Sitting of 20 April 1993

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

    CROYDON TRAMLINK BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 29 April 1993.

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Yugoslavia
    Mr. Churchill: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for strengthening the British military contigent in former Yugoslavia.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The size and composition of the British contribution to United Nations deployments to the former Yugoslavia are kept under continuous review. I am at present satisfied that the 2,300-strong British contingent serving in Bosnia is of the right size and properly equipped for the important humanitarian tasks assigned to it. We are, however, discussing with the United Nations the future of the British Field Ambulance unit deployed in Croatia since last May, because we are concerned about whether its capacity is being fully utilised.
    Mr. ChurChill: Will my right hon. and learned Friend convey to the Cheshires and all the other British military units in Bosnia the warmest congratulations of all quarters of the House on the superb job that they have done in the winter months this year in bringing humanitarian aid and relief supplies to the hard-pressed population of Bosnia?
    Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that sanctions alone would never have got Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and sanctions alone will not bring the Serbs to heel on this issue? I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will in no way consider the involvement of ground forces in a Balkan civil war, but will he, none the less, together with his colleagues, not rule out the possibility of air strikes as recommended by Lord Owen?
    Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for his earlier remarks. He chose to make a comparison with the situation in Iraq. but I am sure that he would be the first to recollect that the massive aerial bombardment of Saddam Hussein's troops in Kuwait did not lead to their departure from Kuwait, and that it was the use of ground forces on a massive scale, which my hon. Friend is ruling out in the case of Bosnia, that was required to expel Iraqi
    166
    forces. Therefore, my hon. Friend must consider the implications of the Iraqi example that he has chosen to put before the House.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that if United Kingdom air or naval forces take sides in the fighting in Bosnia, by a form of aggression against some of the participants in the terrible fighting that is taking place there, the United Kingdom land forces will be withdrawn immediately from Bosnia?
    Mr. Rifkind: We attach the highest priority to the safety and security of British forces, and it is clear that, even in their current humanitarian role, they suffer exposure to some considerable risk. For example, today a British helicopter in the Vitez area may have been hit by some sniper fire. Fortunately, there appear not to have been any consequences from that incident. But if United Nations forces were to be used in a combatant role, clearly the risks to British forces would be immeasurably higher.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Having been one of those with initial reservations about the deployment of British troops in Bosnia at all, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that diplomacy, backed by embargoes and sanctions against some and sustenance for others, is no longer adequate. Given our leadership of the Rapid Reaction Corps, Britain is uniquely well placed to give moral and military leadership in this tragic situation. Will my right hon. and learned Friend urge NATO to deploy elements of that corps so that British troops can work alongside our European allies without our bearing a disproportionate amount of the financial and human costs?
    Mr. Rifkind: If my hon. Friend is envisaging what role might be played by the United Nations in the event of a ceasefire, clearly a contribution could be made by the Rapid Reaction Corps in helping to provide the necessary infrastructure of a United Nations operation. It is in that context that the possibility to which my hon. Friend has referred would be most relevant.
    Mr. McWilliam: Does the Secretary of State accept that, if air strikes to interdict Serbian supply lines were introduced, the rules of engagement for our forces presently stationed in Bosnia, particularly at Vitez, would have to be changed, because our forces would have to go into the mountains to take the Serb guns—otherwise, they would be blown to pieces?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. An additional consideration must be taken into account by those who advocate the use of armed force by the United Nations. As we have seen in the last couple of days, there is a substantial increase in the conflict between Croat and Muslim forces—particularly in the Vitez area, where the British forces are concentrated. It is incredibly difficult to imagine a scenario in which the United Nations is required to use military force against some combatants but not others, when the bloodshed, loss of life and possibly even the atrocities committed can be found to be the responsibility of the different communities in Bosnia at present.
    Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is completely unrealistic to imagine that a externally imposed military solution will be found? If there were to be increased military pressure—whatever the

    167
    merits of that—from Britain, the United Nations or NATO, would that not be inconsistent with the widely praised humanitarian aid?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The Government's extreme reservations about the use of military power in a combat role are partly because we have the gravest doubts that it would have the practical effect recommended for it by its adherents. We are substantially influenced also by the almost certain consequences for the humanitarian operations, which have been a great success and led to the saving of literally hundreds of thousands of lives in Bosnia over the last few months. That work would almost certainly have to be terminated, which would be a heavy price to pay. That aspect should influence the proper moral debate about the proper policy to pursue in Bosnia.
    Dr. David Clark: When a ceasefire is finally signed and the United Nations calls on countries to provide troops to enforce it, will Britain play her full part in maintaining that ceasefire? Is the Secretary of State confident that we have sufficient troops, and sufficient helicopters in particular, to play our full part?
    Mr. Rifkind: If a ceasefire were signed by the three parties to the dispute, and we were satisfied that that represented a genuine qualitative change in the situation, of course there would be an obligation on the international community, through the United Nations, to do what it could to make the ceasefire a continuing reality and to achieve a permanent peace. The United Kingdom will of course want to ascertain its contribution in those circumstances, in the way suggested. I am satisfied that we could make a significant and substantial contribution, if we chose to do so.

    Training Areas (Public Access)
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he plans to take to improve public access to his Department's training areas.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): Ministry of Defence training land is required primarily for military purposes. So far as it is consistent with operational, safety and security considerations and the interests of our tenants, however, we continue to encourage public access and seek actively to improve access arrangements, providing additional facilities and information wherever there is opportunity to do so.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the British people have lost access through closures? Closures made this century in particular have been the result of land taken, rightly, for defence training purposes. Will my right hon. Friend keep a vigorous watch on such land, to ascertain how quickly it can be restored to the public—and meanwhile ensure that access can be enabled according to the needs of British defence interests?
    Mr. Hamilton: I assure my hon. Friend that we keep that aspect constantly under review. I recommend to him the pamphlet, "Walks on Ministry of Defence land"— [Laughter.] I assure Opposition Members who are laughing that a copy is also in the Library. It points out the excellent walks the public can enjoy across training areas.
    Mr. Cohen: Will the Minister consider the training grounds near the village of Imber and the surrounding
    168
    area on Salisbury plain? The MOD keeps that land closed to the general public, bar a few days each year—yet only a fortnight ago, a car rally was allowed, at which people could wander around freely over the land. Surely it is time to return that land to the village of Imber, as was promised when that land was appropriated in the war.
    Mr. Hamilton: Imber is an integral part of our training area. It is difficult for us to allow perpetual public access to it, but, as the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, we allow such access whenever possible. I will look into the matter, and write to him.

    Medium Surface-to-air Missile
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made on the development and deployment of the medium surface-to-air missile.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): Work on the evaluation of medium surface-to-air missile tenders has now been completed and we are assessing the options in the context of our overall defence requirements. No decision has yet been made.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister acknowledge that, since the withdrawal of the Bloodhound missile in 1991, the United Kingdom has become one of the few NATO countries without access to medium surface-to-air missiles? He has said that Ministers have now completed their examination of the long-term costs of the development of new systems to replace the Bloodhound over the next 15 years. When will he be able to make an announcement? Does he accept that, if we do not secure a replacement within 15 years, it would be very foolish to deploy the Eurofighter without being able to protect it effectively with a missile system?
    Mr. Aitken: I should point out that MSAM is not a replacement for the Bloodhound. It would provide part of a layered air defence for the United Kingdom, together with Rapiers and air defence fighters. I take account of the hon. Gentleman's point about the need for a next generation of missiles to protect the Eurofighter in certain circumstances. An announcement can be expected within the next few weeks.
    Mr. Mans: Given that the RAF now has its full complement of air defence variant Tornados, is my hon. Friend satisfied with the state of British air defences?
    Mr. Aitken: Yes, I confirm that we are satisfied with the state of Britain's air defences. We have made a continuing commitment to invest heavily in the United Kingdom's air defence capability in recent years: so far, we have spent well over £7 billion at 1992 prices, with more than £1 billion to come. We have well over 100 fighter aircraft and three Rapier squadrons, and we believe that they are more than adequate to meet the foreseeable threat of air attacks on the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister turn his attention to the proposed tactical air-to-surface missile? It would cost £3 billion and is an unnecessary addition to our nuclear capability. Will the Minister confirm last week's press reports that the Government have at last taken the Opposition's advice and rightly decided to cancel TSAM?
    Mr. Aitken: Far from relying on the Opposition as a source of wisdom and advice, we regard many of their questions as coming from over-enthusiastic plumbers who race after every leak that appears in the press. The question is about MSAM; I will not be drawn in to the issue of TASM, beyond saying that no decision has yet been made.

    Bramcote Barracks, Nuneaton
    Mr. Olner: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to continue the use of Bramcote barracks in the Nuneaton constituency.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: Further defence uses for the site are being examined. I will, of course, keep the hon. Gentleman advised of developments.
    Mr. Olner: Does not the Minister remember my bringing a deputation of civilian workers from Bramcote to see him three or four months ago? It is crucial to the local economy that Bramcote is retained in service use. I hope that the Minister will examine the matter seriously, especially when troops must be redeployed from Germany.
    Mr. Hamilton: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to become over-enthusiastic, but I can tell him that we are looking very seriously at alternative Army use for the site. I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement within the next few weeks.

