) give the Chief Inspector, or any member of his staff, the right to attend any meeting of the appropriate authority for the school in question (or any meeting which includes any member of that authority) at which—

(i) any tender invited under this paragraph, or

(ii) the selection of any registered inspector to inspect the school,

is, or is likely to be, discussed.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 18, line 16, at end insert ("and whose specific expertise in nursery, primary, middle, secondary or special educational needs is identified and made known by those registered inspectors to those for whom they provide services.").
The noble Baroness said: I do not need to spend very much time on this amendment, which is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. Schedule 2 refers to
"(an 'inspection team') consisting of persons who are fit and proper persons for carrying out the inspection",
and they are described. I should like to add the words in the amendment:
("and whose specific expertise in nursery, primary, middle, secondary or special educational needs is identified and made known by those registered inspectors to those for whom they provide services.").
We want to be rather more specific in what we are asking. Amendment No. 179, to which I should like to speak with Amendment No. 119, seeks to provide in regard to an applicant for the job:
690
"On an application duly made under this section the Chief Inspector may—

(a) register the applicant".

After that we would insert,
"as a registered inspector in one or more of the following categories".
The amendment then lists the categories—nursery, primary, middle and so on.
We want to make quite sure that these teams consist of people who have this expertise. We should also like to know which of the inspectors on the teams has this expertise. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain a little more fully how that will be done. These are probing amendments and I hope that we can have some explanation. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the noble Baroness, Lady David, in this amendment. Many of us have been very anxious about the almost unobtrusive growth of nursery classes in schools. In many schools where the numbers have dropped, following pressure from parents children under five have been taken into the schools. That has been very much welcomed by an enormous number of parents throughout the country. However, inspectors often do not have experience in the education of children under five and the kind of curriculum that those children should have.
Furthermore, under Part III of the Children Act 1989 local authorities are enjoined to see that the needs of young children or poor children are met. That means that a number of children will have to go to nurseries or nursery classes in order that their parents can go out to work. It is very important that inspection should be carried out by inspectors who are qualified in the work of children under five. I support the amendment.
Lord Addington: I should like to speak very briefly to this amendment which is also in the name of my noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee. This is a simple amendment. It seeks to provide that those who inspect schools should have knowledge of the types of school and the fields in which they deal—for instance, special educational needs within a specified age bracket would be a reasonable combination of expertise to have in an inspecting team.
Thus, I hope that when the Minister replies she will be able to give the Committee some reassurance that an amendment of this nature will be included in the Bill; otherwise a team of inspectors could very well consist of people who do not know what they are looking at.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: It seems that the requirements already written into the schedule are that the people inspecting should be fit and proper. To me the word "fit" embraces the idea that they are fit in terms of their expertise with regard to the nature of the school. Therefore, I do not see the necessity for this further amendment. I can also assure the Committee that if any persons attempted to carry out an inspection in a school without the proper expertise the teachers in that school would very quickly challenge them and make their lives unpleasant.
Years of experience in inspecting have taught me one thing, if nothing else. Teachers want to know

691
exactly what qualifications one has, together with details of one's experience and what one knows about their job, before they will let one inside the classroom. That is very healthy and I am quite sure that it will continue even more within the future arrangements.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I thank my noble friend Lady Perry for that explanation of what actually happens when teacher meets inspector. While I have some sympathy with the intention behind the amendments, I have to say that it is quite unnecessary to place these requirements on the face of the Bill.
We believe the amendments to be unnecessary because we would trust either the governing body or the chief inspector. If we look at the amendment proposed to Schedule 2, it is surely impossible to envisage a tendering process in which the body commissioning an inspection did not insist on seeing the qualifications and experience of both the registered inspector and the team which he proposed to use for the inspection; supposing, that is, that the inspector himself had omitted these details from his tender.
I have no doubt that the guidance which HMCI will issue to registered inspectors on the tendering process will certainly cover the type of basic information which those commissioning inspections should receive from tenderers. That information will, as I have indicated above, be bound to include the qualifications and expertise of team members.
The chief inspector has an explicit power under Clause 10 to impose conditions on registered inspectors. This may very well include conditions as to the phase or phases of education they may inspect, including whether or not they may inspect special schools. Indeed, the chief inspector might well wish to go further and make a particular condition as to the type of special school for which a registered inspector may offer inspections. For example, an inspector with expertise in the needs of visually impaired children would probably not be the best person to inspect a school for children with severe learning difficulties. That kind of distinction may well be made by the chief inspector. That is where the amendment would be unhelpful in that it would limit the chief inspector's freedom to determine his or her own categories for the purpose of registration. We need to preserve the flexibility for the chief inspector to act as he or she sees fit—and, as I have said so often, we on this side trust him or her to do so. We must resist the notion of adding general words to the Bill which might curtail that flexibility.
The inspection reports will have to cover all pupils in the school, including those in nursery classes. The teams will have to have the necessary competence to deal with the full range of pupils within the school. HMCI's guidance will ensure that. In the light of my explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness David: I thank the Minister for her reply, which in a way was rather what I expected. I expected to be told that the amendment was unnecessary. I
692
thank the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for supporting the amendment. It is particularly in the case of nursery classes and special classes that there is anxiety. It is because there has been this anxiety that we have been asked to put down these amendments.
I hope that the Minister will realise that there is some fuss about whether the inspections will take proper care. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said that the Bill requires that they will be fit and proper people, but there are other people who want to be assured that these classes of education will be properly covered. There are legitimate worries on this point with the completely new situation being set up by the Bill. I shall certainly read the Minister's careful reply. I shall take advice, consult and then decide what I shall do at the next stage of the Bill. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 120 and 121 not moved.]
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 18, line 18, after ("one") insert ("and not more than one").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I ask the Committee to consider with it Amendments Nos. 125 and 126. It relates to the position of lay inspectors and to the curious provision in the Bill that someone who is appointed a member of the team because of financial expertise should not exercise that expertise in the course of his inspection. I find that very puzzling. What then is the purpose of having him in the team? It is like the situation which used to pertain with passenger ships of a certain size that had to carry a ship's doctor—but he was not allowed to treat accident or sickness.
It is part of the curious belief that pervades some of the legislation that the less people know about the subject with which they are dealing the more likely they are to be unbiased in inspecting it. I should like to hear an explanation from my noble friend the Minister as to the exact purpose of the prescription about lay inspectors and inspectors with financial expertise. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I rise only to seek clarification. The amendment now before the Committee was spoken to with Amendment No. 96. I did not hear to which other amendments my noble friend was speaking. It would be most helpful if he could clarify the position.
Lord Beloff: I said that I was speaking also to Amendments Nos. 125 and 126.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to my noble friend.
Baroness Blatch: That is indeed true; the amendment was grouped with Amendments Nos. 96, 121, 125 and 126. They are all variations on either the inclusion or exclusion of the lay member; or, as my noble friend Lord Beloff said, they propose that the number of lay members should be restricted to no more than one.
I simply say that, in the first instance, the Government have said that they believe it will be useful—and, indeed, there was support from around the Chamber—that there should be a lay member. We have sought not to put a restriction upon the number

693
but have stated that there should be at least one lay member. The difference between us is that my noble friend thinks that there should be a restriction. Therefore, I cannot agree the with amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: Before the noble Baroness concludes, perhaps I may point out that I do not believe that there was support from around the Chamber for the concept of a lay member as part of a team of inspectors. Certainly we on these Benches, while always greatly welcoming the idea of lay governors and indeed lay members of health authorities and of any other organisation of a similar kind, find it rather odd that someone who has absolutely no expertise in terms of the curriculum, teaching methods and what goes on in the classroom so far as concerns assessment should be given the job of inspecting a school. I believe that that is a very odd concept.
When it comes to inspection, one ought to have people who know quite a lot about the matter rather than someone floating around not quite knowing what he is looking for, what questions he is meant to be asking or what he is meant to be saying in reports. It seems to us to be undesirable to have lay members in inspection teams. However, if we are to have them, we would certainly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that such membership should be restricted to one person rather than more. Without that restriction the inspection team will become very large, given all the other particular experts who also have to be members of such a team.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: There is another side to the matter. I understand the argument just put forward by the noble Baroness, but it depends on what one means by the word "inspection" and on what the job of the inspector is. Many of us have had to deal with things which are not dissimilar to the issue before us. People who are supposed to be experts invariably have some prejudices and definite ideas before they start. In the case of an inspector making a report, if he has infringed his particular prejudice his report could be detrimental—and wrongly so—to someone.
Therefore, provided that the person concerned is an intelligent lay-person who does not presume to have a power that he does not have, the idea is acceptable. What I heard from the noble Baroness was wholesale denigration of the idea and the implication that you have to be an expert before you can inspect anything. In many instances, a report by an impartial lay person may be more valuable. That is why for years no Prime Minister would appoint as a Minister for Health anyone who, as a doctor, knew anything about health on the basis that when it came to forming an unbiased view of the legislation, the prejudices that had been built up as a doctor would interfere with his impartiality. I put that on the record simply to argue against the complete ruling out of somebody for not being a supposed expert. An intelligent layman will be perfectly capable of making a report that might be more valuable in the end.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord's explanation that Ministers were appointed because they did not have
694
any knowledge of the subject might account for an awful lot that we have found rather curious. Why does the noble Lord think that the lay member would be free of prejudice? Is that what he supposes? To say that experts have prejudices but lay people do not seems an unusual description.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: If I may put the record straight, I said the opposite. I did not say that the layman and the expert would be any different in terms of their general ability but that if one is an expert in any field where there are different views and strengths one is bound to have a prejudice in one direction or another. If one is a lay person and unable to build up a prejudice because the expertise that would encourage that has not been present, one is more likely to be objective in any value that one puts on anything that one examines. That is all.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord is saying that the expert has a basis of knowledge on which he forms his view and that the non-expert, having no basis of knowledge, is for some extraordinary reason at an advantage because he has no basis of knowledge. That seems a strange argument.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: If one looks at the state of the British education system today, one might conclude that the experts had got it wrong quite a lot. I would like to support my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls. Having been the only lay person very often on visits of experts to polytechnics over the last nine or 10 years, I must say that if, on occasion, I had had one other lay person, such as perhaps my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, with whom I had been able to confer, the result of many of our inspections might have been very different and to the benefit of the system.
Baroness Seear: It is hypothetical—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: It is not hypothetical.
Baroness Seear: It is hypothetical that a combination of the noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Harmar-Nicholls, would have led to a great deal of improvement in the polytechnics.
Lord Elton: I had difficulty hearing much of those exchanges, but I have, on occasion, found myself longing for a second lay person and I wonder whether we should have two lay people. If one is surrounded by experts and starts not to understand what they are saying, one wonders whether that is because they are very clever and one is very stupid or simply that they are talking jargon and one is thinking sense. On those occasions, it is nice to have someone who can also assess the jargon to see how it adds up.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may give an example. It took me a long time to work out what the real meaning of education speak was—for instance, the "participative discussion mode". I discovered in the end that this meant "talks." One spent a long time wondering about the "unit of resource." In the end, one was forced to conclude that it meant a student. A

695
lot of time would have been saved if I had been able to talk to someone normal and discover what was going on.
Baroness Blackstone: I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. Speaking with another hat on, as the head of an academic institution, I found his comment about the unit of resource a little odd. I do not think that it would be appropriate for an academic audit of university or polytechnic departments to be carried out by people who know absolutely nothing about the subject. I would not presume to go into a surgical theatre and try to inspect the work being carried out by surgeons. Why, in this Bill, do we think it perfectly appropriate for lay people to comment on the work of head teachers? To return to what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, was saying, we are talking now about assessing the quality of work in an institution, not about making general judgments that might or might not be prejudiced. I find this one of the dafter elements of the Bill.
It is causing a great deal of concern to reasonable head teachers who have approached me and others. They are worried about people who have never taught in a classroom in their lives coming in and prescribing things for their schools. I repeat that I do not believe that any of us would want to do that in many other contexts. So why do we think that it is appropriate to do it in schools?
11 p.m.
Lord Harvington: Is not the whole matter most unsatisfactory? We sit here and listen to all kinds of points of view about what should or should not be done about inspections. I begin by thinking that my noble friend Lord Elton is right and I am going to vote against the Government. I listen a little more and I think that he is not so right. Later, I think he is even less right. Then I begin to think that he is right again. I listen to one person after another. We are not doing much good to ourselves or to the teaching profession with this type of debate. The sooner we put an end to this discussion and come to a decision, the better it will be for everyone.
Baroness Warnock: It would be extraordinary if we did not discuss a Bill which has caused great anxiety not just to educationists, who apparently have a bad name for speaking in riddles and for not being able to be understood, but to teachers, and to parents for whom the Bill was supposed in large degree to be drafted. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. It is extraordinary that to be a member of the team the only qualification mentioned is that one should know nothing about education.
One aspect that worries me is that we do not know how many inspectors on the team will go into the school at any one time. It could well be the non-expert, or the non-expert and one other person. It is proper that we should have a chance to express our anxiety. If we cannot keep out the non-expert we should at least take seriously the proposition that the limit should be one non-expert only in the team.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: Perhaps I may speak for the lay person. I should feel that a great privilege from my position. In so far as we are dealing with a school, the essential elements, as we have said repeatedly, are the moral, cultural and spiritual dimension, discipline and relationships within the school. There is something to be said for someone among the inspection team of experts not necessarily being bound up with the professionalism of the educationists. Many of us in our different disciplines benefit from having someone who can look, listen and reflect back to us from a detached viewpoint. In no department do we want government by, inspection by, reports by, and everything else by experts.
Baroness Blatch: I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was patronising about parents and lay people in the inspection teams.
Baroness Blackstone: If the Minister will forgive me, she is inclined to misrepresent what is said by Members of the Opposition. I did not make one reference to parents. I was talking about lay people. I had an amendment down, which I did not move because I was trying to save a little time, which suggested that rather than merely having lay members it would be better to have parents, because parents have, at least, some commitment and interest in education. I hope that the Minister will withdraw her remark in which she suggested that I was being patronising about parents when I never mentioned them.
Baroness Blatch: I offer the noble Baroness an abject apology for using the word "parents". In my haste to bring an end to the debate, which I know the Committee is anxious to do, I used the wrong word. I meant to say that I thought the noble Baroness was extremely patronising about lay people and their role on the inspection team. I believe also that she was wrong when she said that there was not support from different parts of the Committee for lay people on the inspection team.
I remember the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, who is not in his seat, welcoming the idea of lay people. He had studied this matter in more depth than many Members of the Committee. I believe that I remember—I shall withdraw this if I am wrong—that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelksy, did too. A number of my noble friends on these Benches did so, and I believe I have heard it before from the Bishops Benches. So there is support around the Committee for lay people.
It also needs to be said that no activities that go on in schools are so professionally based that no one but a professional could comment on them. There were some remarks about the ethos of schools, about how parents relate to the staff. Many aspects of school life would benefit and be enhanced by at least a view from a lay person involved in the inspection team.
Lay members will not be chosen at random. They will bring some expertise to bear, even if it is just that of being a parent. That is one point with which I hope the noble Baroness will agree. It will be of a character which will enable them to command respect and to be