    Volunteer Reserve Forces
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the volunteer reserve forces.
    Mr. Rifkind: The volunteer reserves will continue to provide a highly valued contribution to our defence capability. I am sure the House will join me in expressing admiration for the dedication and enthusiasm of all who serve in them. Work is continuing on the future role of the reserves, and proposals will be announced to the House later in the year.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, when we are planning the smallest Regular Army since the Napoleonic era in a very dangerous world, this is profoundly the wrong time to consider a second possible round of cuts in our already very full defence programme? Can I put it to my right hon. and learned Friend that the real debate should be about enhancing the quality of our reserves and that that should start from the top by appointing a reservist to direct the reserves, as is the case in every other major English-speaking country?
    Mr. Rifkind: I note my hon. Friend's interesting latter suggestion, which may indeed be worthy of consideration. It clearly is important to ensure not only that we have the number of reserves that is thought to be suitable to our requirements, but that we continue to look at the role of the reserves, because in a changed international strategic situation it would clearly be unwise and, I think, contrary to the interests of the reserves themselves, to assume that somehow their role, which might have been suitable during the cold war, would necessarily be the most appropriate in the circumstances of today. It may be that there will be a need, for example, for changed legislation to enable the
    170
    reserves to be used more ably and flexibly for a multiplicity of roles, which would have been difficult, if not impossible, in the past.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State address himself to the fact that a number of his Department's premises in Wales are now becoming vacant? Could they be used in the context of the training of the volunteer reserves to help to provide sustenance for the local economy, which has been so devastated by certain cuts in his Department?
    Mr. Rifkind: We shall naturally be willing to consider any proposal that is put to us by the hon. Gentleman or by any other hon. Member about the use of surplus assets, either for the reserves or, indeed, for any other relevant and useful role.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the fact that not only has the Territorial Army contributed massively and valiantly this century to the defence of the nation in two world wars, but that it also has a most valuable social contribution to make? Will he therefore resist any Treasury blandishments to cut it further and do all he can to urge young people in particular to join the Territorial Army, since we shall all be the better for it?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am sure that my hon. Friend's assessment is correct. I think the best contribution that we can make, both to the morale of the reserves and to the ability of the reserves to attract suitable people to their ranks is to ensure that they have a role in our defence thinking which is clearly relevant and appropriate to the needs of the 1990s.
    Dr. Reid: I know that the Secretary of State remains alert, even during recesses. Did he therefore have the opportunity to read the report in The Sunday Times of 4 April, which affirmed that the Government were some £4 billion out in their three-year costing and that, as a result, they were considering further cuts, which included 12 battalions of the Territorial Army—9,600 men, bringing the number down to 52,000—and another round of compulsory redundancies, as well as five frigates? Will he therefore take this opportunity to deny that any of these are under consideration by the Government at present?
    Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman had read not only that report in The Sunday Times but the article that I wrote which The Sunday Times was good enough to publish a couple of days ago, he would have seen that I said in that article that, whenever proposals were put to Ministers, they were considered not only for their financial implications but as to whether they produced a coherent and sensible defence policy and that if they were not justified on defence grounds, the proposals would not be accepted. Therefore, these are the criteria which we shall apply not only to the reserves but to any other proposals affecting the defence programme at the present time.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many active volunteer reservists will be delighted that today he said that we are looking at and giving consideration to changing the law with regard to calling up reservists? That, I believe, was one of the lessons that we learned from the Gulf. Does he also recognise that another lesson from the Gulf was how effective it was to

    171
    call up individual volunteer reservists in individual categories, who were able to make such an important impact on activities during that operation?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I think that there is no doubt that the current regulations and legislation governing the use of reserves are unnecessarily bureaucratic and complicated. For example, some weeks ago, when we wished to send one individual reservist who was fluent in Serb-Croat to Bosnia and that reservist was keen to go, it was nevertheless necessary to go through a complicated procedure, including a special report tabled before the House, before the legal power existed to carry out that relatively minor act with the volunteer who was anxious to be of service. I think that that illustrates the need for early reform in this area.

    Battle of the Atlantic
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how his Department has been involved in commemorating the battle of the Atlantic and the western approaches.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: My Department is responsible for the organisation of the military aspects of the commemoration. It is also working closely with the Chamber of Shipping, the Merseyside local authorities and other interested organisations to ensure that all those who took part in the battle, including members of the Merchant Navy, are properly commemorated in the events which are to take place in the Merseyside area during the last week of May.
    Mr. Loyden: Does the Minister recognise that the country and, therefore the Government owe a great debt to the merchant seafarers who during the war carried our troops and military hardware to every theatre of war, at a cost of 30,189 lives and 11·5 million tonnes of British shipping? I welcome recognition, even at this late stage, of the role played by merchant seamen during the war, but does not the Minister agree that the best way of repaying the men and women who sail our ships would be to revive our Merchant Navy and get our shipyards moving? That Government activity would be welcomed both by the Merchant Navy and by our shipyard workers.
    Mr. Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the reasons for the decline in the Merchant Navy are complex, involving taxation and the high cost to shipowners of employing British labour. We are certainly ensuring that the commemoration will include members of the Merchant Navy and that their organisations will be represented. When the commemoration takes place, it will be a great fillip for Merseyside; I gather that the local authorities are catering for about 2 million visitors who are expected to attend.
    Mr. Hunter: Bearing in mind the small but significant role played by South Africans in the battle of the Atlantic and the western approaches, would it not be appropriate if representatives of South Africa took part in the commemoration?
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes indeed. My hon. Friend describes that role as small but significant; actually, about 10,000 South Africans served under the white ensign both in royal naval ships and in South African ships. Many more were
    172
    involved in the Merchant Navy. We will ensure that an invitation goes to the South Africans, so that a South African ship may take part in the general commemoration. That invitation will go out this afternoon.
    Dr. David Clark: We note, and indeed join in, the Minister's tribute to Merchant Navy and Royal Navy personnel in days past, but why does he treat the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy of today so shamefully? Does he recall, just before Easter, sneaking out a parliamentary answer revealing that 2,300 Royal Navy personnel were to be made redundant? Will he explain to the House why, later the same evening, his Ministry revealed that the figure was really 5,000 rather than 2,300? Will he apologise to the House for withholding that information?
    Mr. Hamilton: No, but I will put the record straight. There is never an ideal moment to announce another phase of redundancies, but the Royal Navy considered it important that the announcement be made before the Easter recess, so that the people concerned would know what was happening. The figure of 5,000 merely denoted forward plans for Royal Navy manpower levels; it was a purely theoretical figure based on estimates and has as much to do with contractorisation and market testing, which, as the hon. Gentleman must realise, involves replacing people in uniform with civilians, and thus does not affect the front line in any way. I am not sure that it is not a mistake to judge the efficiency of the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy by their manpower. We should judge them on the equipments they have. The number of ships and aircraft is more significant than the number of men.

    Bosnia (No-fly Zone)
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received regarding the enforcement of the no-fly zone over Bosnia.
    Mr. Rifkind: I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and from members of the public.
    Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that although I welcome our involvement in the imposition of the no-fly zone, what we seek in Bosnia.is a no-war zone, a no-killing zone and a no-starvation zone? Bearing in mind the excellent efforts in humanitarian aid made by British men and women, will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to resist the siren calls for token military action, which has no achievable military objective, but which would be certain to destroy the humanitarian efforts?
    Mr. Rifkind: We will certainly judge any proposals for military action by the twin criteria of whether they would be likely to achieve the purpose for which they were designed and what implications they would have, as my hon. Friend rightly says, for the continuation of the humanitarian effort.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State recall that after the no-fly zone was declared and before it was implemented, the Government resisted calls for implementation on the ground that to do so might put at risk British forces and the humanitarian efforts in which they were engaged? Yet shortly before Easter, the

    173
    Government acceded to the United Nations proposals for the implementation of the no-fly zone. Does not experience since then demonstrate that the no-fly zone could and should have been implemented much earlier, not least to show the resolve of the international community?
    Mr. Rifkind: I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Government's reservations about enforcing the no-fly zone were a result of the fact that, until a few weeks ago, the Bosnian Serbs had made no attempt to breach it with combat aircraft. It seemed premature, therefore, and largely pointless to take such unnecessary action. When the Bosnian Serbs breached the zone on two occasions by the use of combat aircraft for bombing missions, it clearly became necessary for the United Nations to enforce its resolution and that is what the United Kingdom voted for.
    Mr. Faber: Is not there a certain irony in the fact that we now have six RAF Tornados patrolling the skies over Bosnia, presumably ready to take unilateral aggressive action at a moment's notice, while on the ground below our troops depend for their very success and continued safety on their perceived neutrality? What steps has my right hon. and learned Friend taken to ensure that there will be no potential accident involving our air force which might jeopardise the security of our troops on the ground?
    Mr. Rifkind: The Tornados that have been allocated to the enforcement of the no-fly zone are Tornado F-3s which are suitable for an air defence role and would not be used in ground attack missions. Therefore, the scenario to which my hon. Friend refers is unlikely to occur. There must, of course, always be a risk for all United Nations forces on the ground if other United Nations forces, whether British or from other countries, are carrying out missions in the air. That factor must be borne in mind through proper communications between the various United Nations units serving in Bosnia at present.

    Redundancies
    Mr. Davidson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have been issued with compulsory redundancy notices since the beginning of 1993.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: Since the beginning of 1993, 628 Army officers have been selected for compulsory redundancy.
    Mr. Davidson: How many redundant officers does the Minister expect will find work elsewhere in the present circumstances of mass unemployment? Does he accept that the existing training and resettlement package is completely inadequate and does he agree that Ministry of Defence money should be used to create jobs rather than destroy them? Will he bring forward the announcement that the new Army personnel centre is being moved to the borders of my constituency in Glasgow?
    Mr. Hamilton: I totally reject everything that the hon. Gentleman says. Our figures show that 70 per cent. of officers who left on redundancy during 1992–93 have either found jobs or moved overseas. That is a great mark of the efficiency of our resettlement schemes and of the suitability of the service men who leave to find jobs outside the Army. They are offering a tremendous amount to civilian life.
    174
    There is still work to be done on the Army personnel centre, but we are moving towards a decision and we will make one as soon as we can.
    Mr. David Evans: Does the Minister agree that it is a bit rich for Opposition Members to talk about redundancies in Army personnel when their defence policy talks of a 25 per cent. reduction? How many thousands of people would that policy make redundant? After all, as the Minister knows, that lot over there know about redundancies because they have been redundant for 14 years.
    Mr. Hamilton: There is not much that I can add to my hon. Friend's remarks: he put it extremely well. There is no doubt whatever that at some stage the Labour party must shake off its resolution, which seems to be passed annually by its conference, that defence expenditure should be cut by the large percentages that Labour Members are always talking about.
    Mr. Martlew: During the Army debate on 24 February this year, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) brought to the attention of the House the fact that a number of soldiers serving with the Cheshire regiment in Bosnia had applied for redundancy only because their regiment was to be amalgamated. They wished to withdraw those applications when it was decided that the Cheshire regiment should be saved. The Minister refused to allow them to withdraw their notices, but said that they could appeal against them. He also said that he would take a personal interest in the matter. How many appeals were made and were any of them turned down?
    Mr. Hamilton: I do not have that information at my fingertips. I made it clear that the soldiers were in a position to appeal and that their appeals would be sympathetically considered. I will check on the position and write to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the issue of the integrated Army personnel centre is still not resolved and that he is still considering York as a possible location for the centre? Does he acknowledge the attraction of York, both in terms of its location in the centre of the United Kingdom and the excellent MOD personnel who are already employed there?
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes, indeed. One of the important criteria that we have used is that there should be core numbers of employed people already working in an Army personnel centre and that is one of the advantages that York gives us. Having said that, there is also the consideration, which militates against York, that we may decide in favour of an existing building rather than go for building a new one on a green-field site. Certainly, York is still within the frame and has not been ruled out.

    Western European Union (Operations)
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which units of the British armed forces are available for operations undertaken by the Western European Union.
    Mr. Rikfind: In principle, all the United Kingdom's conventional armed forces are available for military operations conducted under the auspices of the Western European Union. Military units for WEU operations

    175
    would be drawn on a case-by-case basis from forces with national and NATO roles—in the latter case, after consultation with our NATO allies.
    Mr. Marshall: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a serious possibility that our resources may be overstretched in the light of our existing commitments to NATO, the United Nations, Northern Ireland and now the enhanced Western European Union? In the specific case of the Western European Union, can he give a guarantee that if the new planning cell in Brussels provides new commitments, they will be made publicly known so that the House will be able to judge whether we have sufficient resources to meet any new commitments?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, of course, any new commitments for our armed forces must become publicly known. The new arrangements involving the Western European Union do not imply additional commitments: they simply suggest that in certain circumstances it may be more appropriate for the WEU, rather than NATO, to sponsor certain operations. That would largely depend on whether the United States and Canada were likely to be involved in a specific matter, so that is the sort of circumstance which we envisage as potentially arising.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be unwise for western nations to become involved in a civil war unless that specific civil war posed a threat to the integrity of one of the union's number?
    Mr. Rifkind: That is indeed the case. At present, the WEU is making a useful contribution with regard to the monitoring of shipping in the Adriatic. It is also suggested that the WEU might have a contribution to make in monitoring sanctions-breaking on the Danube. Clearly, those are the sorts of roles in which the WEU could be usefully employed as part of a wider international operation.
    Mr. Macdonald: Will the Secretary of State confirm that if the full capacity of the Western European Union together with NATO, acting under the auspices of the United Nations, were deployed in Bosnia, an effective ceasefire could be imposed within a relatively short period? It is not a question of capacity that deters the Secretary of State; it is a calculation that the effort would not be worth the saving of the civilian population in Bosnia.
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misunderstanding. The WEU has no assets of its own. Any assets that might be made available to the WEU are assets which would otherwise be available to NATO. The hon. Gentleman should not try to add one on top of the other and imply that there is some massive force available only if requested.

    Defence Expenditure
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on defence expenditure levels.
    Mr. Rifkind: I have received several representations on defence expenditure levels from hon. Members and members of the public. I am keen that, in this important area, we should be able to inform the public debate better than we have done in the past. I therefore commissioned
    176
    some months ago, in the context of our annual long-term costing exercise, a detailed analysis of how and what resources are taken up in meeting our various commitments around the world. A great deal of work has already been done on this. I expect to report the results in the statement on the defence estimates 1993.
    Mr. Oppenheim: What logic is there in consistently calling for massive defence cuts of 25 per cent.—equivalent to more than the Royal Air Force—as Labour conferences still do, supported by many of their Front-Bench Members of Parliament, and then complaining every time that the Government, as a result of their much smaller cuts, have to close a depot or merge a regiment? Most ludicrous of all, the Leader of the Opposition struts and postures as the tough guy, Bomber Smith, demanding action in Bosnia.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his question to the question on the Order Paper and not concern himself with Opposition policies. Does the Secretary of State wish to make a response?
    Mr. Rifkind rose—
    Madam Speaker: I am sure that the Secretary of State's response will be perfectly in order.
    Mr. Rifkind: Of course, Madam Speaker, that goes without saying. In the debate about defence expenditure levels, it is crucial that the Opposition follow the views of the Government and do not call for expenditure cuts, yet complain if difficult decisions have to be taken.
    Mr. Mackinlay: When contemplating the expenditure of Her Majesty's armed forces and participating in the debate to which he has just referred, will the Secretary of State explain to the House why there has been a massive overspend in the construction, equipping and commissioning of HMS Fort Victoria? It is a scandalous case over which he has presided as Secretary of State for Defence. Why is there delay, why has there been an overspend, and whose heads will roll?
    Mr. Rifkind: I assure the hon. Gentleman that in this project, as in any other, there will be the most rigorous analysis of the causes of the overspending to ensure that it does not recur.

    Service Legal Departments
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to bring together the legal departments of the three services.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: There are no such plans at present.
    Mr. Townsend: I hope that my right hon. Friend might have a look at the matter. Is he aware that the numbers involved are small these days? After a serious cut in the number of regiments, squadrons and ships, should not we look for savings in the tail of the defence services?
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes. Since my hon. Friend raised the matter, I have had a look at it. As he said, the only area in which an amalgamation could be effected would be between the Army and RAF legal departments, which employ 50 and 25 people respectively. That possibility has been considered, but it has been found that no appreciable

    177
    savings could be made. Economies of scale can be achieved from the incorporation of the Army legal department in the Adjutant General's Corps.
    Mr. Dalyell: How come that the Ministry of Defence apparently cannot make savings when the Lord Chancellor is asking the rest of legal aid to do so?
    Mr. Hamilton: The savings that we seek are obviously in terms of reducing overheads. There are no overheads to be reduced in the small legal departments. As I have said already, the Army legal department has been incorporated in the Adjutant General's Corps. That will give all the advantages of savings in overheads.
    As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows, the Lord Chancellor was worried about the level of legal aid paid, which is a rather different question altogether.

    Damaged Fishing Gear (Isle of Wight)
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has made to the Belgian Navy about compensating Isle of Wight fishermen for damaged gear.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: Several representations have been made by my Department to the Belgian navy, via its defence attaché in London, in respect of one fisherman's claim for damaged gear.
    Mr. Field: Will my hon. Friend review the arrangements for all NATO navies that operate inside United Kingdom territorial waters to compensate fishermen for damage to gear? The arrangements should be the same as for the Royal Navy. It came as a complete surprise to me and my constituents that a navy that is a member of NATO and operating in our home waters was not liable to pay compensation for damage to the gear of British fishermen.
    Mr. Hamilton: I assure my hon. Friend that if the navy had been on a NATO exercise, the claim would have been settled by the Ministry of Defence and a subsequent claim for 75 per cent. of the total would have been made to the Belgians. In the case to which my hon. Friend refers, it was not a NATO exercise. The Belgian navy was operating on its own. As my hon. Friend knows, the accident happened in March last year. It is for the Belgians to settle this claim, which has been going on for much too long. My Department will do everything that it can to hasten the settlement of this claim.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the situation in Bosnia.
    Mr. Rifkind: British forces continue to play a major part in supporting the United Nations in the former Yugoslavia. They operate in difficult and frequently dangerous conditions with the superb professionalism that we have come to expect. I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to all those involved in this important work.
    Mr. Macdonald: Will the Defence Secretary have another go at answering the question that I asked earlier? If NATO forces were to be fully deployed in Bosnia under
    178
    United Nations auspices, would not they have the capability of imposing an effective ceasefire within a relatively short period of time?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's question implies that military involvement by NATO would be a short, sharp exercise. He has to accept that very few would agree with that judgment. He might reflect on the fact that the United Nations operation in Cyprus, an infinitely less difficult operation, has continued for over 28 years. The hon. Gentleman should consider whether that might apply in the case of Bosnia.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Parry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Parry: Will the Prime Minister today decide when he intends to visit Liverpool, where he can meet local trade union leaders to discuss the very high level of unemployment? Incidentally, he might visit Liverpool, Riverside, which has the highest level of unemployment in England, Scotland and Wales—32 per cent. Will he also consider visiting Liverpool next month for the commemoration of the battle of the Atlantic and western approaches? Her Majesty the Queen is coming and, in 1940, Mr. Winston Churchill, the then Prime Minister, came several times, as did King George VI. Will the Prime Minister consider coming there?
    The Prime Minister: I have indeed received an invitation to attend the 50th anniversary of the battle of the Atlantic, in which Liverpool and its people played such a significant part. I have accepted that invitation and I look forward to that event very much indeed.
    I am aware of the very high level of unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It has fallen over recent years, but it is still far higher than in many areas in the United Kingdom and is one of the worst pockets of unemployment anywhere in the country. I will not be able to visit Riverside on this occasion, but I understand the particular problems faced by the hon. Gentleman and if he, with a small delegation of his constituents, wishes to come to see me to discuss the problem, I will be happy to meet them.
    Mr. Ottaway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of Norway's largest ship owners, Gearbulk, has recently decided to relocate to London, giving as its reason that it wants to be at the centre of things? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this demonstrates that Britain, with a low corporate tax structure and a Conservative Government, remains the best place in the world in which to do business?
    The Prime Minister: I was not aware of that piece of welcome news and I am delighted to hear what my hon. Friend has said. We very much welcome inward investment from both within and beyond the European Community. We are determined to maintain in this