697
listened to. It will be their function to bring a fresh perspective to bear. Occasionally I believe that a lay person can ask a pertinent question which will elicit information that it would benefit professionals to consider. It may help to focus the minds of professional colleagues.
We want the intelligent outside view applied to all aspects of a school. Lay members of teams should not be kept in the office and out of the corridors and classrooms. Of course the questions they ask and the impressions they gain will not be the same as those of the professional inspectors. No one suggests that they will be. But they will be a valid and valuable addition to the professional view and will doubtless reflect many of the concerns of governors and parents which need to be addressed if the inspection report is to be of help to these groups.
The lay member may also have as his secondary purpose the provision of financial or management expertise. Is the noble Baroness suggesting that only a professional may make comments and give consideration to that aspect of a school's activity? That role may be taken by another team member who may or may not be a teacher by background. We need that flexibility. The difference between us is fundamental about whether there should be lay members of the team. As to the people who believe that there should be a lay member, the difference between us is that we believe that it should be at least one and my noble friend wishes to constrain it to just one.
Lord Beloff: I do not regret this discussion at all. I thought it was rather interesting to hear the different ways in which people approach the problem of inspection. There must be people in your Lordships' Chamber who would only go down a mine that had been inspected by persons who were not mining engineers. I admire their fortitude.
I believe it comes down to the question, as the Minister said, of one or more than one. I hope that she will give it more thought. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 123 to 127 not moved.]
Baroness Warnock Baroness Warnock moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 18, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) at least one member of the inspection team has experience and expertise in special educational needs.").
The noble Baroness said: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 128 and 129A at the same time. They are different but on related subjects. I have no doubt that we shall be told that it is not necessary to insert on the face of the Bill the requirement that:
"at least one member of the inspection team has experience and expertise in special educational needs".
However, I plead that it should be on the face of the Bill for all teams of inspectors. We are committed since the 1981 Education Act so far as possible to keeping at least some children who have special educational needs still in mainstream schools. Many mainstream schools have large numbers of children with special educational needs, whether or not they have statements. In order for a full inspection to be carried out in those schools, it is necessary for a
698
member of the inspection team to have expertise in special educational needs. I do not believe that can be taken for granted among the other provisions that the Bill contains. I certainly do not believe the expression "fit and proper", or whatever the words are, would cover what I consider to be a general demand that an expert in special educational matters should be available.
Amendment No. 129A is a more specific amendment which provides that where an inspection of a special school was undertaken, at least one member of the inspection team is a person who is an expert on the particular disability or need for which the special school in question has been set up. The same would apply to a special unit attached to a mainstream school. That latter provision is just as important as any other provision—perhaps even more important—because at the moment it is not always met.
I know there are special schools, particularly schools for emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children, that are inspected by a team of inspectors who know nothing about the taxing demands of children at the schools. Those children constitute the second largest group of special needs children in the country. That is just one example. It is important that for every inspection of a special school there should be an expert available on the specific educational need catered for at the school.
I hope these provisions will appear on the face of the Bill. I certainly do not think that the term "fit person" is sufficient to cover the requirements I have outlined. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. As regards Amendment No. 128, the 1981 Act has been in force since 1981 and a number of inspectors have visited schools but have never asked whether the schools contained any statemented children. It is important that inspectors are aware that a school contains statemented children. They should consider carefully whether those children are being adequately cared for and taught.
I support the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, too, on Amendment No. 129A. I have personal experience of an inspection being carried out at a school that contained highly emotionally disturbed children where the inspectors admitted—I underline that—that they did not have experience of emotionally disturbed children of the kind they were inspecting. My noble friend Lady Perry is not at present in the Chamber. However, she said that if an inspector visited a school and showed signs of not knowing what he was inspecting the teachers, or the head teacher, would ask him to go. In the school with which I am connected the teachers are far too courteous to ask inspectors to leave if they think the inspectors do not know what they are doing. In fact, by the time inspectors leave a school they know far more than when they arrived about the type of child they are inspecting. I strongly support both these amendments.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I wish to cast some doubt on the wisdom of these amendments from two fairly unusual standpoints. I do so particularly on the

699
wisdom of Amendment No. 128. I should have thought it was fairly obvious that the inspection outlined in Amendment No. 129A was being undertaken. I should have thought we could rely on the system we are setting up to make sure that appropriate people were included in the inspection team.
The first of my rather unusual standpoints on these amendments is expressed from the point of view of the father of a Down's Syndrome child, and the second as a former chairman of the special educational needs sub-committee of the teacher education committee of the Council for National Academic Awards. Members of the Committee may know that that council has been responsible for most of the teacher training—or teacher education as it is called in the jargon—in this country.
Both those experiences lead me to believe that members of our special educational needs establishment, which is a burgeoning body within our wider education establishment, are not necessarily the best people to become mandatory members of the new inspection teams. My general worry is that our educationists have become much too enthusiastic about moving children with quite severe mental handicaps, such as my daughter, into schools for normal children. I fear that that policy is often unkind and bad for the handicapped children in question and that it can also compromise the education of normal children.
My more specific worry about the amendments is that it is largely those SEN specialists who inspire that over-enthusiasm and I feel that their duties on the new inspection teams would often be more healthily fulfilled by, say, normal teachers with normal SEN training and awareness. I do not say that SEN specialists should necessarily be excluded from the teams, of course, but I am sure that their mandatory inclusion on the face of the Bill would be a mistake.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Addington: I should like to support the amendments. Both are self-explanatory. In relation to Amendment No. 129A, I believe that it is almost inconceivable that one would not include someone who knew exactly what they were dealing with, because any type of special educational need will have its own problems.
In the case of dyslexia, about which I know most, if the inspection team did not include someone who was familiar with the type of problem dealt with by the school, many of the techniques for teaching reading would seem rather laboured and slow. Dyslexic children tend to have bad memories and be poor organisers and have problems with sequencing and timetabling. Unless the inspector understood the specific problems it would be very difficult to judge whether the school was organised properly, whether it made sure that pupils had enough time between lessons, that matters were explained to them regularly and slowly and that people who had difficulty in taking in detail, which is often a dyslexic trait, were
700
able to handle broad concepts. Unless that approach was appreciated it would be very difficult to draw attention to such matters.
The problems affecting children with other special educational needs, such as those who are deaf, blind or in wheelchairs, tend to be more obvious. However, I have learnt from listening to debates in this Chamber that there are many hidden problems. There is also the fact that children are affected by such problems to varying degrees. The degree of eyesight impairment, the degree of hearing difficulty and the degree of mobility are all extremely complicated matters and have to be addressed individually.
In relation to Amendment No. 128, unless one goes into a school knowing what one is looking for one cannot assess that school. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that in this instance it is a mistake to bring certain children together in classrooms. Even the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, who was instrumental in bringing the 1981 Act into existence, said in a previous debate that that aspect was a mistake.
Once again I shall use the example of those with dyslexia. If a class of many children is taking in information by means of dictation, for example, dyslexic children should not be there because they cannot do that. However, that does not mean that they should not be present in some classes where other learning techniques are used. Therefore, although on that particular point I agree with the noble Lord, I would add that inspectors must appreciate the type of problem involved so that they can say where certain children should and should not be included. I have no doubt that all Members of the Committee can appreciate that certain children with certain learning difficulties should be in certain classes and not in others because of their different learning curves. They will be able to pick up certain points in different fields. I support the amendments.
Baroness David:I, too, should like to support the amendments. I should like to express some sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said, but the fact remains that there are a good many children with special educational needs now in mainstream schools and we should ensure that they are looked after when the inspections take place. Therefore it is important that in every school one member of the team who has that experience should be present.
Anticipating one possible response from the Minister—to the effect that one cannot name every category that will appear on the inspection team—there is already one member of the team who is mentioned; namely, a person who must have no experience of education. All we seek in these amendments is that there should be one member who has some experience of this matter. Many people mind about it. I am surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, did not mention that the National Children's Bureau sent a very powerful brief on this whole matter, to which attention should be paid.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like briefly to support the two amendments. As I understand it, Amendment No. 128 does not intend that only one inspector in the team should pay attention to the

701
special needs. It intends that special needs should be the responsibility of the entire team but that there should be a designated and trained member to co-ordinate the work. I agree with my noble friend Lady Warnock that Amendment No. 129A is the more important of the two amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, explained very well why it is necessary to have someone with specific knowledge of the special need being inspected.
I should like to say that even within the disability itself there are variations. For example, Deaf Accord, which is a consortium of deaf organisations, states that the educational needs of deaf children vary greatly, depending on the degree of deafness and the child's preferred method of communication. It can be a very controversial area where it is essential that an inspector understands the issues involved and is able to make a balanced and well informed judgement. Even within a single disability there may be a great variety of complications. I strongly support these amendments.
Baroness Blatch: The inspection of educational provision for pupils with special needs is one on which noble Lords have expressed their anxiety. I am aware that it is also a point of great concern to many outside this Chamber. Perhaps I may say at the outset that we are very sympathetic to those concerns and are determined that the new inspection regime we set up will serve to help and reinforce the efforts of those who devote so much dedicated care and attention to this very special group of children.
I remind the Committee that we have included in the Bill's inspection provisions not only all maintained special schools but non-maintained schools and independent schools taking pupils with statements of special educational needs. Some of those schools have never been inspected before. I am sure that they will benefit from this closer and more public scrutiny.
It is very pleasant that we are now discussing a comprehensive and sophisticated system of inspection and that we should now be getting down to the appropriate skills and expertise that are brought to bear in order to inspect different aspects of different schools. But I recognise that this group of amendments focuses on pupils in mainstream schools, including those with Unit 4 pupils with statements. It is certainly our intention that the way in which pupils with special needs are identified and then dealt with should form a key part of every inspection report of every school and a major part in the case of a school with a special unit.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for reverting to my familiar theme of trusting the chief inspectors to do their job. It is for the chief inspectors to set out the details of the different sorts of expertise which inspection teams will need in the light of the type and size of school to be inspected. They will guide inspectors as to the way in which inspections should be carried out and the matters to be covered. I have absolutely no doubt that the chief inspectors will say that all inspection teams will have to be equipped to look at and report on the way in which pupils with special educational needs are identified and catered
702
for, and that those looking at specialist provision will have to focus on that more particularly. It is inconceivable that the chief inspectors should omit such an important point from their guidance and conditions for inspection.
While it would be wrong to pre-empt exactly what the chief inspectors may decide on this as on other matters, I am fairly sure that they will wish to see inspection teams for special schools and schools with special units formed along the lines of current HMI practice. When HMI conducts a full inspection of a special school the team is generally composed of those with various degrees of specialist expertise on special needs issues. Where a school has a special needs unit, one member of the team is likely to be a SEN specialist. The HMI team inspecting every mainstream school must have the competence to report on how pupils' special educational needs are identified and dealt with, but there need not be a single identified specialist on the team provided that the team as a whole can meet all the needs.
As I have said, I expect that the chief inspectors will wish to give similar guidance to the new inspection teams. But these matters are for the chief inspectors to decide and we must trust them to do their job.
Of course the governors or other authorities arranging the inspection will also want to ensure that the team which they select for the inspection is adequately qualified for the job. Governors of special schools or schools with special units will want to take particular care that the inspection team which they choose is one in a good position by reason of qualifications and experience to undertake the inspection. As I said when we discussed the previous group of amendments, we anticipate that both the guidance from the chief inspectors to the registered inspectors and any sent also to governing bodies will stress that point.
I appreciate the anxiety felt by Members of the Committee that, while we can speculate, and can in this case be pretty certain, about what the new chief inspectors will do, we cannot guarantee that they will act as we predict. If it will help the Committee I shall undertake to draw our exchanges on this topic to the attention of the chief inspectors, once appointed, so that they can be in no doubt of the Committee's anxiety and of the Government's firm intention that provision for pupils with special needs should receive the important attention that it deserves in every school inspection and the additional specialist attention that it warrants in a special school or a school which has a specialist unit within it. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness Warnock: I am grateful to the Minister for her undertaking to call the attention of the chief inspectors, when appointed, to the need. Of course those chief inspectors will not remain for ever and one hopes that the next will also be well informed.
I am disappointed that the Minister could not undertake to put on the face of the Bill the requirement among the inspectorate teams. Earlier today we heard that the raw scores of examination results are to be published, and that is one source of information which may be used variously by parents.