    179
    country the economic circumstances and the relatively low on-costs to employment which will continue to attract inward investment.
    Mr. John Smith: While it is essential that the sanctions against Serbia be intensified and properly enforced, as indeed they should have been months ago, is it not now necessary for a clear ultimatum to be issued to the Serbs that they will not be allowed to continue their aggression unchecked and that, if they continue that aggression, their lines of supply within Bosnia will be subject to air attack?
    The Prime Minister: We had a lengthy statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs yesterday in which he set out the present position and the discussions we are having with our partners in the United Nations. The House recognised yesterday that the road to further action, particularly if it leads to military action, which is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question implied, is fraught with peril. Once one goes down it, there is no turning back. We must first be confident that that is the right direction.
    Mr. John Smith: While there are risks in any course of action, and I would not seek to minimise them, do not they have to be weighed carefully against the possibly greater risks of non-action? Surely what is badly needed is a demonstration of United Nations determination. How will the Government respond, for example, if the Serbs proceed to take the crucial towns of Gorazde and Zepa? Should not they be warned now that such action on their part will not be tolerated?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman heard my right hon. Friend say again yesterday, we are not excluding those options; we are considering them seriously and discussing them with our allies. I have spoken recently with both the French and American Presidents, but we have not yet reached a decision about the balance of advantage in those particular courses. They could cause fighting to escalate, civilian casualties to rise and an end to the humanitarian operation.
    On that last point, I remind the House that it was the expectation in the House some months ago that over the winter hundreds of thousands of Bosnians would die of starvation and lack of medicine. That has not happened because we have managed to sustain the humanitarian operation. Neither my right hon. Friend nor I would willingly throw that away.
    Mr. Dickens: Following the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of many British citizens who were members of a cult in the United States of America, will my right hon. Friend have conversations with the Home Secretary with a view to setting up a working party to see how we can best limit the recruitment of British citizens into those evil cults?
    The Prime Minister: There are a number of undesirable cults and I share my hon. Friend's concern. It would be difficult to focus legislation to restrict the establishment of cults or religious movements because it would be difficult to determine what groups should be included in the legislation and what groups should be excluded. However, we have powers under the criminal law and we are prepared and willing to use them to regulate the behaviour of individuals when they may infringe the rights of other
    180
    people. We also have powers under the immigration laws to prohibit the entry of people who may wish to establish such cults, if it is thought that they would be damaging to our interests.
    Mr. Ashdown: In the Prime Minister's previous answer, he rightly referred to the importance of humanitarian aid. Has he noticed that today the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has called for the establishment of a United Nations protected safe haven in Zepa and Gorazde? How will he respond to that question?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the UNHCR wants to set up safe areas by agreement with the parties in those areas and does not want the United Nations to be an active participant in the conflict. To that extent, it differs quite radically from the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to write to me about some days ago.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there has to be further military intervention in Bosnia, it should be done under NATO command with American participation, backed by United Nations resolutions supported by Russia?
    The Prime Minister: I see no other circumstances in which it would be practicable to expect any military authority to be there and to succeed. Anything short of action in the circumstances set out by my hon. Friend would be unacceptable and would be unlikely to be agreed. Those are only the circumstances, but I stress that that would be a very grave step and it is not yet the policy of any of the major Governments in the United Nations.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ross: Has the Prime Minister had a chance to study the public sector borrowing requirement figure announced today? Does he realise that £9·5 billion is the highest recorded figure of any Government for any one month? It is £1 million more than the Chancellor announced in his Budget last month. Does the Prime Minister share the concern of many forecasters, who believe that that points to a real underlying problem about our economy? What is he going to do about it?
    The Prime Minister: It is an interesting question from the hon. Gentleman. I hope I can assume from it that the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about borrowing that he will support our new controls on public spending. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us in imposing limits on public sector pay and on keeping caps on council spending. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why he supported the Delors proposals for Community spending which would have cost us millions. He might explain why his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said that he was prepared to debate with the Community over our rebate. All those matters relate to our borrowing requirement; upon none of them have we ever had the support of the hon. Gentleman or any right hon. or hon. Member in his party. Words from him about restraints on public spending are very hollow indeed.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that teachers have a moral duty to do their very best for their pupils and that that means carrying out testing this summer? Is my right hon. Friend aware that Britain spends a higher percentage of its GDP on education than Germany and Japan, but that in Germany children are taught and tested over 1,260 hours per year, whereas children in Britain are taught for as little as 850 hours per year and would remain untested if some teacher unions have their way, supported by the disruptive attitude of the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: As a former head teacher, my hon. Friend speaks with particular authority on this matter. A boycott of testing would certainly not be in the interests of our children. We need tests—and need them this year—as Sir Ron Dearing, among others, has made clear. My hon. Friend is right that our principal competitors have national curricula and regular testing. Any attempt to sabotage our reforms could damage our long-term ability to compete and damage the education of our children.
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Llwyd: The Prime Minister will be aware of the recent integrated administration control system forms which have been issued at the behest of the European Community. These are a great headache to the farming community because they are time limited; they have to be in by 15 May. Farmers also have to have plans mapped out in hectares. In my constituency, for example, only two thirds of land has been surveyed for that purpose. I urge the Prime Minister and his colleagues to ask the EC to extend the time limit and to consider defraying the expenses of those who have spent on survey fees privately for this purpose.
    The Prime Minister: There are difficulties with this and I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Although I doubt whether it is feasible to extend the time limit, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture is seeking to help farmers in that situation within the rules of the terms of the scheme. Maps that can be used are available, but we have always recognised that some farmers may have difficulty getting maps of the right scale. Where maps cannot be obtained, farmers should provide the best alternative that they can.

    South Africa
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has recently made to, or received from, the South African Government regarding political change in South Africa.
    The Prime Minister: We are in regular contact at all levels with the South African Government and other parties involved in the current constitutional negotiations. I shall be seeing Mr. Mandela and Chief Buthelezi in the next few weeks. I am also in touch with President de Klerk.
    Mr. Hunter: As the tragedy of South Africa unfolds and, for the time being, the men of violence have their way, will my right hon. Friend urge President de Klerk not to give ground to the enemies of democracy or mob rule, but, rather, to continue negotiations, especially with moderate black leaders, so that the new South Africa may be better than the old?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows South Africa well and I agree with him that negotiations are the only way to reach the goal of a non-racial, democratic South Africa. The concessions that the ANC is seeking, covering both the election date and the establishment of a transitional executive council, are matters for the constitutional negotiations. I urge all parties to address issues in that forum.

    Engagements
    Mr. Connarty: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Connarty: Has the Prime Minister had, as I have, the shared joy of being present at the birth of his children? Does he share with me and the Royal College of Midwives deep concern at the massive increase in the use of Caesarian sections in all parts of the United Kingdom? Is he aware that I have been told in parliamentary replies that the rate has risen from 5·3 to 13 per cent. in England and to 14 per cent. in Scotland and that women are now threatened in one out of eight cases with surgery in what should be the pleasant experience of childbirth? Does he think that it is time that we had a childbirth charter to protect women from the scalpel when they should have a normal childbirth?
    The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the question is yes, on two occasions. The second part is essentially a matter for the individual mother and her surgeon and doctor. I confess that I was not aware of the growth of Caesarian section births and it is a matter which, in the light of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I shall refer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a short business statement.
The business already announced for tomorrow will now be preceded by a debate on early-day motion 1782.
[That this House regrets that the Chairman of Ways and Means, having selected Amendment 27 to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which has support from honourable Members on both sides of the House, having called a Right honourable Member to speak on that amendment, and having allowed a debate upon it to take place, should then have decided, contrary to normal practice, not w permit a division to take place upon that amendment, thus denying the House an opportunity to reach a decision on an issue relating to the applicability of the Protocol on Social Policy contained in the Maastricht Treaty, a protocol which Her Majesty's Government held to be so important that it sought and obtained a special opt-out from it for the United Kingdom; and, in the light of these considerations, and the long term significance of this ruling for parliamentary debates on all future legislation, calls upon the Chairman of Ways and Means to re-consider his ruling forthwith, and to permit the Committee to reach a decision on that amendment.]
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. Are there any major implications for the timing of the rest of tomorrow's debates? More important, can he confirm my understanding that, although hon. Members in all parts of the House, and in particular my hon. Friends on the Front Bench who deal with foreign affairs, will continue to argue for the House to have an opportunity on Report to decide on amendment No. 27, even if the motion for debate tomorrow were passed, no vote in Committee on that amendment would procedurally now be possible?
Mr. Newton: The answer to the latter point raised by the right hon. Lady is that the point in the Bill at which amendment No. 27 would have been voted on, had it been chosen in that way, occurred at about 10 o'clock last night and has now passed.
The answer to the first part of the question about the implications for the timing of further proceedings is that that is in the hands of the Committee because it will be determined by the amount of time that hon. Members wish to take in debating the early-day motion to which I referred.
Mr. Tom King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I suspect that many hon. Members deeply regret that some right hon. and hon. Members decided to table the motion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and is it not an extremely dangerous precedent if the rulings of the Chair in deciding what amendments shall be selected or what votes shall be taken are to be determined by a majority vote in the House?
Does that not also have serious implications, as we shall have to return to the matter on Report, if the motion is approved? That would put the Chair in an impossible position. Either it will have acceded to pressure coming from those tabling the motion or find that the Chair, and Madam Speaker, could face a similar motion. Is it not
184
highly unfair to the Chairman of Ways and Means, whom many of us feel has been placed in an almost impossible position when he has been carrying out his duties with great good humour and tolerance?
Madam Speaker: Before I call the Leader of the House to reply to that question, I ask hon. Members not to anticipate tomorrow's debate. This is a very narrow statement indeed and questions should be confined to its content. Let us not anticipate what will take place tomorrow.
Mr. Newton: Madam Speaker, obviously I am grateful for that guidance, but I think it was clear from the reaction of the House that my right hon. Friend's regret will be widely shared. I express the hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish tomorrow to reaffirm something which I believe to be very important for the whole of our proceedings and for all groups in the House—support for the authority of the Chair.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Leader of the House accept that the motion is a de facto motion of no confidence in the Chair, and, as such, is a gratuitous move? Since it has been tabled in the names of right hon. and hon. Members who are predominantly members of the official Opposition, why is the time for the debate not being taken out of time set aside today for the official Opposition?
Mr. Newton: I note the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. It was felt right, as we considered these matters, to provide an opportunity for reflection and for the motion to appear on the Order Paper, and then for it to be debated if it was maintained. That is the position that we have adopted. I think that was right. I am grateful for the implicit support that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) expressed for the position that I put a moment ago.
Mr. Michael Jopling: In view of the fact that the indications from the Opposition Front Bench are that they will not support the motion, will the Leader of the House make renewed efforts to get those who have tabled the motion to withdraw it? Does he agree that the House usually does itself considerable damage when it seeks not to trust and support the Speaker and those who have the extremely difficult task of selecting amendments and making other judgments? Does he agree that in such cases we nearly always get into situations which put the House at a huge disadvantage? In this case, is it not particularly inappropriate when we can revert to the matter on Report?
Mr. Newton: I agree with every word that my right hon. Friend has said. I hope that his request—perhaps it could be described as a plea—will be heeded by those who have chosen to table the motion. I add my voice to those seeking further reconsideration even now.
Mr. Tony Benn: I thank the Leader of the House for following the precedents of the House in finding time to debate a motion of this character, last moved, as he will know, by a former Lord Chancellor, Sir Elwyn Jones, during the passage of the European Communities Act 1972, and supported by all Opposition Members.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is a House of Commons matter since the motion tabled by 10 per cent. or more of the total membership of the House

185
touches upon the future proceedings of the House in respect of all legislation and not only the European Communities (Amendment) Bill? Will he give the House an assurance that this will be seen, contrary to practice, not as a party matter but as a House of Commons matter on which every hon. Member must reach his or her own conclusion?
Mr. Newton: It is certainly a House of Commons matter. The reaction of many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House shows that, as it is a House of Commons matter, they wish that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his action.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's reference to debates on earlier occasions, I think that he will find that there is no clear parallel for the motion which he has tabled in the example which he has chosen from 1972, when the motion was presented specifically as an attack on the Government rather than on the Chairman of Ways and Means. There is no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman's motion is intended as an attack on the Chairman of Ways and Means.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: My right hon. Friend will probably tell me that, because of the terms of the motion which has been selected, early-day motion 1792, which I have tabled, will fall because it is on the same subject.
[That this House would wish it to be understood that Tories opposing the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, opposed to the Social Chapter, have wished to vote for the Chapter with socialists approving the Chapter and in support of the Bill and that it should be understood that the upset caused by the declaration by Government that Parliament would be recommended to accept the new clause that would give a clear opportunity to vote for or against the Social Chapter, after approval of the Bill, is because those for and against the Chapter, and those against and for the Bill will be able to vote against each other rather than together; and that it will be understood that this simple way forward should have support from all who desire clarity in politics and separation between people with opposite views.] Will it be possible in the debate to discuss early-day motions 1790 and 1791, which point out that the opponents—
Madam Speaker: Order. That question has nothing to do with the Leader of the House. I said earlier that this is a confined statement. It is a supplementary statement. It concerns only the change of business and not early-day motions tabled by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Bottomley rose—
Madam Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman asking the Leader of the House a question that he can answer and that he has the authority to answer?
Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker. In essence, I am asking whether an amendment may be
186
tabled to the motion that has been selected stating that the House expresses confidence in the impartial way in which the Chairman has conducted our proceedings up to now.
Mr. Newton: Madam Speaker, you will probably agree that the issue of amendment and selection is certainly one for you.
Madam Speaker: Leave it to me.
Mr. Alex Salmond: My question relates to the implications of the statement for the rest of tomorrow's business. We were expecting a full day's debate on the subject of the referendum and a vote at 10 pm. Will the Leader of the House guarantee that the debate and vote on a vital matter such as the referendum will not be truncated and shunted into the early hours of the morning? However inconvenient it might be for the two Front Bench teams, we must have a legitimate debate and vote on the vital matter of the referendum.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman must understand that I cannot sensibly add to what I said—I think to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)—earlier. Ultimately, it is for the House to determine how long the debate proceeds.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that during tomorrow's debate it will be in order to refer to comments made by the Chairman of Ways and Means on a Scottish television programme at the weekend when he said, in effect, that any amendment tabled that was judged to be a wrecking amendment would not be selected or voted on?
Mr. Newton: I did not have the opportunity of seeing the interview to which my hon. Friend has referred, but, subject to your approval, Madam Speaker, it is possible that it will be in order in tomorrow's debate to refer to an interview of that sort.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that some of us believe that there should not be any fuss or bother about the fact that some of us think that the Chairman of Ways and Means was the one who set the dangerous precedent, not my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and other hon. Members who signed the motion? The Chairman decided to ignore the wishes of the Leader of the Opposition about a vote on amendment No. 27. In doing so, he made a rod for his own back—
Madam Speaker: Order. That does not relate to tomorrow's business.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, he may well be called in tomorrow's debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: I shall now move on.

Points of Order
3.43 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A few minutes ago the deputy leader of the Labour party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), said that, even if the motion were passed tomorrow, there would be no possibility of a vote in the Committee stage.
I know that this is a difficult question, and I would have posed it to you earlier had I known that the matter would arise, but would you consider overnight whether the House could defy a decision taken in the House that amendment No. 27 should be put forthwith? If the motion is carried tomorrow, the House will have said that it is to be put forthwith. Therefore, will you, Madam Speaker, consider overnight whether the deputy leader of the Labour party inadvertently made a serious error when asking her question?
Madam Speaker: I cannot anticipate what is likely to happen tomorrow.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the exchanges on the business statement, it was suggested that the issue was a House of Commons matter. Unfortunately, the Leader of the House did not have an opportunity to make clear whether there will be a Government three-line Whip on Tory Members to vote against the motion in order to defend the original decision not to call a vote on amendment N. 27.
Madam Speaker: That is a serious issue, but not one that relates to the change of business. I shall move on. I think that Mr. Banks has a point of order. Is that right?
Mr. Tony Banks: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: As usual.
Mr. Banks: Yes, Madam Speaker; but this one might actually be a point of order. You will be aware that questions tabled to the Prime Minister on the cost of security provision for the Prime Minister are always given the ministerial response that, on security grounds, it is not policy to divulge security costs, which people can understand. However, in today's edition of The Guardian, in the diary column of all places, is an item that says that the cost of protecting the Prime Minister's home at Great Stukeley was £1·2 million in the year to 31 March 1993.
Dame Peggy Fenner: That is less than the cost of protecting Salman Rushdie.
Mr. Banks: Yes. Some might think that to be a high cost and that Group 4 could provide the service more cheaply; but it would probably supply tea and biscuits to those trying to break in.
If that information can be provided to a county council, surely it should be made available to hon. Members when they make such inquiries.
Madam Speaker: I advise the hon. Gentleman not to believe everything that he reads in the press. On the more serious point, that is entirely a matter for Ministers who have to take responsibility for any refusal to answer certain categories of question.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A few moments ago you said that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was important, but that it was not a matter for business questions. The motion to be debated on Wednesday, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and supported by a number of us—we do not believe that it can be personalised in the way that some are trying to do today—should be subject to a free vote. Therefore, would it not be unfortunate, to say the least, if there were any impression inside or outside the House that the vote at the conclusion of tomorrow's debate will be subject to whipping, be it by the Government or the Opposition Front Bench? It should be a free vote, and I hope that that will be confirmed by all concerned.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Procedure Committee and should well know that whether there is a free vote or otherwise is nothing to do with the Speaker.
Mr. John McAllion: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer you to the transcript of the interview that the Chairman of Ways and Means gave to the BBC television programme "Scottish Lobby" last Sunday in which he explained that his decision not to allow a vote on amendment No. 27 was based upon his judgment that two other Opposition amendments, new clauses 74 and 75, were slightly more workable. Will you therefore confirm that, if those new clauses were withdrawn by the Opposition, a vote could be taken on amendment No. 27, so that there would be no necessity for tomorrow's debate on early-day motion 1782?
Madam Speaker: I cannot comment on proceedings in Committee.

Criminal Justice (Amendment)
3.46 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restore to the courts the power to take full account of a criminal's previous convictions, sentence and response thereto in determining sentences.
In a recent case in London a man was convicted by magistrates of his fifth offence of driving while disqualified and he was, rightly, sent to prison for six months. When the Court of Appeal quashed the sentence, one of the judges sadly remarked:
"The Act"—
the Criminal Justice Act 1991—
"may not make sense but it has to be obeyed."
Similarly, in a recent case in Surrey, a burglar who had just completed a four-year prison sentence for burglary came before the court for four further offences. On examining the Act, the court found that the only sentence that could be imposed was a 75-hour community service order.
As a result of such cases, some hon. Members may feel that the Act is not working well and requires some modification. That is not my view. I take the view that it is wrong in principle to interfere with the right of the courts to take account of previous offences.
The problem to which I have been referring relates to section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Less well known is section 1(2), which provides:
"the court shall not pass a custodial offence on the offender unless it is of the opinion—
(a) that the offence, or the combination of the offence and one other offence associated with it"—
in other words, the court can look at only two offences before it
"was so serious that only such a sentence can be justified for the offence; or
(b) where the offence is a violent or sexual offence…"
In Winchester recently, a Department of Social Security fraud case involved a man who had stolen more than £20,000. Because each week's payment was considered a separate offence, in deciding whether the man should go to prison, the court could only take into account two weeks' fraud involving a relatively small sum, which resulted in a small fine.
The difficulty originated in two perverse Court of Appeal rulings—the first in 1981—that, because a person could be sentenced only once for any one offence, it followed that previous offences could not be regarded as aggravating features of a crime except in the limited sense of diminishing mitigating factors. That doctrine is so completely daft that it could have been devised only by exceptionally clever people. Nevertheless, it found its way into section 29 of the 1991 Act, and the House passed that portion of the legislation with virtually no objection, except from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence)—though there were many debates and several votes on other parts of the Bill.
It is a serious matter that the courts cannot take account of previous offences or of more than two offences in a particular hatch. The interplay of those two sets of provisions magnifies the problem. If a man is given a community service order and fails while under it to be a good citizen, committing a crime every night, because he agreed to honour the order, he cannot be taken back to
190
court and be told, "You are not observing the order properly because you are continuing to commit crimes." He cannot be sent to prison for the original offence.
Section 29 of the 1991 Act does not usually allow the court, in sentencing the offender for any subsequent crimes, to take account of the fact that the individual was continually breaching the order by committing those crimes. In other words, it is now virtually impossible to send a person to prison for most crimes against property.
Recently, the Lord Chief Justice said:
"However forward thinking the penologists, criminologists and bureaucrats in Government Departments may be, their views should not be allowed to prevail so as to impose a sentencing regime which is incomprehensible or unacceptable to right-thinking people. If that happens, there will be a real risk of aggrieved parties taking the law into their own hands."
That view has been backed by the Magistrates Association, a number of chief constables, and the Police Federation.
At a time of great obsession with a small number of wrongful convictions—and, sadly, that obsession seems to have extended to the Royal Commission on criminal justice—my constituents are far more worried about the large number of criminals who are getting off without a conviction or with a derisory sentence. Today, only 3 per cent. of recorded crime results in a court conviction. As the result of the two provisions of the 1991 Act in question, in most cases, if no violence is involved, it is no longer possible to send the offender to prison.
The Lord Chief Justice's warning is already reaching fruition. In Canterbury high street, a group of vigilantes broke into a squat that was a notorious centre of crime and, in a violent incident, burnt out the squatters. In a village in my constituency, a known burglar who had committed a string of burglaries against elderly people but who had to be released each time by the court was beaten up in broad daylight.
In the celebrated Taylor-Owen case, a jury of 12 people unanimously endorsed a serious crime by finding Mr. Owen not guilty. The House will remember that Mr. Owen took a shotgun to Mr. Taylor, who had run down and killed Mr. Owen's 14-year-old son. The jury was comprised of local people who were familiar with the activities of the Taylor family, and in effect they endorsed a serious crime of retaliation by finding Mr. Owen not guilty, not just of attempted murder but even of possessing a firearm, which was an offence to which Mr. Owen had confessed. [Laughter.] It would be funny if it were not so tragic.
The truth is that offences against property, particularly burglaries, strike at the very heart of family and community. To those of us who live in comfortable middle-class areas, a burglary simply means a hassle with the insurance company in most cases; to a poor family who cannot afford insurance and may have been burgled five or six times, it can mean the destruction of their way of life. They may stop going out in the evening because they do not want to leave their houses unattended.
If the law is not seen to address this vital need—if it is not seen to be preventing crimes against property—the ugly fact is that people will take the law into their own hands. It is utterly pointless for us to wring our hands and condemn them for doing so. We shall see a growth in the ugly vigilante retaliation that is a feature of American society.