703
I believe that such issues will make the reports of inspectors even more important because only through those reports will parents gain a balanced view of the nature of the schools between which they are supposed to choose. I do not believe that they will gain that balanced view unless we can be absolutely assured that at least one member of the team is interested in the children who have learning difficulties or temporary or permanent special needs.
I am disappointed in the Minister's answer. Compatibility of the 1981 Act with the new Education (Schools) Bill has not been thoroughly sorted out. There are incompatibilities to which we may have to return at a later stage. However, for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 129 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 129A to 140 not moved.]
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 19, line 24, leave out ("and").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 143 and 146 to 148. These amendments are about the need for inspectors to hold meetings with the governors and staff.
First, I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 141 and 148 which relate to staff. It seems to us that it is important that inspectors should have the opportunity to meet staff as well as parents at the school so that they can get the widest possible knowledge about the school.
There is a requirement in the Bill that a meeting should be arranged between the inspector conducting the inspection and the parents of pupils at the school who wish to attend. In order to have the widest possible background knowledge of the school before conducting an inspection, it is important that the inspector should also have the opportunity to meet the whole staff of the school—both teachers and support staff.
That is important not only from the point of view of the inspector learning about the school but from the point of view of the staff understanding the aims and mechanics of the inspection so that they can learn what the inspectors are intending to do and what they are looking at. That will make easier the implementation of any advice given by the inspectors. It will help to avoid possible problems which could arise through poor communication between the inspector and staff of the school. It is likely to be helpful to the inspector as well as to the staff.
When a similar amendment was debated in Committee in another place, the Minister suggested that there was nothing to stop inspectors meeting teachers and non-teaching staff in a group if they and the governors thought that that was appropriate. Indeed, he went on to say that the governors might ask the inspection team about that if they attached importance to it. The Minister went on to say that
704
some teachers are more willing than others to express their points of view in open meetings. Therefore, he argued in favour of smaller and more informal venues.
That ignores the fact that the Bill specifies that a meeting with parents is a requirement. If a meeting of that kind is specified in the Bill, there seems to be no reason why a meeting with staff cannot be included in the statute.
The intended effect of Amendments Nos. 143, 146 and 147 is to require the inspector conducting an inspection to hold a preliminary meeting with the governors as well as with parents who wish to express views about the school. The purpose of the amendments is to give the governing body the right to express its views and anxieties about the school to the inspector.
The main reason for securing that right is to make absolutely sure that the governing body has the opportunity to give the inspector a balanced, considered and informed view which will supplement the views expressed by parents. One must accept that the views of those parents may not be representative of the views of the parent body as a whole because not all parents may attend the meeting.
A preliminary meeting with the governors would give the governing body the opportunity to correct any mis-statments of fact which may have been made by parents or, indeed, by staff, if it is agreed that meetings with staff are acceptable. Since the governing body also has to pay for the inspection, surely it has a right to ensure that its conduct is in no way distorted by any untrue or unsubstantiated points which may be made by individual parents. I beg to move.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I should like to support the amendment on behalf of these Benches. It is a good idea that teachers and the whole staff—including non-teachers—should be taken into the confidence of the inspector's team since they are an essential part of the school.
I feel that over the past few years there has been too great a tendency to set parents—whom this Government refer to as "consumers"—against the providers (the teachers) as though there were a kind of populist alliance against the professionals. In order to break down that concept a general meeting with the staff—teaching and non-teaching —is a good idea. The closer a school can come to being a community of parents, teachers, local authorities and everyone involved in the nurturing of a future generation, the better. It should be a community project and not simply one involving parents and children.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Amendments Nos. 141, 143 and 146 to 148 all seek to provide for additional meetings to be held with the registered inspector before an inspection takes place. Amendments Nos. 143, 146 and 147 seek a meeting with the governing body or proprietor of the school; while the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, want a meeting with teaching and non-teaching staff of the school.
The amendments are all unnecessary. We have provided in the Bill for a meeting between the registered inspector and parents of pupils at the

705
school, because parents might not otherwise have any chance to put their views which we think should inform the inspection process. Parents have never before been fully involved in school inspections; they have often not known they were happening. But the position of governors, proprietors and of teaching and other staff is different.
By the time the provisions of the Bill, once enacted, come into force, the vast majority of schools will have governing bodies or proprietors as their "appropriate authority" for the purposes of arranging inspections. Amendments Nos. 146 and 147 in effect mean therefore that the appropriate authority would be required to arrange a meeting between itself and the registered inspector. Even in those cases where the LEA remains the appropriate authority, the school's governing body will be expected to seek a preliminary meeting with the inspector, who indeed is more than likely to seek such a meeting himself, if, by some oversight, the governing body should forget to do so. I am sure that the guidance on good practice which HMCI will provide will amply cover the point.
The noble Baroness mentioned that the Minister of State in another place said that there is also nothing to prevent the governors or the inspectors from arranging an open meeting with teaching or non-teaching staff of the school. But I am not sure that that would necessarily be the best way to find out teachers' views. The school's staff will have plenty of opportunity to make their views known to the inspection team. Meetings and discussions with the senior management team, with subject departments and—in a less formal way—with individual members of both teaching and non-teaching staff will form an important part of the inspection process. And any member of staff can approach the inspection team if he or she has a particular point to make or grievance to express.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the Committee will agree that there is no need to impose further statutory conditions in these respects.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. I am a little disappointed although not surprised because I had read what was said by the Minister of State in Committee in another place, particularly in regard to staff. However, I do not believe that an amendment in regard to meetings with the governing body was debated in another place.
What concerns this side of the Chamber is that the registered inspector should obtain a complete view, before starting his inspection, from all parties involved in a school—the staff as a whole, the governing body as a whole and the parents as a whole, or those who wish to attend—rather than a partial view. However, I shall take away the Minster's reply and decide whether or not to come back at the next stage with further amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 19, line 25, at end insert ("by the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: For a moment we stay with the question of what happens when an inspection is
706
arranged and how the arrangements are made in a rather loose group of amendments. The first of these is Amendment No. 142 which merely seeks to ask by whom the prescription in paragraph 6(a) (ii) will be made. I assume that it is either the Secretary of State or HMCI. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will tell me.
In Amendment No. 144, I turn to the question of confidentiality. I am not particularly happy with the place where I propose the change—at line 27 on page 19—where it would feature in the arrangements for the meeting between the parents and the inspector.
There will indeed be need for confidentiality on occasion, as I was trying to say at Second Reading. Parents are often somewhat in awe of the school staff. They also regard their children as being in some sense at risk from victimisation if they were to upset the staff. Therefore, they would need to be confident of the confidentiality of any criticisms they made to the inspectorate.
I see that there are arguments in the opposite sense. The staff of the school would not like anonymous criticism and would prefer its critics to stand up and be counted. The balance must always be in favour of the interests of the child, and those interests suggest that there should be confidentiality. There will be other occasions when individual children will require the protection of confidentiality. I believe that that is already provided for, either in the Bill or in proposed regulations. I would like to be assured of that.
Even if there is provision, there is no safety unless the provision is in some way enforced. A great deal has been said about the answerability of the inspectors. We are frequently told that an inspector is dependent for his right to inspect on the chief inspector. The final amendment I have in this group is Amendment No. 182 which tries to give some form to the chief inspector's supervision in this respect. Clause 11(1) gives the chief inspector the right to remove an inspector from the register under certain conditions. The conditions appear in subsection (2). To them I seek to add that the inspector has breached the provisions made for confidentiality. I do not suppose that the amendments are perfect. They are addressed to a general concern about which I hope my noble friend will be able to reassure me, thus relieving me of the necessity of putting down a specific proposal. I believe that my noble friend Lady Brigstocke also has an amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Brigstocke: Perhaps I may return to the question of the meeting between the parents and the inspector. In speaking to Amendment No. 145A, I want to make sure that the head teacher of the school is there when the inspector and the parents meet. Schedule 2, paragraph 6, asks that the appropriate authority arrange a meeting between the inspector conducting the inspection and the parents of registered pupils. I hope that such a meeting will produce positive points as well as criticism. It may be that it is implicit in the Bill that the head teacher should be present. Surely, to give the meeting a sharp focus it should be explicit to have present the head teacher. It is the heads of the schools, in their own right who in that capacity are the people responsible

707
for delivering the curriculum, the deployment and management of the staff, the discipline, the good order, the relations with parents, industry, commerce, and the local community. The full inspection must comprise those areas.
In the past it has always been the case that before and after carrying out an inspection the HMI in charge has a meeting with the head. I know from my own experience that it can be very confusing and cause a great deal of unpleasantness and misunderstanding to have a meeting with the inspector and the parents without the head of the school being present. I thought for some time about asking for the head teacher and the staff to be present, as has been suggested by noble Lords opposite, but parents are sometimes shy or think that their children might be handicapped, or "got at", if they are too explicit in their own criticisms and I can see that some parents might be intimidated if a large number of staff are at a meeting. However, for good management and organisation of the school surely it is necessary to have the head teacher at such meetings.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I should like to take issue with my noble friend Lady Brigstocke. I should have thought that precisely because parents are often afraid of speaking their minds in public it is very important for any inspection team to meet parents without the head teacher being present and precisely because the head teacher is the most important element in a school. The fish rots from the head down and that is nowhere more important than in a school. If the head is starting to rot the parents must have the opportunity of saying that privately, without the head present.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I appreciate that my noble friend Lord Elton has some concern, in suggesting Amendments Nos. 142 and 145, that there should be proper arrangements made to ensure the smooth and effective running of the meeting which will be held between the registered inspector and the parents prior to the inspection taking place. In order for the meeting to achieve its objectives it must be properly organised and have clear guidelines and aims.
Paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 therefore enables certain details to be prescribed for these meetings—in particular, who may attend them and how they are to be arranged. There is, however, no need for the amendments which my noble friend has suggested—"prescribed", under Clause 18 of the Bill, means "prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State". The Secretary of State is therefore empowered to make regulations in the normal way to cover all relevant matters. I recognise his point that Amendment No. 152 would require that it has to be specified here that the Secretary of State is to do the prescribing, but I am not sure that I agree, unless he seeks also to amend Clause 18.
I have some sympathy with the purpose behind the other amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Elton—
708
Amendments Nos. 144 and 182—concerning the confidentiality of proceedings at the parents' meeting. The noble Lord is concerned lest parents might be inhibited from speaking frankly to the registered inspector about weaknesses in the school's management or teaching provision, because of understandable fears that their children might be made to suffer by teachers or other staff who resented their complaints. I suggest, however, that a meeting with parents of the kind envisaged is hardly the sort at which any cast iron guarantee of the confidentiality of what is said could be given. The registered inspector would observe it, but who could ensure that the parents did? Parents will anyway have been notified that an inspection is to take place and of its timing, and the main purpose of the meeting is formally to give them the opportunity to express their views to the inspector. Some parents will be less inhibited about doing this than others. Some might prefer to write with their concerns, or seek a private talk with the inspector after the meeting or on a different occasion. There will be nothing to prevent that, and it might well be that HMCI's guidance will encourage inspectors to remind parents of their rights in this regard. There is no need to provide for such matters in regulations.
Pupils' individual records will, of course, be confidential. There can be no question of their being published in inspection reports on the school. Clause 16 makes clear that no information published in comparative tables can name an individual pupil to which it relates.
I cannot prejudge what regulations may be made under this paragraph. There are matters which remain to be considered —not least in the light of points of view expressed in this Chamber and in another place. But I can assure my noble friend that the important points he has raised concerning confidentiality in relation to the views which parents may express at such meetings, as well as the method of dealing with an inspector who is considered to have broken that confidentiality, will be carefully considered when these matters are looked at after the passage of the Bill.
I turn now to Amendment No. 145A, in the name of my noble friend Lady Brigstocke, which comes from a rather different standpoint. My noble friend was, of course, a very distinguished head teacher herself. One can well imagine that in her school there would never be any question about her being welcome at such a meeting as that proposed in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2. But I am not at all sure about the wisdom of making such attendance an enforceable right, or even the general expectation. As my noble friend Lord Elton stressed, parents should feel able to speak freely at these meetings. Their purpose is to allow parents to express their views to the inspector. My noble friend Lord Pearson has also expressed his worries on this matter.
I am sure that inspectors will not simply take all such views at face value. They will use them as background to their work and will only reflect them in their report if they find them fully justified. It may be right in some cases for them to discuss with the head, without specific attribution, points made at the