191
Let me end where I began. I should like two modifications to be made to the Criminal Justice Act 1991—much of which I support; it contains some sensible provisions relating to violent crime. First, I should like to strike out section 29 so that courts can take full account of previous offences. Secondly, I should like to modify the wording of section 1(2)(a) so that a court with a batch of offences before it can look at them all together, not just at two of them.
I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to vote for the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Edward Garnier, Mr. David Tredinnick, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Graham Riddick, Mr. Ian Taylor, Mr. Bob Dunn, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. John Marshall, Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. John Sykes.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Julian Brazier accordingly presented a Bill to restore to the courts the power to take full account of a criminal's previous convictions, sentence and response thereto in determining sentences: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 May, and to be printed. [Bill 181.]
Opposition Day
[11TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Schools
  Madam Speaker: Before we start the debate, I must announce that I must limit speeches to 10 minutes between 6 pm and 8 pm, and that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.56 pm
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move,
  That this House believes that there is an urgent need for stability in the nation's schools with decision-making in education based on developing a consensus rather than centralising power in the hands of the Secretary of State for Education, and that the current difficulties and instability associated with Key Stage testing are caused by the Secretary of State refusing to listen to parents, governors and teachers; and calls on the Secretary of State to withdraw the compulsion on schools to carry out the Key Stage 3 tests in English and Technology and to follow the Key Stage model introduced by Government Ministers in Scotland, pending a genuine consultative review.
  It is customary in our debates to declare any interests. As the House knows, I—along with members of other parties—act as a parliamentary consultant to the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, although I do not speak on its behalf today, any more than have Conservative Members when they have acted in the same capacity. However, I have one particular and important interest: I have two children at primary school. I therefore have a vested interest in ensuring that the quality of education on offer in our schools is the best possible, and that we make a reality of the opportunities that should be provided for all our children.
  Like other parents, I am alarmed by the pressures that are bearing down on our schools—not just the constant need for fund raising, but the amount of chopping and changing experienced by parents, and the weight of instruction that is coming into schools from the Department for Education on an almost daily basis. It is important to bear that in mind, because it provides the background for today's debate.
  Mr. John Bowis: The hon. Lady says that she is a parent, with children in primary school. Does she intend to support calls to parents not to let their children go into school on the day of the tests, or will she denounce the Socialist Education Association which made that call?
  Mrs. Taylor: I shall have some interesting suggestions to make, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will be willing to consider, about what parents ought to do. I intend also to say a word about the experience of my own children with the standard assessment tasks. If the hon. Gentleman will wait, I shall certainly answer his question.
  The problem is that parents see the pressures on our schools. They do not understand, any more than I do, why Ministers, who claim that they want to get the Government off our backs, are filling every shelf in every school with thousands of pieces of paper from the Department for Education. Parents know that teachers are the buffers—that they are absorbing the pressure in order to minimise disruption in the classroom caused by the constant instructions from Whitehall. Sometimes, the pace

  193
  of change has been so hectic that Ministers changed the instructions before the last set of changes could be implemented.
  Governors also understand the consequences of the frenzied nature of the Government's approach to these changes in education. It is, I believe, fair to say that the build-up of pressure on our schools is clear for all to see. In the past 14 years, there have been 18 pieces of legislation. Yet another Bill is now in the other place, having been pushed through the House of Commons with the Government's usual contempt for democratic scrutiny.
  The Opposition have chosen this subject for debate today precisely because this week sees the start of the school term for many thousands of children—a term which should see the culmination of the year's work.
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Does the hon. Lady recall that last year's tests for seven-year-olds, which her party opposed strenuously, were a valuable exercise, in that they revealed serious shortcomings in reading and arithmetic in a significant proportion of pupils? Her party was wrong in opposing the tests then. Does she not think that it is just possible that she is also wrong in this instance?
  Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is downright wrong. My party did not oppose the tests. It was not those tests that showed up the lamentable lack of progress under 14 years of Conservative government. I sometimes wonder how Conservative Members can take any pride in their education record when they have to tell us of the dismal failures of our education system after 14 years of Conservative government.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: But the reality is that the National Union of Teachers is calling for the boycott of all tests, including those for seven-year-olds. The hon. Lady, it would appear, has just given her support to the tests for seven-year-olds. Will she therefore join me in condemning the NUT which wishes to boycott all tests, including those for seven-year-olds?
  Mrs. Taylor: No, I shall not. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read the motion on the Order Paper, which says exactly what should happen about the tests for seven-year-olds. I hope, too, that he supports the Scottish Office Ministers, who have already resolved this problem. I do not understand why Conservative Members, who have supported certain changes in Scotland, cannot accept that those changes should be introduced in England.
  Mr. Rod Richards: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Taylor: No. I have given way three times already, and I want to make a bit of progress. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not intend to leave this issue, and that there will be plenty of time for interventions.
  The Opposition have chosen this subject for debate because we believe that the school term that has just started is important. It should see the culmination of the year's work and the normal assessment of children so that parents may receive a report on the progress of their children. That is what should happen during this school term.
  However, if the Secretary of State gets his way. the normal teaching pattern that teachers have struggled to develop will he disrupted by tests in which no
  194
  one—parents, governors or teachers—has confidence. Indeed, even the Secretary of State himself does not seem to have confidence in the tests. The significant aspect of the testing arrangements that he has imposed is that, the more that parents hear and learn of his proposals, the less confidence they have in him and in them.
  Mr. James Pawsey: Despite what the hon. Lady says, does she not agree that the chairman of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority has said that the tests should go forward this year so that experience can be gained which can be used in devising the tests that will take place next year and in the following years?
  Mrs. Taylor: Many parents are fed up with their children being used as guinea pigs in the Secretary of State's experiments.
  We must consider how the Government have got themselves into this position. The arguments surrounding this year's tests are the culmination of concern over the past few years about the increasing powers taken by the Secretary of State over what goes on in the classroom from day to day.
  The national curriculum was introduced by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), and the policy was initially welcomed by all political parties and interest groups, but Ministers have transformed it into an educational straitjacket which confines and dictates what can and cannot be taught. Perhaps that is why the Secretary of State's chief ally in all this, the former chairman of the National Curriculum Council, has just sent his daughter to an independent school, which does not have to follow the national curriculum that he has devised for other children.
  Mr. Nigel Forman: Am I right in recalling that the Labour party fought the general election at least in part on a pledge to modernise the national curriculum? Will the hon. Lady tell the House what was meant by that?
  Mrs. Taylor: Yes, I confirm that, and I shall send the hon. Gentleman a copy of my article which appeared in The Times Educational Supplement some weeks ago, outlining exactly how we could have a framework for a national curriculum rather than the prescribed national syllabus that Ministers are imposing on us.
  The most significant point, and the thing that Conservative Members need to understand above all else, is that the tests prescribed for the key stages are not an integral part of teaching but are too often superimposed on the normal work load not only of teachers but of pupils. The tests do not assess progress in the curriculum, nor do they diagnose the problems of any individual child. On that basis, I agree with teachers, and many parents and governors, that this year's tests should not go ahead.
  Mr. Jack Thompson: There is one further element to take into account. Some local education authorities, including mine in Northumberland, operate a three-tier system, which is seriously affected by the structure of the national curriculum, especially by the testing procedures. Children leave the middle school at 13 and will have been in the high school less than one year when they are tested.
  Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which was discussed at some length when the original proposals were made. The present key stage ages cause difficulties for children who transfer through the middle school system. In general terms, however, I support the idea of some form of testing at 14, because I consider that an appropriate stage at which to assess a child's progress. None the less, I appreciate the problems that my hon. Friend raises concerning children in middle schools.
  Mr. Harry Greenway rose—
  Mrs. Taylor: I shall give way once more, and then I must make some progress.
  Mr. Greenway: Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that, in 1979, one in 13 children went into higher education, whereas a year or two from now, one in three will do so? Does she not accept that that means that standards must be raised, and is not a properly tested sound curriculum the way in which to do that? What would she do?
  Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman ought to reflect on what his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said recently about international comparisons. I also suggest that he considers the importance of GCSEs in terms of raising standards, and especially in increasing motivation among young people. The GCSE is one of the reforms of the former Conservative Government that I support, and I welcome its impact. I therefore very much regret that the present Secretary of State seems to be undermining the very aspects of GCSEs that are most important.
  Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Taylor: I will give way for the final time, for the moment, to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Richards: The hon. Lady says that she agrees with teachers that the tests should not go ahead. Does that mean that she supports the boycott?
  Mrs. Taylor: How many times must I say it? I certainly support the professional and educational case that teachers are making. Their actions in pursuit of that case are and must be their decisions—[Interruption.] I do not intend to tell teachers what to do; one of the reasons that we are now in this situation is precisely because the Government spend too much time telling teachers what to do and refusing to respect them or to listen to their professional judgment.
  I will not tell teachers what to do, but I am happy to tell the Secretary of State what he should do, because the responsibility for the overloaded and over-prescriptive curriculum rests with him, not with teachers. The responsibility for the inappropriate nature of the tests rests with the Secretary of State, not with teachers. But the responsibility for protecting the education of our children during this clearly rests with teachers, because the Secretary of State refuses to follow the logic of his own conclusions and call off those clearly flawed tests.
  The Secretary of State has said that these tests are the way in which to identify problems and that they have a diagnostic function. They are supposed to let parents know of their child's progress. Standard assessment tasks simply do not do that very well at all. The Secretary of State is a simple chap. For him, any test is good; any criticism of any test has to be wrong.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Taylor: No.
  Indeed, it seems that the Secretary of State does not know his assessment from his elbow when it comes to testing. All he can do is repeat ad nauseam that anyone who criticises his tests is against testing and against raising standards. In fact, the opposite is true. Those opposed to his tests are in favour of good, useful methods of assessment as a means of raising standards, and are not in favour of tests that damage children's education.
  If the Secretary of State ever bothered to read the research, he would know that standards are raised wherever good and appropriate tests are used, and that the information generated by those tests is used in the classroom every day by teachers and pupils alike as a basis for their testing and learning strategies.
  Dame Angela Rumbold: I have listened very carefully to the hon. Lady's reasoning. The tests that she is discussing were originally devised by teachers and by the educational world simply to do the task of diagnostic testing and of looking into the abilities of children. Many Conservatives wanted to introduce a fairly simple pencil and paper test. We were told by many people in the education world, including some teachers, that that was quite impossible because it would be damaging. Could the hon. Lady tell the House what her tests would be?
  Mrs. Taylor: Yes, I can. I have explained it in the motion which we have tabled. Conservative Members do not seem to be capable or reading the motion. I wish that they had done their homework before the debate. I should like to see introduced the model which exists in Scotland. It is the model which the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold)—she should know better, because she was a Minister in the Department—must approve for her colleagues who introduced it in Scotland.
  The Secretary of State has united parents and the education world against bad tests, not against testing itself. The right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden asked about the different tests. Perhaps I need to give Conservative Members an education. I thought that someone who had been a Minister in the Department would have known the difference between, for example, summative tests and informative tests. The latter diagnose not only the fact that the problem exists but the nature of it.
  I know that the Secretary of State would want parents to know not simply what their child could read but whether there was any problem as a result of a lack of comprehension, a limited vocabulary or some problem with word order. Good and appropriate testing which gives teachers and parents such information is essential to teaching. It is absolutely essential if we are to make the best use of our valuable resources, especially the time of teachers.
  Dame Angela Rumbold: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Taylor: No. Poor tests such as those suggested by the Secretary of State waste that valuable teaching resource and therefore detract from the opportunities of our children.

  197
  As a parent, I do not want to know simply how my children are getting on. I do not want a frozen picture at any one point: I want to know what difficulties or problems they may have and what can be done to help them to do better.
  The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) asked what I thought parents should do. My daughter went through the key stage 1 standard assessment tests in the pilot year. At that time, I did not withdraw my daughter from those tests because they were new. Although I had reservations, I felt that that would not be the right thing to do. However, speaking from the experience of that occasion, I can say that the results of those standard assessment tests told the teacher nothing that she did not already know, and they told me nothing that I did not already know. The tests deprived my daughter and her classmates of the valuable teaching time of the teacher when the teacher was undertaking the test with all the other 30 children in the classroom over several weeks.
  The key problem with the Secretary of State's tests is that they are high on administration and low on educational value.
  Dr. Robert Spink: Is the hon. Lady aware that the pilot tests were diagnostic, in that they showed that, of the 14-year-olds who took them in English, three out of 10 had a reading age of between nine and 11 years? In that way, the tests were extremely helpful. Would the hon. Lady deny teachers the ability to diagnose the problem that those children have and to assist them to repair it?
  Mrs. Taylor: I hope that someone on the Conservative Bench will explain a diagnostic test to the hon. Gentleman because it is certainly not what he is talking about. The hon. Gentleman is also wrong to say that the English standard assessment tests for 14-year-olds were on trial last year. Those tests were dumped by the Secretary of State. One of the reasons why we have so many difficulties at present is that the Secretary of State chose to change the examining body in midstream, yet again.
  Conservative Members seem to think that only Labour Members are against the tests. I shall remind the House who is against the Secretary of State, because it is an impressive alliance, not an army of Luddites or neanderthals—the Secretary of State often uses such titles. For example, the Independent Girls Schools Association is against the tests. The president of that association was described as "ridiculous" by Baroness Blatch when she quietly expressed her misgivings about key stage 3 as long ago as November 1992.
  Joan Clanchy, a head who was a member of the National Curriculum Council, resigned earlier this year, in her words because
  "the dominant aim had become a curriculum designed for tests, a model which is barren and intellectual."
  She is not a member of the Labour party. In an article in this week's The Independent, she said that, as a council member, she objected to
  "being given Centre for Policy Studies pamphlets to read by way of homework."
  That is the tone of what was happening at that time.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Taylor: Not at this stage.
  198
  Most of the independent schools say that they will use their discretion and will not introduce the tests for 14 year-olds this year. It is different for them. They have made their professional judgment and, by and large, they do not want anything to do with the tests.
  The Chairman of the House of Commons Education Select Committee has called for a postponement of the tests. I am sure that he will explain his position later. Teachers from schools throughout Britain, who describe themselves as "anything other than loonie lefties"—
  Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Taylor: No. I must continue to talk about those who are not loonie lefties and whose credentials the hon. Lady might appreciate. I have received a letter from someone who describes herself as a member of MENSA, and someone whose children were educated entirely at traditional prep and public schools and has been vice-chair of the Birmingham Conservative advisory committee.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: Not a member of the Labour party, then.
  Mrs. Taylor: No, not a member of the Labour party.
  She described herself as "no trendy radical". She has said:
  "Having wasted many hours on trying to determine exactly what is being required from teachers in terms of futile, punitive, pedantic, impossible-to-complete-honestly record-keeping, I have reached the conclusion that the demands of Key Stage 3 for the proliferation of bumf is a sort of mental equivalent to that emblem of certain Victorian values: the treadmill. Both inventions are designed to break the victim's spirit and exhaust her energies by a form of hard labour distinguished not only for its cruelty but also for the complete absence of any end product."
  Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mr. Richard Tracey: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Taylor: I am sorry. I am quoting Conservative supporters. It would be well for Conservative Members to listen. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."] I will certainly send copies of the letters. I was quoting Alma Evers, who teaches at King Edward VI school in Handsworth, Birmingham, a school which may be familiar to some Conservative Members.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Lady has made it clear that she will not give way.
  Mrs. Taylor: If I am to make progress, I cannot give way too many more times. But perhaps I should point out to Conservative Members that level 1 of key stage 1 recommends that pupils should listen attentively to others. [Interruption.] I can go on to quote levels 2 and 3, which tell pupils to listen carefully. But we shall leave that for the moment.
  Another correspondent describes himself as a member of the Conservative party. He has also written to the Secretary of State. He says that he has been a member of the Conservative party since 1976, and adds:
  "Decisions are simply being dumped on schools for teachers to try and sort out and make some sense of for their pupils."
  This is the type of information and response that we are receiving to the Secretary of State's proposals from up and down the country.
  Mr. Eric Pickles: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Taylor: No. I have quoted correspondence, and I am sure that many Conservative Members have been given similar information.
  Mr. Pickles: Will the hon. Lady give way on this point?
  Mrs. Taylor: I do not want to quote the document again, but I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy if he cannot listen carefully. It is for seven-year-olds. Perhaps Conservative Members could listen on that basis.
  If the Secretary of State wishes to continue to call everybody who disagrees with him a neanderthal and to describe teachers as Luddites, perhaps he ought to take into account the fact that I have been quoting members of the Conservative party, independent girls schools and public schools—those who know what the situation is and are united in their opposition to these tests.
  The Secretary of State may wish to dismiss all those people, but he must take into account the views of parents. The National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations is against it; it agrees with us that the Scottish model should be introduced in this country. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister has listened to some of those who are supporters of his party and who have told him that the tests are ridiculously flawed.
  Lord Skidelsky has described the testing system as Byzantine. Donald Naismith, the director of education in Wandsworth—quite a topical place at the moment—has said:
  "What we have now is not what was intended. Chickens are coming home to roost.… It is over-bureaucratic and unworkable. The sooner it is buried, the better."
  And, as I say, more hon. Members opposite are now coming out in the same way.
  Sir Paul Beresford: Is the hon. Lady also aware—I am speaking both as a Member for Croydon, Central, where that gentleman was a director, and as a Wandsworth councillor—that he still feels that these tests should go ahead this year as part of the review?
  Mrs. Taylor: I am quoting what the director has said, not in private, but publicly—that the sooner they are buried, the better. I think that is good enough grounds for not making guinea pigs of our children yet again.
  I will give an example of the kind of gibberish that is being sent out to teachers at the present time. The Secretary of State has sent out a circular about arrangements for testing this year, which says:
  "For PC3 (Writing): First examine the constituent AT levels based on the NC Test levels and the TA level in the case of AT4/5: If the TA in AT4/5 (Presentation) is at level 7 and the NC Test level for AT3 (Writing) is at level 8, then the PC level is the AT3 NC Test level."
  I am sure that hon. Gentlemen have every confidence in their ability to explain that to parents of children in the schools in their constituencies. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Of course I will give way to the Secretary of State, if he wishes to intervene to add extra clarity. Here we have yet again the Secretary of State turning to his junior Minister and asking for an explanation. Perhaps, if he had been on the Committee on the Education Bill, he would know more about some of these things.
  All those who are opposed to the tests agree on many aspects. The first is that the tests are too prescriptive, too long and not properly prepared and piloted; that they are
  200
  immensely bureaucratic and the administration is far too complex; and that teachers spend hours testing and recording when they should be teaching.
  We believe that teaching time is especially critical for pupils aged 13 when they start to prepare for GCSE. These tests are a poor preparation for GCSE and are inferior to many of the tests that schools are already using. These tests, far from raising standards, have a damaging effect on children's learning, as teachers have less time to teach, and when they do teach, they are teaching to the test.
  Perhaps, if he will not change his mind today and is intent on insisting that these tests go ahead, the Secretary of State would like to let parents have more say in what should happen. The Secretary of State says that he sets great store by the attitudes and views of parents, and he is very keen on ballots. May I suggest that he should encourage schools to ballot parents on testing? After all, we are talking about the future of their children. What is wrong with that? I hope the hon. Gentleman will support that suggestion.
  Mr. Tracey: I speak as a parent of four children who have been through the state system. Will the hon. Lady take note that Ofsted said that the national curriculum and testing have driven up the standard of education? That is precisely what Conservative Members wanted and precisely the purpose of the Education Reform Act 1988 and the national curriculum and testing. Why did she not mention that when she was reading out her press cuttings?
  Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is lucky that his children have been through the system and are not being used as guinea pigs now. The Ofsted report said that the information and the results were very mixed. It was the Secretary of State who, yet again, put out a press release saying that everything was wonderful.
  I return to my suggestion for a ballot of parents. I know that some schools are embarking on that course of action. I hope that the Secretary of State agrees that schools are entitled to do that, and that we should encourage greater parental involvement in that way. However, I have to tell him that the results of ballots that I have heard about have always shown that the tests should not go ahead.
  We are asking only that the interests of our children should come first. The Secretary of State has admitted that the tests are flawed, first when he said that they would not be nationally reported and later when he accepted the need for a full review of the curriculum and testing arrangements. I hope that the Secretary of State will stop, think again and withdraw the tests.
  This year's 14-year-olds could be the only ones that the Secretary of State is trying to get to take the tests. Last year's 14-year-olds did not, and by next year we may have a more sensible arrangement as a result of the review. Why should we make this year's 14-year-olds the guinea pigs?
  The Secretary of State said that the tests should go ahead to help design future tests. In other words, the flawed tests should go ahead to find out just how flawed they are. I repeat that parents are absolutely fed up with their children being used as guinea pigs in the Secretary of State's experiments. It is change for change's sake.
  The Secretary of State should follow the logic of his own conclusions. He has accepted that the tests are flawed and that there is need for review. He should therefore withdraw the compulsion for this year's tests and allow a proper and independent review.