709
meeting. But I do not think our aim of a free and open expression of parental views will necessarily be served by giving the head teacher a right of attendance.
There are, of course, other occasions for parents to express their views to the governing body and the head teacher—most notably the annual parents' meeting provided by the Education (No.2) Act 1986. There will be ample opportunity for the head teacher and the governors to express their views to the inspector. But in the light of the points made earlier we must give very careful consideration to the question of who should be invited to these meetings when the regulations which will govern them are being drafted. I hope that what I have said will have convinced my noble friends not to press their amendments.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to my noble friend for that reply. It leaves me with some residual doubt because a great deal of what she said about the confidentiality of information about individual pupils rested upon Clause 16. Clause 16 deals not with inspectors' reports but with the publication of information by proprietors and governing bodies of schools, which is not what we are actually considering at the moment.
I am concerned about the reports. What happens to the reports is set out in paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 Subparagraph (5) states:
"The appropriate authority shall—(a) make any report and summary sent to the authority under subparagraph (3) available for inspection by members of the public".
Heading (b) of the subparagraph states:
"provide a copy of the report and summary, free of charge or in prescribed cases on payment … to any person who asks for one".
If any personalised information gets into that report, it will be all over the shop unless there is something to stop that happening. My noble friend has not convinced me that that something exists except in convention at the moment. If she wishes to add now to what she said and if there are regulations which affect what can go into that report, or if it is proposed to have regulations which will affect what can go into that report, I should be most grateful to hear from her. Otherwise, perhaps she can write to me before the next stage and I shall keep the door open until then.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Perhaps I may repeat to my noble friend the fact that I cannot prejudge what regulations may be made. But the matters being considered and the views on confidentiality expressed in this Chamber and in another place will be taken very much into account in drawing up the regulations. I hope that that will give my noble friend some comfort.
Lord Elton: I shall try to express that form of tentative satisfaction which does not preclude later dissatisfaction after reading the Hansard report of the response. However, I hope that I shall not need to use that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos 143 to 150 not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 151:
710
Page 19, line 36, at end insert ("and
(c) a right to attend any lesson or period of instruction or supervised activity given on the premises of the school, or given elsewhere by members of the staff of the school, to pupils registered at the school as part of their education").
The noble Lord said: Although I spoke to this amendment earlier, I am not aware that my noble friend addressed the latter part of it in her reply. I merely wish to draw to her attention my concern that inspectors should be able to see the activities of children supervised by staff away from the school. I absolutely understand about their access to all premises. I do not expect my noble friend to answer now because the amendment has already been spoken to. However, if that point has not been covered, perhaps she can write to me on the matter. Having said that, I do not intend to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 151 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 20, line 6, at end insert ("and shall consult with the headteacher and appropriate authority on a draft of his report and summary").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 156, 168 and 169. All those amendments are tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. I shall also be speaking to Amendments Nos. 156A and 169A tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, which have been grouped with my amendments.
The four amendments tabled in my name refer to paragraph 9 of Schedule 2. They relate to the inspectors' reports. Subparagraph (2) of paragraph 9 states:
"When an inspection has been completed, the registered inspector shall, before the end of the prescribed period, prepare in writing a report of the inspection and a summary of the report".
We are seeking by way of these four amendments to ensure that the inspector shall also,
"consult with the headteacher and appropriate authority on a draft of his report and summary",
and that the,
"headteacher and the appropriate authority shall both be entitled if they so wish to have published with the report and the summary such comments or commentary on the report or summary as the case may be as they may think fit".
If the Government believe in informing parents about schools, there should be no objection to additional information being provided. Schools must have the right to comment on the body of the inspection report under the new system. It is possible that inappropriate or inaccurate comments may bring about personal attacks on members of staff. The report may affect the livelihood of staff and the future of the school. It is an essential safeguard that the head and appropriate authority shall be entitled to add their comments to the body of an inspection report, which will itself be sent to all parents. As the inspection is once in every four years, it is only right that there should be a formal procedure for the school to comment.
Without such a procedure, inaccuracies in any report will undermine schools. The school and appropriate authority need to be able to criticise

711
inspectors' recommendations, particularly where an inspection team fails to meet the set criteria. The inspection team may prove to have a lack of expertise and understanding of or disregard for special educational needs, despite the requirements of the school. There is a particular need for such a safeguard given the lack of a code of practice and confidentiality safeguards in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has referred to this.
Consultation with the teaching staff and appropriate authority should take place in any inspection, and the amendments write that into the Bill. It is especially important that the head and the appropriate authority should be consulted at the draft report stage to allow them to clear up their responsibilities to preserve the privacy and confidentiality of pupils, parents and teachers.
The amendments do not seek to interfere with the independence of schools' inspection. They provide safeguards under a new private system of inspection, its cycle of inspection being every four years. Formal consultation would allow for formal comments to be included in the information circulated to all parents. That would give a rounded picture of the school and allow parents to pursue areas of concern through the appropriate authorities. It would improve the facilities for co-operation between parents and teachers, thus increasing genuine parental involvement. I hope that it will not be said that there is an alarmist attitude about this. I believe that allowing the head and the authority to comment is a safeguard. It seems only fair that they should be able to comment on the report before it goes out. I beg to move.
Midnight
Baroness Brigstocke: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 156A and 169A. I can accept that it can be intimidating to have only one person, the head, at a meeting of the governors, the parents and the chief inspector. But I cannot see why the Bill cannot provide for the inspectors' reports to be sent to the appropriate authority for the school, to the chief inspector, the school's head teacher and the local education authority. It seems absolutely ridiculous that the report should not be sent to the head teacher. I know that in some grant-maintained schools heads can serve on the governing body, but there are plenty of examples in local authority schools of heads pulling out and refusing to serve on the governing body. It is important that it should be made explicit that the heads, in playing their role as head with responsibility for delivering education in their schools, should be sent the inspectors' report.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I should like to give expression to a worry about the question of the inspectors' reports. I understood from a retired HMI to whom I spoke before the Bill came before the Chamber that the preparation of a written report may be a lengthy matter—that it might be weeks before a full written report was produced—but that in the meantime there would be consultations with the head teacher with regard to any matter that required
712
immediate attention on the part of the school. It therefore seems relevant that the inspection team should consult with the head teacher immediately in case there should be anything requiring urgent attention and long before it is possible for the inspector to produce a full written report of his inspection.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: We would expect with the reports of both the registered inspectors and the inspectors of denominational education that the head teacher and the appropriate authority—the governing body, the LEA or the school's proprietors, as the case may be—would be given an opportunity to read any inspection report before it is finalised. That is standard practice in consultancy work and, I stress, has long been the practice of HMI when preparing inspection reports. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, that anything urgent is drawn to the attention of the head teacher or the appropriate authority. I expect that HMCI's guidance on the conduct of inspections will include advice on that point.
But it is essential that, following any discussion of the draft, the inspectors have the freedom to publish an objective report which reflects their views accurately, and parents have the freedom to receive it as written. We do not want attachments from different sources setting out different views which might confuse the reader. The inspection report must be just that: the report of the inspection team.
We are not in the business of preventing comment and discussion about the report. Governors and heads can address their parent body in a number of ways. They may want to hold a meeting to discuss the report and give their views; they may want to send round their commentary as a basis for that discussion. We are certainly not removing their power to do so. But we say that the commentary should be kept separate from the report so that its source is clearly understood.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 156A and 169A tabled by my noble friend Lady Brigstocke. Since the head teacher is entitled to be a member of the school governing body or, if he or she chooses not to be, to attend all governors' meetings, the head teacher will automatically see a copy of the inspection report and summary when finally issued.
I hope that that explains why we consider those amendments are also unnecessary. I hope the noble Lord will not find it necessary to press the amendment.
Baroness David: Do I gather from what the Minister said that there will be consultation on the draft report and summary with the head teacher and the appropriate authority?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I confirm that that has long been the standard practice of HMI. It will be part of the normal consultancy practice which will continue.
Baroness David: So the Minister agrees with Amendments Nos. 154 and 168, but I take it that she does not want them written into the Bill. It is reassuring to know that that practice will continue. I understand that in relation to Amendments Nos. 156 and 169 the Minister does not agree that comments

713
should be published with the report. There has been some reassurance about this matter. I should like to think about the two amendments and after consultation consider whether we want to bring them forward. There has been some reassurance about Amendments No. 154 and 168, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 155 to 156A not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 20, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) The registered inspector shall report separately to the Chief Inspector on the performance by any body named in sub-paragraph (3) or (4) of this paragraph in relation to a school inspected by him under the provisions of this paragraph and the Chief Inspector shall provide a copy of that report to that authority with his comments.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment addresses what may be a little corner of cosiness left unexposed by the Bill, which is intended to deal generally with cosiness. The inspector is called upon by the relevant authority to report on the performance of the school, the staff, the children and the resources but is not at any stage required to report on the principal ingredient of the machinery, which is the relevant authority itself.
The amendment is principally aimed at governors, who have a relationship to the proper management of schools. They are not entirely at arm's length. They are expected to work out with the head teacher and staff a suitable behaviour policy. They also have the important business of appointing suitable staff, which is critical to the success of the school in the years after the appointment.
It occurred to me that I should like to hear the Government say how it is expected that this function will be monitored. It may not done by the, I suggest, rather odd provision that those who are appointed by the relevant authority should then report on that authority to the chief inspector, who is to forward the report to the relevant authority with his own comments. I realise that that is Byzantine, but I do not see any other way of achieving a necessary aim if this is all to work as it should. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I appreciate my noble friend's desire to make sure that the performance of governing bodies, local authorities and diocesan boards of education is kept under review. But I am not sure his amendments really secure that.
To deal first with the performance of the governors, it would be quite impossible for the report on the school not to reflect quite clearly on the way in which the governors as well as the head had discharged their responsibilities. In reporting on the causes of particular aspects of good or bad performance, the involvement (or otherwise) of the governors will be mentioned when appropriate. That view will then become public knowledge and not be fed into a separate reporting process direct to the chief inspector. It is the public accountability of governors to those—including parents—who elect and appoint them which is at the heart of our reforms. They will
714
quite rightly be judged mainly by the fruits of their efforts in terms of the overall quality of their school. The inspection reports will make that quite clear.
We would not wish to require HM inspector to consider in detail every inspection report and append his comments about the governors or anything else. He cannot second-guess registered inspectors at a distance. It is not for him to advise every governing body—also from a distance—on how it might improve its performance.
As for the local authority, which may or may not also be the appropriate authority for the school, and the diocesan body which supports a Church school, much the same general arguments apply. Where their action or inaction is relevant to the quality of education seen in the school, the registered inspectors will mention that and it will be publicly known. The local electorate or Church membership will be able to join with the school if necessary in pressing for changes. Again, we look to processes of local accountability rather than confidential central reporting to secure any necessary improvements. I hope that that is a process which my noble friend Lord Elton will be able to understand as appropriate and effective.
Lord Elton: I shall read that with great care. The Committee is aware that all is not well with all governing bodies at the moment. I am trying to find some means of injecting light and reason into the more dark and difficult patches that governing bodies have recently got into. As I said, I am not confident that this is the right approach. I am grateful to my noble friend and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 157A:
Page 20, line 44, leave out from beginning to ("an") and insert ("The governing body of a school about which").
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 157A, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 158A and 159A to 159E, all of which stand in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Young of Dartington and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Essentially, the amendments change the part of the Bill which deals with action plans and show that that part of the Bill can be amended clearly and logically to place the responsibility for the action plans in the hands of the school governors. In my judgment, that is exactly where they ought to be. In other words this provision does not interfere with the basic logic of the Bill—the scheme of inspection if one cares to put it that way. If anything, it enhances it. The amendments are transparently clear and the Bill can still be workable. I hope therefore that the Government find the amendments acceptable. I beg to move.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: Members on the other side of the Chamber have been playing fast and loose with the concept of appropriate authority, as I indicated earlier. I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to a part of the Bill with which he is certainly familiar. I refer to Clause 9(5) where the term "appropriate authority" was originally defined.

715
If he is seeking to substitute for that turn of phrase "the school's governing body", what does he think that does for schools in subsection (5) (a) and (b)?
Clause 9(5) (a) states:
"in the case of a maintained school (other than a grant-maintained school) whose governing body does not have a delegated budget, the local education authority for that school".
Is it the case, then, that the noble Lord seeks to dispossess, as it were, the local education authority from the responsibility which would otherwise be its own under the parts of Schedule 2 to which he refers? What would he do in the case of Clause 9(5) (b) which states:
"in the case of a school falling within paragraph (e), (f) or (g) of subsection (3), the proprietor of the school"?
Those are matters which the noble Lord appears to have overlooked in his amendment, although that surprises me as he and his noble friends have given some attention to this subsection of the Bill.
I have another question for the noble Lord which I believe I asked him by implication earlier. What is he proposing to do with the other cases in Schedule 2—there are only two or three of them—where the term "appropriate authority" remains unamended in his extensive raft of amendments? The first example appears in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2, at line 21 on page 19 of the Bill. There is a further example in paragraph 9(3) of Schedule 2, at line 8 on page 20. Thirdly, there is an example in paragraph 9(5), at line 22 on page 20.
If the noble Lord is dealing with the concept of appropriate authority, it is inconvenient if the notion of appropriate authority is left in the air in the manner I have indicated. It is doubly inconvenient if there are still some cases where the term "appropriate authority" continues to be unamended in Schedule 2. If I may say so, we are discussing a rather imprecise set of amendments. Basically, this matter is a bit of a dog's breakfast. It might be appropriate to do the job properly and get the amendments right or perhaps not trouble to move them at this stage.
Baroness Blatch: Will the noble Lord, Lord Peston, respond to those points as they are important to our reading of the amendments?
Lord Peston: If the noble Baroness wishes me to do that, I shall respond, as always, to her wishes. However, I prefer to debate my own amendments on the Marshalled List. They are as they are. The noble Lord has asked me what I intend to do as regards amending other parts of the Bill. If he will wait until we reach those parts, he will be perfectly satisfied on that. What I seek to demonstrate here is that there is no difficulty in amending the Bill appropriately so that what I regard as the essence of the Bill from the Government's point of view can be saved. However, it was not my intention to produce all those amendments at this time.
On the whole I endeavour to speak to the amendments in the grouping I am discussing. What I am trying to do here is to indicate that in this case one can substitute governing body for appropriate authority. The noble Lord will discover that my
716
imagination and drafting ability extends to dealing with other cases as well. In other words, I am trying to convey to the Committee that because the Government have defined the concept of "appropriate authority" that does not mean that the rest of us, in scrutinising the Bill in as expert—or inexpert—a way as we can manage, must be constrained by that definition. To do that would mean that we would always be discussing the whole of the Bill at one time which, to my certain knowledge of logic, is never a sensible thing to do.
I repeat that we have before us amendments which I believe to be very clear, although when the noble Baroness replies she may ask me some more questions. They show that in this case we can substitute for "an appropriate authority" the words "a governing body". If the noble Lord will bear with me I shall demonstrate to him subsequently how, with no difficulty, I can do the rest of the job. However, I do not think that it is fair of him to ask me to deal with every part of the Bill simultaneously. I might add that, a fortiori, I think that it is doubly unfair of him to ask me to do so at this time of night. I feel that if we put down amendments the amendments should be referred to as they stand. That is what we are here for. Is that of any help to the noble Baroness?
Baroness Blatch: Not a great deal. In some ways the unanswered questions leave confusion as to how the noble Lord will proceed from here to make sense of the amendments. Amendment No. 111, which was voted on earlier, also leaves the amendments in a state of flux. While the present amendments might make some sense as consequential amendments arising from Amendment No. 111, they certainly could not suffice independently and are therefore inadequate. I wonder whether it would make sense to defer discussion on the amendments until we have looked in more detail at the other consequences and decided how best to proceed. Again, without prejudice to our discussions on the matter, I wonder whether the noble Lord would agree with that course of action.
Lord Peston: I am most obliged to the noble Baroness. Her intervention has been extremely helpful. I certainly do not think that it would be appropriate, especially as Members of the Committee have spoken on the matter, for us to debate Amendment No. 111 again. That would be most improper and was not my intention. The Committee has pronounced on that matter and we now come to these subsequent amendments. I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that it is not my intention to divide the Committee on the amendment.
If it were the Committee's wish that we did not spend any more time on the subject there would be no difficulty in persuading me of that, quite irrespective of the time. However, in view of the time and as it is the Committee's view that it would not be helpful to proceed with the matter at this time—I see enough nodding to indicate that the Committee has taken that view—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 158:

717
Page 20, line 45, after ("period") insert (", and in consultation with the head teacher of the school concerned").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 158 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 159, 164 and 166. The amendments relate to action plans. The first amendment provides that the appropriate authority to whom the inspector has reported under the schedule should, before the end of the prescribed period,
"and in consultation with the head teacher of the school concerned"
prepare a written statement. That proposal is in line with what my noble friend Lady Brigstocke suggested and concerns the involvement of the head teacher in what ought be a natural part of his or her function.
I regret that the amendment does not also bring the inspector into the process. Perhaps I may give notice that that is a point which I should like to raise with the noble Baroness because it seems to me that the best inspection reports will contain not only the seeds of an action plan but also suggestions which the inspector may discuss with the school as to how that action plan can best be drawn out.
The second amendment is Amendment No. 164. It is designed to elicit from the Government how it is to be ensured that action plans are put into effect. So far as I can see, the Bill takes one up to the point at which there is an inspection, shortcomings are discovered, ingenious ways of putting them right are devised and plans are published, notified to parents, incorporated in the annual report of the governing body and then disappear. They will not be of any use unless action is taken on them. I do not feel that the duty to put them into the governors' report should expire until action has been taken.
In connection with schools deemed to be at risk, one needs to be rather more brisk than that. That is why in Amendment No. 166 I propose that the Secretary of State should arrange:
"for action to he taken … if the proposals set out in the action plan have not been fully, or in his opinion, sufficiently carried out within a period prescribed".
Those are the three limbs of what I propose. I should be most grateful if the noble Baroness would use this opportunity to explain what, if anything, the Government have in mind for action in those three areas. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My name is on Amendments Nos. 158 and 164. I raised the matter of accountability at Second Reading. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, one is carried up to a certain point and the action plan is apparently made but then we do not know what will happen.
Lord Elton: As the noble Baroness has launched a torpedo, perhaps I may intervene. She and her friends launched a torpedo which sank the part of the Bill to which this amendment is addressed because the appropriate authorities are now quite other than they were when I drafted the amendments. It may well be that I can save the time of the Committee now and say that I shall consider this matter again between now and Report stage, reserving the opportunity to aim some kind of counter-salvo. That is the best that I can devise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
718
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 158A to 159E not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 21, line 29, after ("who") insert ("with reasonable cause").
The noble Lord said: This little amendment, together with Amendments Nos. 161 and 200, is devised simply to get over what could he a vexatious problem. Amendment No. 200 is in the group, but not in my name.
The first two amendments are devised to prevent the existence in the Bill of an open-ended requirement to produce an unlimited number of copies of papers for people who have no reasonable cause to have them and to charge people who have no reasonable cause to ask for them, thus extinguishing the nuisance or making it profitable. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My name appears to Amendment No. 200. I should like also to support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
Amendment No. 200 is a probing amendment to find out why local education authorities, governing bodies and head teachers are allowed to charge for documents supplied under Section 22 of the Education Reform Act but not under Clause 16 of this Bill. It is possible that there could be quite considerable costs incurred in producing some documents. It seems only right that the responsible body should be able to recoup at least some small part of the cost. For instance, a school might devise an innovative way to present information about its examination results or -dare I say? - it might even find a way of implementing value added in presenting its examination results. It might then be possible that many other schools would like to have a copy of the document to see whether they could develop similar expertise in the presentation of the information. Why should not a school, which has paid for development work in this way, be able to recoup some of the cost in supplying information to other schools, local education authorities, registered inspectors, research bodies or the Department of Education and Science?
12.30 a.m.
Baroness Blotch: I appreciate the concern of my noble friend Lord Elton for economy but I believe that Amendments Nos. 160 and 161 would complicate the Bill's provisions unnecessarily. Sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 7 of the schedule allows for the Secretary of State to set out in regulations what fee is to be charged in what circumstances for a copy of the action plan. That power can and, I expect, will be used to secure that those other than parents, staff and others with a direct interest can be charged a reasonable fee. I believe therefore that my noble friend's point has been met.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady Seear, propose in Amendment No. 200 to enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to authorise local authorities, governing bodies and head teachers to make a charge sufficient to cover the cost of providing documents in accordance with regulations made by him under Clause 16. The duties to be

719
imposed on governors under the clause will be the transmission of information for comparative tables to the Secretary of State or someone he authorises for that purpose and possibly the distribution of the tables through pupil post. In neither case will there be any significant extra cost involved and a charge will not be appropriate.
In the case of the tables themselves, it is our intention that once prepared they should be made freely available on request and indeed published in local newspapers. But we have no intention of making regulations which will require the LEA, for example, to give 200 copies to a local estate agent. In such cases the authority may decide to go beyond its statutory duty and supply the copies requested. It would be able to charge the estate agent a fee for what was supplied. There is no ability to charge for school prospectuses in the 1981 regulations, and I should not wish to go down that route for comparative tables.
The power to charge for information in the curriculum under Section 22 of the 1988 Act is because parents are entitled to ask for copies of detailed documents which are made available at the school but not otherwise widely published. I hope that in the light of that explanation the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Elton: I am reassured by my noble friend's remarks. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 161 not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 162:
Page 21, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) The duty in sub-paragraph (6) above shall not be deemed to have been fully discharged until either all the proposals have been carried into effect or other proposals have been substituted for them.").
The noble Lord said: We turn, I hope with more success, to the question of what happens to an action plan. However, I must say that I preferred my earlier amendments which were destroyed, inadvertently or otherwise, by the noble Baroness and her friends. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that a governing body does not extinguish all its duties with regard to an action plan simply by publishing it in the first of its annual reports after the action plan has been completed. There is a requirement in sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 10 that it should publish a statement of the extent to which the proposals set out in an action plan have been carried into effect in its governors' report. However, so far as I can see it would be possible to give a general progress report in the first year and thereafter say that the statutory duty had been completed. I do not believe that that is the intention of the Bill but that is how it can be read. My amendment proposes that that duty shall not be completed until either the proposals have been carried into effect or others have been substituted for them.
Rather surprisingly, Amendment No. 165 is grouped with this amendment. It addresses a slightly different point but it may assist my noble friend to answer if I keep it in the group. I imagine that her
720
notes are presented in that expectation. The amendment relates to schools considered to be at risk. Paragraph 11(1) states:
"Where the registered inspector conducting an inspection of a school is of the opinion that the school is failing, or is likely to fail, to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education".
That suggests that it relates to all the pupils. The distinct point is that the requirement in the schedule is that the registered inspector shall express an opinion only if it seems that all the pupils are unlikely to be receiving an unacceptable standard of education. It is important that particular classes of pupil should not be neglected; for example, pupils in need of remedial education, pupils with special educational needs or pupils who are unruly—I use the old terminology. I should like to be reassured that that paragraph will have effect in those circumstances as well as in a school which is thought to be generally defective. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend Lord Elton wishes to ensure through Amendment No. 162 that the governors' annual report should continue to include a statement of the extent to which the action plan has been implemented until either the action plan is complete or new proposals have been substituted, presumably via a new action plan following the next inspection.
The Bill secures that already. Schedule 2, paragraph 10(6) does not limit the report on the action plan to a single governors' report. Sub-paragraph (8) makes it clear that proposals relating to the most recent inspection report will replace those relating to a previous one. Therefore, I trust that the amendment will not be pressed.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, did not speak to Amendment 163. Perhaps she would like to do so now.
Baroness David: Amendment No. 163 is linked to Amendment No. 162 and I shall speak to that now. LEAs must be sent action plans, but there is nothing in the Bill about what they should do with them, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said earlier. This amendment requires LEAs to use their powers to assist governing bodies to implement action plans.
The Bill states that it is the duty of the appropriate authority, which in most cases, with the introduction of local management of schools, will be the governing body, to write an action plan of the action it is proposed to take in the light of the report from the inspector and the period of time within which it proposes to take it. A copy of the action plan is required to be sent to the LEA where the governing body is the appropriate authority and the school is not grant maintained. However, the Bill does not state that the LEA must take action on receipt of the action plan.
Indeed, in Committee in another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, in replying to an amendment tabled by Mr. Jack Straw on LEA advice on action plans, replied:
"How can governors properly assign responsibility for the action plan back to their Council when the action needed—whether on the curriculum, staffing or the allocation of resources—is the statutory responsibility of the Governing Body and not the Council".

721
Mr. Fallon was clearly indicating in his reply that the LEA had no statutory role. Yet much of the work required within the action plan may not be within the capacity of the governing body. Surely it would be appropriate for a statutory responsibility to be given to the LEA to oversee the implementation of the action plan. That is particularly important in the case of a school which has received a poor inspection report and which needs a considerable amount of support in order to improve the education provided. There is a danger that, without help from the LEA, a school in that position will be unable to respond effectively to the criticisms made in the inspection report.
There is a gap in the Bill and perhaps the Minister will tell us how it is to be filled.
Baroness Faithfull: What sanction is there if governors do not implement provisions in the Bill?
Baroness David: That is what I want to know, too. It is a point I raised at Second Reading. Who is accountable? Nobody is accountable.
Baroness Blatch: I begin with the question of my noble friend. The whole purpose of the system is that it is so exposed. The idea would be that if a critical report is produced, all interested parties would receive it. It would be discussed in draft form before being published in final form. An action plan would follow. That would have to be reported to parents. It would have to go on being reported to parents, as I said in relation to the first amendment, and we leave the accountability of the school and governing body to the parents. In other words, they must keep saying: "We know that there is something wrong with the school but we have (or have not) done something about it". Of course, four years later along comes the inspectorate.
Baroness David: I am sorry, but I cannot hear the Minister's reply when she turns away.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry. If the school continued to refer to an action plan which it had not implemented then, first, the LEA could exercise its own powers under the Act to do something about that and, secondly, it would be subject to another four-yearly inspection when the problem would be picked up again. A good LEA certainly would have enough knowledge that a school was defaulting on its powers under the Act.
Where the governing body of a maintained school is responsible for drawing up the action plan, it must send a copy to the LEA. I am sure that the LEA will wish to help as far as it can to ensure that appropriate action is taken, and to offer the governing body any assistance it needs. In many cases the LEA will simply be responding to requests for services from the school which will be able to meet the costs from its delegated budget.
In the unlikely case of an LEA failing to take reasonable steps to provide help in the area of its own statutory responsibility—for instance, by failing to meet an identified need for capital investment by including a project for the school in its forward
722
programme—the governors will be able to draw attention to this in their reports to parents, and the problem will be highlighted in the next inspection report on the school. The strength of the new system is its openness: matters which could once be conveniently ignored by local authorities and, indeed, by governing bodies, will be exposed to public view.
I can assure the noble Baroness that there is no need to add to LEAs' statutory responsibilities as her amendment implies. Their existing responsibilities fully cover the need she has identified.
Again, I sympathise with my noble friend's intentions in Amendment No. 165 but I cannot accept the solution. Amendment No. 165 seeks to remind us that a school should not only be judged to be "at risk" if all its pupils are failing to receive an acceptable standard of education. We certainly cannot allow the school to fail in its basic duty to a signifcant minority of pupils before needing to activate the "at risk" provisions. But we must beware of writing into statute words like "any", which could have an unintended effect.
It may be that the school has failed to prevent one troublesome pupil from being a persistent truant, or has not been given the extra resources it feels it requires to meet the special needs of a specific child. Both would be serious cases, and we would expect the inspector to draw attention to them in his report and suggest what might be done. But I do not think they would justify the serious and public step of identifying the school as a whole as "at risk" of failure.
The object of the "at risk" provisions is to provide extra help and support to those schools which are judged to be so poor in terms of their management that it will be hard, if not impossible, for them on their own to devise and implement an adequate plan to tackle the weaknesses in provision which have been identified. I therefore hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment.
Baroness David: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a final question to clarify the matter. From what the Minister said it seems to me that it will be the LEA's responsibility—in fact a duty—to consider the action plan and use its powers to ensure that it is implemented if the governing body does not do it. Is that right?
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness is absolutely right. If the LEA has reason to believe that the local education authority, which has been subject to an adverse or even in part a critical report, is not acting on it and that becomes evident either through the annual reports or complaints through parents, the LEA would have a duty to go into that school and do something about it.
Lord Elton: If my noble friend has ever sat on a parochial church council of the Church of England, and I mention the quinquennial report, I perhaps need to say no more. She will know how easy it is not to act on a report even when it is regularly made on the same subject.

723
I ask my noble friend to look at the wording of sub-paragraph (6) to see if she can cause it to read more readily to the layman in the sense that she says it reads to draftsmen.
My second amendment deals with a delicate and important area which, late as the hour is, I would not want to pass over quickly. In my inquiry into disciplinary schools I and my colleagues discovered that there were pupils who were not properly catered for in schools that were doing their best. They were not a majority of the school, but they were a confounded nuisance and they would be noticed. The danger is that if the relevant authority is to be the local education authority, it may find it very difficult to face up to the shortcomings of a school for which it is responsible when it is also a school where that authority is responsible for curing the defects. I recognise that one cannot have a de minimis provision. One cannot have wordings such as I suggested which mean that if one single child is not properly catered for then the whole majesty of the law is involved in re-jigging the school. If there is a significant proportion of them, then it is exceedingly important that it should. Given that cautionary remark, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 163 not moved.]
12.45 a.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 164:
Page 21, line 43, at end insert:
("( ) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-paragraphs (6) and (8), the Secretary of State shall, after consultation with the relevant Chief Inspector and any bodies appearing to him to represent appropriate authorities and head teachers of schools, make arrangements to ensure that proposals set out in an action plan are carried into effect and monitored.").
The noble Lord said: I believe that we have covered this ground. The amendment is again about how action plans should be enforced. We have dealt with that sufficiently tonight. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 164 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 165 to 169A not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 169B:
Page 22, line 45, at end insert ("and the Chief Inspector"),.
The noble Lord said: I believe that we are now at Part II of the schedule, line 45. The Committee will recall that, speaking to an earlier amendment, I said that it was important that the chief inspector should have some impression of what was going on in schools over the country, even in those fields where he was not responsible for inspecting the content or the manner in which it was taught. We have reached the part of the Bill where it is possible to supply the missing piece of the patchwork quilt by requiring the inspector who is reporting on a Part II denominational education inspection to copy the report to the chief inspector. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am very happy to be able to support the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I think that this amendment will further strengthen the points which we have been trying jointly to make.
Baroness Blatch: In this amendment we are asked to require that all inspection reports under denominational provision are sent to the chief inspector. That is the case for other inspection reports. Indeed for the other inspections the chief inspector will also have access to supporting information for monitoring purposes and to feed into his national database. But HMI do not have the same interest in the inspection system or the provision made for denominational religious education. It is by definition not a provision that can be aggregated to give a national picture. The provision is governed by rules specific to the faith in question, and in some cases to the school in question, through the trust deed. It is not for HMI to draw national conclusions about such very diverse activity nor is there any justification for requiring copies of every report in terms of oversight of the inspection system, since the inspectors of this provision need not be trained or registered by the chief inspectors nor work to their guidelines.
This is a very different role. It would simply be a courtesy or no more. To write that on the face of the Bill would be wrong. If it has to go to the chief inspector it must be for a purpose. We believe that the chief inspector in this case has no locus in the matter.
Lord Elton: I think that in trying to save the time of the Committee I have not addressed this amendment adequately. I should remind my noble friend that the purpose of the training of inspectors who make these reports is to see that they are effective in giving them. I have also said that there is no intention that that training shall be addressed to doctrinal matter.
It is worth spending a moment considering not only the situation as it now is, but the situation as it soon may be. There are sects within the Christian faith which hold extreme views about how human life should be conducted and how human beings should behave towards each other. The same is true of other faiths. It is usually those who hold their views with the greatest sincerity and enthusiasm who are the first to establish educational foundations for their propagation.
We shall soon have schools—not only Christian schools, but others—in which it is quite possible that extreme views will he propagated in the guise of religion which are, in fact, political indoctrination. I have cast around for examples with difficulty, because it is so difficult not to attract opinions to a particular case if one cites it in illustrating a general theme. However, I assure the Committee that it is a general theme that I address when I refer to the recent fatwa addressed to Salman Rushdie. That has been presented as a religious act, but it has been reacted to properly by Her Majesty's Government as a political movement.
It seems to me that if extreme political positions of such a movement—and I do not necessarily say that movement; it might be, say, the Moonies—are to be advocated under the secure cloak of denominational

725
anonymity, which the Bill now provides, that could be divisive to the fabric of our society. The chief inspector ought to be in a position to advise the Secretary of State in that respect. If he is not to receive that information he cannot give that advice and the Secretary of State can take no remedial action. That is what I am pursuing. I hope that my noble friend will consider that further before Report. Before I withdraw the amendment I await her assurance that she will do so.
Baroness Blatch: Of course I shall consider between now and Report all that has been said during the course of the debate on this amendment, and indeed all others.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed.
Clause 10 [Registration of inspectors]:
[Amendment No.170 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 171 and 172 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 173 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 174 to 178 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 179 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 180 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 113:
Page 6, line 39, leave out ("such conditions together with").
The noble Lord said: This is what is known as a googly—it is bowled in one direction and bounces in another. Amendment No. 113 is printed in the wrong place on the Marshalled List. This is an amendment to which I know the answer, therefore I do not propose to move it.
[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 7, line 3, at end insert:
("(10) The Chief Inspector for England may make the granting of a fresh registration under this section to an applicant who has previously been registered by him conditional upon the applicant satisfying the requirements of paragraph 4 of Part I of Schedule 2 to this Act.
(11) The Chief Inspector for Wales may make the granting of a fresh registration under this section to an applicant who has previously been registered by him conditional upon the applicant satisfying the requirements of paragraph 5 of Part I of Schedule 2 to this Act.").
The noble Lord said: This is a more substantial amendment which I shall speak to as briefly as I am able. It relates to the granting of renewed registration to an applicant who is already registered as an inspector. The Committee will recall that the chief inspector has the power to set the period for which a registration is valid and then to re-register. The Bill is quite specific that an original applicant for registration must have some training. All along I have tried to point out the importance of retraining, particularly for someone who has not taken advantage of the ability to get himself registered again as soon as his original registration expires. A common experience with
726
teachers and nurses is to return to the profession after having raised a family. A person reapplying for registration under those circumstances would be very out of touch with developments and ought to have some training. This amendment seeks to provide for it. Subsection (10) deals with England. Subsection (11) is the same provision relating to Wales. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I recognise that my noble friend wants to ensure that registered inspectors are up-dated as necessary through in-service training. Of course I have a great deal of sympathy with that aim. However, I hope I can demonstrate to my noble friend's satisfaction that what he seeks can be achieved through the provisions already in the Bill.
The chief inspector could refuse re-registration to anyone whom he believed no longer competent to inspect and he could take into account in forming that judgment the need for additional training. Alternatively, he might make it a condition of re-registration that the inspector underwent a particular course of training within a set period.
It will be for HMCI to determine the period of registration of each inspector, but we envisage that some may be registered for shorter periods than others so as to allow, for example, for closer monitoring of less experienced inspectors. If an inspector is registered for a year and then has his registration renewed for, say, five years because he has performed well, the chances are that he will not need a second training course after that first year.
Lord Elton: Would it interest my noble friend to know that I am entirely satisfied by what she has already said? I do not need to be further persuaded.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I am delighted and grateful to my noble friend. I thank him for that intervention.
Lord Elton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Removal from register and imposition or variation of conditions]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 7, line 17, leave out from ("is") to end of line 18 and insert ("in whole or in part, seriously misleading").
The noble Lord said: This amendment came to me in draft from the National Association of Head Teachers. It draws attention to something so extraordinary that I thought that I ought to table it.
Clause 11(2) (d) states that a chief inspector may remove the name of an inspector from his register if,
"he has knowingly or recklessly produced a report of an inspection which is, when taken as a whole, seriously misleading".
That is an extraordinarily odd restriction. Why does it have to be seriously misleading as a whole? Why can it not be seriously misleading simply about the calibre of the staff or the achievements of the pupils? I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I recognise my noble friend's concern to prevent inspection reports resembling the curate's egg—good only in parts. As drafted, the Bill

727
allows the chief inspector to remove from the register any inspector who deliberately or recklessly produces a report which is seriously misleading. I do not think there is any disagreement among Members of the Committee that such a provision is essential. The inspection report is the public result of the inspection process and it is the responsibility of the registered inspector to get it right. To emphasise the importance of the reports, the Bill makes specific provision for the chief inspectors to give guidance to inspectors on the writing of these important documents.
However, I think that we should avoid being too ready to withdraw registration—and with it an inspector's livelihood. It is the overall picture which counts and which the inspector must be sure he is portraying accurately. An inspector who offered a "soft" report which overlooked weaknesses and mentioned only the best aspects of the school would quite rightly be a candidate for instant removal from the register, subject to the necessary appeals procedure.
But there are bound to be times when an inspector misinterprets one particular aspect of a school's performance—quite possibly through no fault of his own but because he was given mistaken information. One such error should not be expected to result in instant removal from the register.
1 a.m.
Lord Elton: My noble friend has suggested that an inspector might fall into the trap of being supplied with misleading information and using it. But the clause requires him to be "knowingly or recklessly" producing such a report. That is what makes it so extraordinary. It could be "knowingly or recklessly" written in a way that was seriously misleading—and those are heavy legal words—in respect only of the finances of the school and that would not be grounds for dismissal. I find that fact extraordinary.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may continue. One such error should not be expected to result in instant removal from the register. But I am sure that any error—whatever it may be—drawn to his attention would be noted by the chief inspector. It would certainly not be acceptable for a registered inspector to make a string of even minor errors. If that were the case, I have no doubt that he would be considered to be no longer capable of competently and effectively conducting inspections and would therefore meet the condition for removal set out in Clause 11(2) (b).
The chief inspector could judge that the inspection team, or the registered inspector, had acted "knowingly and recklessly" and that that had led to misleading information. The judgment would then be made by HMCI. Of course, poor reports may be brought to the attention of HMCI by parents who, whether inside or outside the governing body, will want to ensure the highest standards for their children's school. They will have a chance to express their anxieties to the inspectors in the meeting before the inspection and will want to ensure that they are properly addressed. They will have access to published
728
comparative information which will show if the school is doing less well than its neighbours and will ask questions if what is clearly an over-generous report is written. If such a report is "knowingly and recklessly" written, it will have to be picked up by a third party; that is, either by the head and the school staff and/or the parents.
However, I am aware of my noble friend's anxieties. We do not need a definition of the words "knowingly and recklessly"; indeed, we all know what they mean. But we do need a definition as regards a situation in which something was done "knowingly and recklessly" and was seriously misleading about an important aspect of a school's activity, however small. I think that I shall need to refer back to my noble friend with a definitive answer about what action could be taken in such circumstances.
Lord Peston: Before the noble Lord decides what to do, perhaps I may intervene. I had assumed that what the Government had in mind here is what the noble Baroness said earlier; namely, that she was really concerned to protect someone from an error. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, is entirely right. The clause as written does not actually correspond with what the noble Baroness says the Government have in mind. I think that I understood her correctly. I believe she takes very seriously what is said.
It seems to me that any action which is "knowingly or recklessly" misleading really should make the person unacceptable. That is quite different from what the noble Baroness said—with which I entirely agree—that, if you happen to blunder, then of course you are at least entitled to a second chance. I hope that the Minister will look at the wording with a view to responding positively to the noble Lord.
Lord Elton: I believe that the fact that my noble friend turned around to address me was the reason for the noble Lord not hearing her say that that is precisely what she will do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 182 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 183 not moved.]
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Provision of inspection services by local education authorities]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 10, line 6, leave out ("the Secretary of State") and insert ("he").
The noble Lord said: The amendment would remove what I regard as a syntactical tautology. I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I must congratulate my noble friend on noticing the repetition of the reference to the "Secretary of State" and taking the trouble to table an amendment suggesting that such repetition be removed. I very much appreciate the helpful spirit in which this was done. Of course, my

729
noble friend is grammatically in the right. However, I have to say that on this occasion the repetition is meant to be helpful.
We want the Bill to be as accessible to readers as possible. My noble friend will appreciate that the first mention of the "Secretary of State" is eight lines above the second at the beginning of subsection (5), with two further subsections intervening. It will assist the reader to have the repeated reference to the Secretary of State as that obviates the necessity of checking back to ascertain the identity of the "he" to whom reference is made. I trust that my noble friend will accept that argument and will not press his amendment.
Lord Elton: That is the most extraordinary argument about the English language that I have ever heard, but it is such an extraordinarily late hour that I can only sit with my mouth open in disbelief and, in so doing, beg leave to withdraw my admirable amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 185 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Power of Secretary of State to require information]:
[Amendments Nos. 186 and 187 not moved.]
Baroness Brigstocke Baroness Brigstocke had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 187A:
Page 10, line 15, at end insert:
("(1A) In exercising his powers under section 16(1) above, the Secretary of State shall by regulations make special provision relating to the provision of information by special schools.").
The noble Baroness said: I believe that I heard the Minister say earlier that she would consider including in the information that is provided about special schools, the number of pupils who are statemented and whether the school contains a unit for special educational needs. If that is so, I shall be happy not to move the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am happy to give that reassurance to my noble friend.
[Amendment No. 187A not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 188 and 189 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 189A:
Page 10, line 23, after ("parents") insert ("including parents of children with special educational needs").
The noble Baroness said: I am afraid that I shall move this amendment which stands in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. Clause 16 of the Bill indicates that the Secretary of State will issue regulations to specify what information must be published about each school. Subsection (3) indicates the aims of the information that is to be published. This amendment specifies that one of the aims of the regulations will be to assist parents of children with special education needs in choosing schools for their children.
The regulations arising from the original clause have been issued in draft form, so it is possible to discover quite clearly what the Government intend. The draft regulations will require schools to publish
730
examination results, truancy rates and the destination of school leavers. The Royal National Institution for the Blind, Mencap and Deaf Accord are all concerned that the publication of this data alone will mean that schools are judged largely on the basis of examination results and that schools will therefore be motivated not to accept children with special needs, who might bring down the average examination results.
The long-term answer to the problem of how to recognise the achievements of schools in relation to their pupils is by introducing some way of assessing "value added" or "distance travelled." We went along that route earlier today, or rather, yesterday. In the short term, however, if parents of children with special needs are to be given the same amount of relevant information about schools, then the draft regulations should be amended to require schools to publish two additional pieces of information: first, the number of children who are the subject of statements; and secondly, whether any specific provision—the fact, for example, that the school is for blind children, has a unit for children with severe learning difficulties, or is for the deaf—is made for children with special needs.
In another place, the Government misunderstood the purpose of the amendment to mean that the "new data" on examination results would be changed in some way by deleting the number of statemented children. That is not the purpose. The intention is to increase the information to be published, to put the examination results in a truer perspective, and to offer more useful information for parents of children with special needs. We hope that the Government may be prepared to concede the underlying request for a change to the draft regulations. I hope that that is the correct assumption. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the noble Baroness, who explained the position clearly.
Baroness Warnock: I too support the amendment. It is a rational, logical move to supply more information to all parents.
Lord Addington: I support the amendment. It would be inexplicable were we not to provide this type of information about a school function which will not be covered adequately merely by publishing examination results and truancy levels. Recognition must be given to those with special educational needs and the information should be made readily available.
Baroness Blatch: This is an important and sensitive subject. There is no difference between us as to our objectives. The provisions of Clause 16 relates solely to performance tables. Our intention at present is that those tables will be published annually, will cover all schools in each locality, including special schools, and will include information about pupils' public examinations and naitonal curriculum assessment results, the destinations of school-leavers and truancy rates. In order for that information to enable parents to compare schools it must be provided in a common format by all schools.
The Bill will of course help expose unequal treatment and unsatisfactory provision in a number of ways which I am sure my noble friends will welcome:

731
first, by requiring special schools of all kinds to have regular inspection, with reports and action plans published; and, secondly, by making the results achieved in special schools public in the same way as those of mainstream schools. The bodies representative of the main groups here concerned, including Mencap, have not opposed this provision. Like us, they recognise that good schools have nothing to fear from having that information placed in the public domain. As I said earlier, it is just as important, from whatever level of ability, that the progress of a child from A to B is properly recorded and known.
I should make it clear that we intend the information about schools which will accompany the tables to include the type of school as well as its address. Those reading the tables will therefore be aware of which schools are designated "special" and the sort of special educational needs for which they cater. Secondly, we intend that in the future, as now, the bulk of supplementary information about each school's nature, ethos and achievements in areas other than those covered by the tables will be contained in its prospectus and annual governors' report. Special schools will be able to publish whatever information they consider relevant to explain their provision, objectives and achievements in that way. They will not be judged solely on the basis of the information which appears in the performance tables.
I accept that it may be more difficult for special schools to demonstrate achievements in the relatively easily measurable aspects of performance to be included in the tables than it will be for other schools. I think parents too will recognise that, and read the tables with that in mind. It is not our intention to hold special schools up to unfair comparison; but we believe firmly that the parents of pupils with special needs have the same right to that basic information as other parents.
The noble Baroness will be aware that our plans for comparative tables have recently been the subject of public consultation with a wide range of bodies; in fact responses are still coming in. We shall be very happy to consider suggestions about how the presentation of information about special schools might be handled to reduce her worries and those of other Members of the Committee. I hope that all Members of the Committee who have expressed an interest will look carefully at our proposals with that in mind and quickly let us have their views so that we can take them on board. With those words and with my assurance to my noble friend Lady Brigstocke that we shall also be sensitive to statemented children in mainstream schools and mainstream schools with special units, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness David: I am grateful for the support that I have received from all around the Chamber. But I was disappointed by what the Minister said. She spoke so fast that I am not sure that I took it in properly, so I shall have to read what she said. At one moment it appeared that she thought I was referring to special schools only. Of course I was not. I was referring to all
732
schools. I shall have to read carefully what she said, consult and take advice. It is possible that I shall come back on Report.
Baroness Blatch: I referred to all schools—special, mainstream with children with statements and mainstream with special units. They were all covered by the assurance I gave to my noble friend Lady Brigstocke.
Baroness David: I understand what the Minister says. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 190 to 192 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 193 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 194 and 195 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 196 to 199 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 200 not moved.]
1.15 a.m.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 11, line 28, at end insert:
("( ) Before exercising his powers under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult any persons with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment and the entire group of amendments deal with consultation. Amendment No. 201 brings Clause 16 into line with Section 22 of the Education Reform Act 1988. It requires consultation prior to the making of regulations by the Secretary of State.
In another place, the Government said that that was not required as the DES always consulted people. That is true, but all major regulation-making powers have a statutory consultation requirement contained within them—for example, regulation-making powers on the national curriculum, local management of schools, appraisal of teachers and education support grants. What makes this clause on information requirements different? I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Committee will realise that this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 202, 203B, 203Q, 203U and 205. Because there is a Scottish element in Amendments Nos. 203B, 203Q and 203U, I wish to say a few words.
As concerns Scotland, although the Secretary of State for Scotland has indicated his intention to consult on the details of the information to be collected, no duty appears in the Bill. His intention was made public in a press release by the Minister of State at the Scottish Office dated 7th November 1991. But to date no details of the public consultation timetable have been announced.
This is in contrast to the situation in England and Wales, where a consultation document was published on 10th January this year. Despite repeated assurances during the Committee stage of the Bill in another place and the commitment from the Government Benches during the Bill's Second Reading in this House, a consultation document for Scotland has still to be produced.
The silence from the Scottish Office on this issue is a matter of concern, given that the Bill gives the

733
Secretary of State dictatorial powers on educational issues in Scotland. To allay these concerns, a duty to consult similar to that included within Section 22 of the Education Reform Act 1988 should be included.
It is insufficient that Ministers give assurances to consult. Although this may be the case at present and the Minister may give the assurance with complete confidence and honesty, that does not, as we frequently learn in this House and in the other place, commit the Minister to consult unless the requirement is on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The Scots seem to be a great deal more reasonable than the English in this case. I should be obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, if he could tell me under what circumstances the Secretary of State would not consult persons with whom it appeared to him to be desirable to consult. It seems an extraordinary request.
Lord Addington: We want it on the face of the Bill, to try to get this provision into line with those relating to the other regulations. It may well happen, but it is part of our job, as I see it, to make sure that these matters are covered in extraordinary situations.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Amendment No. 201 is grouped with Amendment No. 202, to which I wish to speak. It seems odd to me that we should have to argue the case for consultation, which ought to be a standard and automatic procedure in any organisation. In a Bill dealing with education it is manifestly essential that there should be consultation. The system simply cannot work if the wide range of people involved in it are not consulted. I am talking about teachers, clerks, caretakers, cleaners, helpers, governors and others.
A little earlier this evening the noble Lord, Lord Elton, argued eloquently on the matter contained in my amendment. The Committee may recall that the power to make regulations under the wide-ranging provisions of Section 22(4) of the 1988 Act requires prior consultation by the Secretary of State with,
"any persons with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable".
There is virtually a parallel situation in the context of this Bill. Therefore I shall be particularly interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the amendment.
During the dinner break this evening some of us were debating the Coal Industry Bill. We remarked that consultation with employees in that industry relating to some major changes in coal mining law was necessary. We received what we considered to be a sympathetic reply from the Minister. This Minister should take that parallel into consideration.
I must make it clear that we are talking about consultation before legislation is finalised. Too often so-called consultation takes place after Bills have gone through Parliament. Correct—that is to say, prior—consultation ensures that the legislation is as effective as it is possible to make it before implementation. No government or Minister holds a monopoly of wisdom or experience. They ought to listen to people who have
734
such an important stake in the service. I do not believe this is a party political matter. I hope the amendment will receive support from all sides of the Chamber.
Lord Strathclyde: It has always been the practice to consult widely before making regulations such as these. This tradition is longstanding and largely independent of statutory backing. Of course there are cases, such as those regulations made under Section 22 of the Education Reform Act, where consultation is laid down in statute. But in other cases it has been a matter of good practice, as with regulations made under the 1980 Act which affect prospectuses, or those made under the 1986 Act which affect the proceedings of school governing bodies.
We have always intended to consult appropriate bodies before making the regulations covering the requirements for the publication of comparative data. Indeed we have been consulting widely on the dry run of the arrangements for publishing comparative information this year. We shall certainly consult again about the full regulations in 1993. We want to ensure that the regulations are as informative, and the procedures as cost effective, as we can make them. Consultations will help achieve both those aims.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked about publication of the Scottish consultation document. We intend to publish the paper before we reach Report. I hope I have given a full explanation of the Government's thinking and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Addington: The noble Lord's reply was not everything I had hoped for. However, I shall read exactly what was said and consult on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 202 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 203 and 203A not moved.]
Clause 17 [Information as to schools and pupils: Scotland]:
[Amendment No. 203B not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 203C:
Page 11, line 43, leave out from third ("to") to ("such") in line 44 and insert ("education authorities").
The noble Lord said: Given the sensitivity of much of the information that may be disclosed, the phrase "such persons" seems rather broad. I believe it needs to be refined. As presently drafted, the Bill could force schools to disclose information to anyone the Secretary of State wished. That could involve schools in time-consuming and financially burdensome activities, wasting scarce resources which could be better employed elsewhere. In addition, it could allow the Secretary of State injudiciously to give the power to people who have no right to have it. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: It may assist the Committee if I explain how we envisage the arrangements will work. New Section 28I(1) allows regulations to require information to be provided to the Secretary of State, to education authorities and to other prescribed third parties. The inclusion of third parties in the section

735
will facilitate publication by ensuring that any organisation, such as professional organisations or voluntary bodies, which is to publish the information can receive it directly from education authorities or the managers of schools. That is a sensible provision which allows for maximum flexibility.
Similar provisions for England and Wales are included in Clauses 16(1) and 16(4). The consultation paper which my right honourable friend proposes to issue shortly will propose that, initially at least, education authorities will be the prescribed persons who will publish information. However, in future it might well be appropriate for third parties to do so. The amendment would unduly restrict the flexibility of the present provision. For that reason I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I think that the Minister has satisfied me, but perhaps he will allow me to consider carefully what he said and perhaps bring the matter back at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 203D:
Page 11, line 46, at end insert ("so far as is compatible with the purposes set out in subsections 3(a), (b) and (c) below").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if in speaking to Amendment No. 203D I speak also to Amendments Nos. 203H, 203K and 203R. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that regulations, when made, are used only for their stated purpose.
At present the Bill allows the Secretary of State to require that any amount or type of information be provided at any time or in any form. That appears to be too wide a power and should be restricted to ensure that only the principles of the Bill can be achieved. Enabling legislation should not be enacted which gives power to Ministers which may be used in ways Parliament did not intend or was unaware of when granting those powers. The amendment therefore seeks to define the purpose of the regulations which can be made by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The amendments all relate to the criteria which my right honourable friend is required to follow in terms of new Section 28I(3) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 when he makes regulations about comparative information under that section. New Section 28I of the 1980 Act should of course be read as a whole and subsection (3) clearly applies to all regulations made under it. I can therefore assure the Committee that Amendments Nos. 203D and 203H would simply make explicit the fact that regulation-making powers are subject to the criteria set out in subsection (3) and are unnecessary.
Amendment No. 203K seeks to apply the same criteria to the Secretary of State when he publishes the information which has been gathered in accordance with regulations. That again is unnecessary. In all cases information will have been collected in accordance with the criteria set out in Section 28I(3).
736
The Secretary of State will therefore in practice be in a position only to publish information which complies with those criteria.
Under new Section 28J the Secretary of State may make regulations requiring education authorities and certain other school managers to provide to prescribed persons, by which we have in mind parents or in some cases prospective parents, prescribed information or documents, or categories of information or documents, relating to school education.
Regulations made under new Section 28J will apply to information about school education generally. By contrast, Section 28I is concerned only with information about particular schools. Section 28I(3) defines the purposes for which such information is gathered and published and its terms are appropriate only to information about schools. While in many cases the information and documents published under Section 28J will meet the criteria under Section 28I(3), in other cases the Secretary of State may wish to prescribe more general types of information or documents made available to parents. Amendment No. 203R would therefore be unnecessarily restrictive and I could not accept it. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister for that very full explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 203E and 203F not moved.]
1.30 a.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 203G:
Page 12, leave out lines 14 to 16.
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks clarification as to what information is thought likely to assist in assessing the degree of efficiency by which the financial resources of a school are being managed. The subsection was introduced in the Bill during its final stages in another place and therefore no opportunity has arisen as yet for the Government to explain what is intended by its inclusion. I hope that the Minister will be able to help in this case. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: During the debate in Committee in the other place, the question was raised by the Opposition as to whether the powers to arrange for the publication of comparative information about schools contained in Clauses 16 and 17 extended to the collection and publication of information about financial efficiency in schools. My right honourable friend the Minister of State agreed to consider the point.
In the event, it appeared that there was a weakness in the Bill. Accordingly, the Government brought forward amendments at Report stage in the other place to insert into the Bill what is now Clause 16(3) (c) and new Section 28I(3) (c). These provide that the comparative information about schools may include

737
information likely to assist in assessing the degree of efficiency with which the financial resources of schools are managed.
I should say that it is our intention that initially the regulations in Scotland should provide for the publication in school handbooks and comparative tables of the running costs of schools on a per pupil basis. That will build on the provisions already in place for school hoards to be given statements of the running costs of their school. It is of course possible that in future more sophisticated indicators of the financial efficiency of schools will become available; for instance, as a result of work undertaken by HMI or, in England and Wales, the Audit Commission. It would then be possible for those indicators to be published in school handbooks or comparative tables. I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for having satisfied me. However, he will realise that I shall take advice since this is the first time that an explanation has appeared. It seems all right to me and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 203H not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 203J:
Page 12, line 23, leave out ("name") and insert ("serve to identify").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure the anonymity of pupils. It is assumed that the wording in the Bill seeks to ensure that information will not be published in such a form as to allow individual pupils to be identified. However, to use the word "name" is not sufficient, as people can be identified other than by name. For instance, in a small school there may be patterns of information which would easily allow recognition of a pupil.
During the Committee stage in another place, the Under-Secretary for State at the Department of Education and Science expressed sympathy with the amendment and stated that both he and the Secretary of State for Scotland would consider how best to secure anonymity of pupils when drafting the regulations and that they would seek comments on that during their consultation exercises. If that is so, there is no reason why the primary legislation should not be clarified to reflect the position.
I look forward to hearing an explanation from the Minister on whether he agrees with Mr. Fallon and the views which obviously came indirectly from the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I have spoken about the importance of confidentiality in other parts of the Bill and therefore I sympathise with what the noble Lord is trying to achieve. However, I do not believe that what he proposes will achieve that because it will produce a countervailing difficulty. If there were a suicide, abduction or a death at the school, it would make it impossible to entreat of it at all. If one were referring to a death it would be obvious to which pupil one was referring.
Lord Strathclyde: I have some sympathy with the principle of the amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord thought that I would say that. I can assure Members of the Committee that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to ensure that individual pupils should not be readily identified on the basis of information published. That is the purpose of Clause 17(5).
We still need to consider further how best to secure that before drafting regulations to implement the new arrangements. Having given that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that essentially we are on the same side on this matter.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister. I am sure that he wants confidentiality. The question is: when will we have the regulations? Will that be after this stage of the Bill or before Report? I am reassured by the Minister's obvious intention and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 203K not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 203L:
Page 12, line 29, at beginning insert ("without prejudice to section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986").
The noble Lord said: This amendment and Amendment No. 203T may conveniently be taken together. They are intended to ensure that the information which the Secretary of State requires to be published by an education authority does not involved it in a breach of Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986. Section 2, as amended, prohibits a local authority from publishing any material which appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party. That has already been mentioned in the Committee tonight. Reference is made to the content and style of the material, the time and other circumstances of publication. This prohibition applies to any matter which is a question of public controversy which is identifiable as a view of one political party and not of another.
Many educational issues, including the publication of league tables, have assumed a strong political character. In becoming involved in publicity on these matters on behalf of the Government of the day a local authority could be accused of contravening the terms of this Act.
During the Committee stage in another place the Government accused authorities which, following legal advice, decided not to distribute the parent's charter leaflet as acting as censors. Several times authorities which did distribute the leaflet were accused of not doing so. For the information of the Committee, the education authorities in Scotland which did distribute the leaflet were Strathclyde, Highland, Dumfries and Galloway, Lothian, Orkney, Shetland, Western Isles and Fife. Authorities which refused to distribute it because they thought it was political and which are not controlled by my party were Borders, Grampian and Central—in fact Central is so controlled. Tayside did not distribute it but agreed to make it available at schools on request.
The Minister will see that this matter requires some clarification. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I may disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, because I believe that the amendments are unnecessary. I certainly do not wish to upset the noble Lord at this time of night. Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986 prohibits a local authority from publishing any material which appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party. That measure was introduced in order to curb the wholesale issue of political propaganda by certain Left-Wing local authorities in the early 1980s and its introduction was amply justified.
The provision of information about schools and school education is an entirely different matter. The comparative tables, which will be published in accordance with the provisions of regulations were made under new Section 28I of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, will contain objective information about school performance. No question arises that that information could be taken to be designed to affect public support for a political party. Regulations under new Section 28J of the 1980 Act may require education authorities and other managers of schools in Scotland to distribute information or documents about school education. The information or documents could include information supplied by the Secretary of State. For example, the noble Lord mentioned the leaflet which my right honourable friend produced describing the provisions of the Parent's Charter in Scotland. That leaflet, like all similar government publications, is required to meet strict conventions designed to ensure that it does not contain party political material. Any such information or document specified in regulations to be made under new Section 28J will not, therefore, contravene Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986.
The powers which my right honourable friend proposes in new Section 28J are necessary because in Scotland we have recently seen some education authorities take it upon themselves to attempt to withhold information about their children's education, in the form of a leaflet on the Parent's Charter, to which parents have a right. My right honourable friend's new powers will ensure that education authorities are no longer able to block the issue of information to parents.
The amendments are unnecessary because the Bill is not intended to overrule Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986. I am advised that it will not have that effect. They are unnecessary also because they are irrelevant to the purposes of new Sections 28I and 28J of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will see that his amendments are not appropriate.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for that information. However, surely he will accept that all the Scottish authorities take these matters extremely seriously. They obtained legal advice and some were obviously not happy with it. Their interpretation of it was that it was unwise to proceed. Other authorities received different advice. I
740
do not know whether the Minister can give an absolute assurance that there is no possibility of legal involvement because of the distribution of leaflets issued by the Scottish education department.
I wish to take away this amendment to consider it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 203M not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 203N:
Page 12, leave out lines 37 to 39.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 203P. The object of the amendments is to clarity what is meant by "areas" and why the Scottish Office may wish to ascertain certain information in one part of Scotland but not in another. There is no reason why, if the public are to be given the maximum assistance in choosing a school for their children, information on certain topics has to be provided in some parts of Scotland and not in others.
Anxiety should also be expressed that that may be a device whereby Ministers seek to compare individual schools within an education authority. In some ways the amendment has been overtaken by the events of Friday when information was provided in a rather brutal manner. Given that the information to be provided is likely to stress academic achievement alone, it will be extremely misleading simply to compare schools in areas such as Possilpark against those in Bearsden by using that single factor. CoSLA, which represents all education authorities in Scotland, supports the provision of information which will allow meaningful comparisons by including factors such as socio-economic background and so on.
Strathclyde, the largest education authority in Scotland, is pioneering a scheme to ensure that meaningful assessments of a school's performance can be made. Such assessments are powerful tools which allow schools to take the necessary action to improve their performance far beyond any benefit which could be derived from a single league table of examination results. Although we have discussed the matter thoroughly today, we have not received an answer from the Scottish Office. The issue seems to be coming to the boil rather more quickly in Scotland. I beg to move.
1.45 a.m.
Lord Strathclyde: These are standard provisions. They are simply intended to allow necessary flexibility and no more. It is obviously sensible that any of the regulations to be made under the new powers should be able to make different provisions for different classes of case—for instance, different types of school. To take a simple example, it will clearly be necessary to make different provision for primary and secondary schools. It is also sensible that provisions on information about schools and school education in new Sections 28I and 28J should allow regulations to make different provision in relation to different areas. The Bill simply allows for flexibility.

741
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has no intention at present to make different provisions, but in future it may be sensible, for instance, for comparative information about schools in one education authority's area to be published by the authority, and information about schools elsewhere in Scotland to be published by the Secretary of State or an independent publisher. I hope that that response was useful.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: That is an interpretation which seems almost too simple to be the only point contained in that specific section of the Bill. Again, it is a point not properly discussed in the other place. Also it is highlighted by the events of the weekend. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, with a view perhaps to re-introducing it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 203P to 203R not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 203S:
Page 13, line 4, leave out ("to prescribed persons").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks clarification of "prescribed persons" in the context of the Bill. No definition is contained in the Bill or the Notes on Clauses, and no information was given in Committee in another place. That gives cause for anxiety because one must assume that they include not only parents, but also the police, the social work departments, the RSPCC, the Ministry of Defence and any other body the Secretary of State chooses to prescribe without reference to the democratic process. That may be described as a Mikado form of government by which the Secretary of State may, "have a little list" for whatever purpose he chooses, again revealing the injudicious nature of purely enabling legislation.
I hope that the Minister will realise that this could be a complicated matter. It is important that a fairly tight description of "prescribed persons" is given. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The intention of Section 28J of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 is to ensure that information or documents about school education can be supplied to parents, and particularly to prevent education authorities from blocking the distribution to parents of information that they consider to be undesirable or unwelcome.
I can give the noble Lord an absolute assurance that the section will not be used to require the provision of information to any other recipient that he may mention. The reason why the clause allows specification of the persons to whom information is to be provided is simply that in some instances it may be appropriate to require provision of information to a slightly wider category of people than simply parents of current school pupils. For instance, in relation to information about school entry arrangements it might be appropriate for regulations to require distribution to parents of children who are shortly to become pupils of the school. I hope that is clear.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister has met my point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 203T and 203U not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 203V:
Page 13, line 16, leave out from ("regards") to ("at") in line 18 and insert ("any pupil attending a school (except a nursery school) shall be supplied to parents of that pupil").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 203VI shall speak also to Amendment No. 203W. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that parents of children attending any school have the same rights in relation to receiving information. It is also to seek clarification as to whether this provision overrides the rights of authorities in terms of the School Pupil Records (Scotland) Regulations 1990. Those regulations came into force on 1st October 1990 and provide for access by pupils and parents to manually maintained records held on pupils by education authorities, subject to certain exceptions and restrictions, and impose requirements on education authorities comparable to those already in existence for automatically processed records held by local authorities. That, I presume, means a computer-type record. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: This group of amendments relates to the scope of the regulation-making powers in new Section 28K of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 introduced by Clause 17. They seek to probe the application of regulation-making powers in new Section 28K of the 1980 Act relating to pupil report cards. It is important that a standard form of pupil report card should be produced for education authority schools and for self-governing schools in due course. It will be possible to prescribe the form of report card for these schools through the powers in Section 28K. However, it would not be right for the Secretary of State to seek to impose similar requirements on independent schools. Most grant-aided schools in Scotland are special schools, for which the standard form of report card would not be appropriate. If in future my right honourable friend nevertheless decided that the standard report card should apply to grant-aided schools he could, if necessary, make that a requirement of the grant that he gives them.
Amendment No. 203V also seeks to ensure that reports on pupils should be supplied only to the parents of the pupil to whom the report refers. I can reassure the noble Lord that the clause as drafted achieves that objective. Regulations will require that reports should be supplied only to the parents of the pupil to whom the report refers.
I would also like to make it clear that nothing in the Bill or in the proposals of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on school report cards affects the right of parents or senior pupils to have access to records held on pupils by schools and education authorities in terms of the School Pupil Records (Scotland) Regulation 1990. Nothing affects

743
the safeguards for the confidential information contained in those regulations. I hope that the noble Lord is content.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 203W not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 21 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
[Amendments Nos. 204 and 205 not moved.]
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
[Amendment No. 206 not moved.]
Schedule 5 agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 207:
744
Line 2, at end insert ("and for connected purposes").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 114A my noble friend gave me hope that we might need to make a change in that part of the Bill later. I fear that that amendment might be out of the scope of the Bill as it stands. Unless my noble friend signals that she would be prepared to accept the amendment now, I merely give notice that I propose to move it again at Report stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I cannot give my noble friend the assurance at this moment that I shall accept the amendment.
Lord Elton: Having made the point that I reserve the right to return with the matter at Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at six minutes before two o'clock.

  ORTON AND VERA CHIRWA
  ORTON AND VERA CHIRWA
  NORTHERN IRELAND ELECTRICITY PRIVATISATION: COSTS
  NORTHERN IRELAND ELECTRICITY PRIVATISATION: COSTS
  ABANDONED MINES: POLLUTION LIABILITY
  ABANDONED MINES: POLLUTION LIABILITY
  WHEAL JANE TIN MINE
  WHEAL JANE TIN MINE