  201
  I want to say a word about the review. At the Association of Teachers and Lecturers conference in Cardiff, the Secretary of State spoke about the membership of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority. He announced, as if it were a great concession, that there would be one head teacher and one classroom teacher on the review body. Leaving aside the problem of who chooses the head teacher and the classroom teacher, that is hardly likely to win the confidence of the teaching profession. If SCAA is to gain the confidence of parents, governors and teachers—and I very much hope that it does —it is essential that it is not packed in the way that so many previous bodies were.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will learn something from his colleagues in government. Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office have decided to delay statutory testing at least for a year. Ministers could follow the Scottish model and learn something from what has happened north of the border. Opposition to the nature of the tests in Scotland resulted in extensive consultation with parents and teachers. Most of the objections have been overcome because of those discussions and the fact that the issues have been talked through. In Scotland, there is no central collection or publication of test results. They are reported to parents and school boards. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful".] Hon. Members may say "Disgraceful," but their Government introduced the proposals.
  Teachers in Scotland are trusted to judge when a pupil is ready to take the test and move from one stage of the curriculum to the next. Tests are informal and taken in small groups at all ages. Schools choose the tests that they want to use. I hope that the Secretary of State can explain why Scottish parents and children have come off so much better, and why the Government listen to Scottish parents and teachers but will not listen to those in England and Wales.
  At the moment, the Secretary of State seems intent on pressing ahead as if nothing was wrong. Despite announcing that there is to be an overall review, he has announced yet more changes in the national curriculum for English.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Hear, hear.
  Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman ought to tell the Secretary of State to make up his mind: either to have an overall review and look at all the information, or to go on meddling all the way through. The Secretary of State must stop meddling, or he will make a nonsense of the review before it starts. I hope that he will give an assurance this afternoon that he will not pack the committee in the usual way.
  I have concentrated most of my remarks on the curriculum and testing, because that is the area where the meddling of Ministers is causing the greatest concern among parents at the present time. There are, however, other areas of instability caused by Government policy which it would be wrong of me to ignore, so I will briefly mention nursery education, the problems associated with section 11 funding, and the youth service.
  One problem that is clearly causing concern to many parents is the squeeze on nursery education as a result of Government cuts. Our concerns about the future of nursery education are made much greater by the attitude of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools, who is supposed to be responsible for nursery provision.
  202
  We believe that nursery education offers the best introduction to formal learning and social behaviour for our youngsters. Like many parents, I was keen for my children to have the benefit of nursery education at a time when they were developing rapidly, wanted external stimulation, and were keen to meet and mix with other children and learn new skills.
  It was not only my instincts as a mother that gave me an interest in nursery education. Research in the United Kingdom, the rest of Europe and the United States shows that children who get the benefit of a nursery education perform better academically in later years. The report on SATs for seven-year-olds shows that those who had the benefit of a nursery education had a head start. Another benefit is the early identification of special needs, which can save money later. It has been estimated that £1 spent on nursery education can save £4 later in terms of savings on antisocial behaviour and, indeed, prison.
  The anger and frustration of parents who know that their children could benefit from a nursery place but who are unable to obtain one is made more intense by the answer of the Minister to my parliamentary question on 30 March. I asked the Minister to confirm that parents who live in Labour-controlled county council areas have a three times greater chance of getting a nursery place for their children than those who live in a Conservative one—a point which, strangely enough, the Minister ignored and forgot to confirm. Perhaps he will confirm it today.
  I also asked the Minister what he intended to do about Conservative-controlled councils who were not spending their standard spending assessment on nursery education as they should. I went on to ask him to agree that every three and four-year-old should have the right to the best start in education, which meant being able to take advantage of nursery provision. The Minister would not say that children should be entitled to that, and many outside the House will have noted with despair the fact that nursery provision will not improve so long as the Conservatives remain in office.
  The Government are often keen on making international comparisons, but we are not told, for example, that in France, by the age of three, 96 per cent. of children are in state-provided nursery schools, ecoles maternelles. We in Britain should be aiming for that target, so enabling every three and four-year-old to have a chance of a place in nursery school. Parents want that—
  Sir Paul Beresford rose—
  Mrs. Taylor: I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman.
  If the Minister is seriously interested in raising standards in the schools, he should persuade the Government to take one of the most important steps to that end, which is to spend more on pre-school provision.
  Another crucial area in which chopping and changing by Ministers is bound to damage the quality of education concerns children from the new Commonwealth for whom English is a second language, whom the Government recognise need help but from whom they are withdrawing assistance. Last year, the Government made much of an announcement about section 11 money going to local authorities so that extra assistance could be given in schools to children for whom English is a second language.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Lady please precis her speech?
  Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman may not like to hear me spell out the record of the Government, but he must learn to take it. Hopefully he will get a chance to speak in the debate. In the meantime, he must listen.
  As I was saying, the Government were boasting last year that they were providing section 11 money to local authorities. That announcement and clear financial commitment enabled authorities to give contracts to teachers and language support workers. The money may not have been as much as those involved would have liked, but at least contracts were made and people thought they knew where they stood.
  In November 1992, the Home Office issued a circular reneging on that agreement. That happened without warning or consultation, and despite the fact that contracts had been drawn up and teachers placed in schools—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members are interested in improving the quality of education, they shoult take more interest in the vital support that is necessary for many school children.
  The shadow Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), wrote to the Home Secretary on the subject, and at least he had the courtesy of a reply, and an acknowledgement that the Home Secretary valued
  "the important work that has been, and continues to be, performed by teachers and others"
  supported by section 11 grants. He went on to say that he remained
  "firmly committed to the need to tackle the causes of disadvantage"
  and he mentioned the lack of English as a prime example of that.
  I wrote at the same time to the Secretary of State for Education asking for his opinion, not least because of the contradiction caused by his claim that more money was needed for reading recovery programmes. I was anxious to ask him then—so I ask him now—how much greater will be the need for reading recovery efforts if we do not have the maintenance of language support teachers in schools that need them. I did not receive a reply from the right hon. Gentleman, so I can only assume that he is not interested in the problems faced by those with English as their second language.
  Mr. Pickles rose—
  Mrs. Taylor: I will not give way again. I am nearing the end of my speech—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and that response from Conservative Members will convince the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) that his hon. Friends would not be pleased if I gave way to him.
  There are other areas of instability that should concern us. We hear much these days about increasing levels of truancy, the increasing problem of exclusions from school and the difficulties and cuts facing the youth service. At a time when there is probably greater social disintegration than we ever imagined, the Secretary of State must explain what he is doing to protect the youth service. With youngsters having many pressures on them to conform to a culture of violence and to disregard everyone but themselves, an absolute need exists for more investment to counter such problems. Yet Ministers are not fighting on behalf of the youth service, which could provide an alternative culture and support.
  204
  After 14 years of Conservative rule, too many children have far too many problems in their classrooms, and many of them are under-achieving, despite the claims of the Government. We are debating what happens in the classroom at a time when teachers have never been more alarmed about the implications of Government policies for the children they are teaching and for the hopes that parents have in the education system.
  After 14 years of one experiment after another, there is a feeling of despair about whether the Conservatives will ever get anything right. The Secretary of State has announced a review. We hope that it will be used by the Government to make a fresh start. They must try to work with parents and teachers, and their first action should be to admit that their past policies have been wrong. We need the development of a new consensus for stability in education. The Labour party is willing to concentrate on that, because we believe in putting children first.
  4.46 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'welcomes the commitment of Her Majesty's Government to the National Curriculum and its associated regular tests; notes that the new independent inspectorate, the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED), recently reported that the National Curriculum and regular tests were already helping to drive up standards in schools; believes that the progress made in the implementation of the Government's education reforms is due to the hard work and dedication of professional teachers and welcomes the review established by the Secretary of State for Education into the National Curriculum and testing; believes that a boycott of this summer's tests would disrupt children's education, cause unnecessary concern to parents and damage the professional standing of teachers; and looks forward to a definitive statement from Her Majesty's Opposition as to whether or not it supports a boycott of this summer's tests.'.
  I relish the opportunity to affirm to the House yet again the Government's commitment to the better education of all our children, our commitment to the national curriculum, our commitment to the regular testing of children and our commitment to the reporting of results to parents. There should be nothing to hide in our schools. I confirm our commitment to the publication of more and better information about how different schools are performing.
  Those are the firm principles on which many of our education reforms are based. They are principles from which Her Majesty's Government will not be deflected. I believe that those principles are in tune with the aspirations of the vast majority of parents and most of the nation's hard-working professional teachers, to whom hon. Members in all parts of the House are grateful for implementing the reforms so far, since the process of reform began in 1989, following the landmark Education Reform Act 1988 introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who is in his place this afternoon.
  They are certainly principles which set us a long way apart from the Labour party, as the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) demonstrated graphically today. She had the opportunity to make a positive and constructive contribution to the current debate about the implementation of education reforms, but she blew it. She rehearsed blowing it this morning on the "Today" programme when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of

  205
  State for Schools comprehensively demolished her arguments, getting us off to a good start over our breakfast eggs. The hon. Lady's rantings this afternoon showed that, despite 14 long years in opposition, the Labour party remains absolutely devoid of any credible alternative policy on education. That view is held by left-wing commentators in the New Statesman and Society and The Guardian as much as by my right hon. and hon. Friends. That is because the Labour party remains as out of touch as ever with the wishes of ordinary people for higher standards.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: The Secretary of State will have noticed that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) did not answer a single question today. She has not done so in the past. Does my right hon. Friend know that the hon. Lady is a member of the Socialist Education Association? Is he also aware that that association has advised parents that they should keep their children at home on testing days? Will my right hon. Friend therefore invite the hon. Lady to answer the question that was put to her earlier and will he give her time to do so? [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Lady would do me the courtesy of listening, which she never does.
  Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right. The hon. Lady is taking her orders from that organisation which is trying to stir up as much trouble as it can in the nation's classrooms. As she made clear in her answer to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), she, like her hon. Friend the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), is in favour of strikes, of industrial action and certainly of boycotting, as she has made clear to the House this afternoon.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) for reminding me that I have not paid my subscription to the SEA for some time, but I shall do so forthwith. On the point that the Secretary of State has just made, I hope that he will withdraw the word "strike", because I do not know of any teacher who is suggesting strike action on the issue.
  Mr. Patten: I was simply comparing the hon. Lady's approach—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—to the approach of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, who supports strike action by the railways. There is nothing for me to withdraw. The hon. Lady has avoided the question yet again—wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. It is easy in the heat of the hon. Lady's earlier rantings to forget about the endemic feebleness of Labour. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for providing the opportunity for a serious debate at least in the second half of the afternoon because it is easy to lose sight of the background against which our reforms were introduced five years ago.
  First, let me make it absolutely clear that, despite our differences with the leaders of some of the teaching unions, we have nothing but admiration for the overwhelming majority of teachers. They are hard-working and dedicated professionals who have risen magnificently to the challenges posed by the introduction of some of the most fundamental and far-reaching education reforms ever seen in Europe.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a great insult for truly professional teachers to hear members at the conference of the National Union of Teachers making such statements as
  206
  "This isn't the end of the campaign. It's the beginning—a springboard to fight the Tories on all the other issues."?
  In other words, it is an attempt to politicise at the expense of children.
  Mr. Patten: We all know that the agenda of bodies such as the National Union of Teachers is to use proper professional debate over curriculum and testing reform as an opportunity to begin an attack not only on issues which concern some teachers, but on the nature, rate and pace of education reform, because they do not like the way in which we have begun to expose the serious problems with educational standards in some schools in some parts of the country. I am determined not to hide that and I tell my hon. Friend that I will not hide it.
  Mr. John Sykes: Has my right hon. Friend seen an election leaflet which has been circulating in my constituency, produced by a teacher training college for three Opposition candidates? It contains six minor political points but also six major grammatical and spelling errors. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is usual in the English language to start a sentence with a capital letter? Does he agree that there are two Ps in "support" and only two Cs in "economic"? Does he agree that "advocate" has a D in it? Is not it right that "reasonably" has two As? Finally, is not it time that people like—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Too long.
  Mr. Patten: It may have been too long, but it was a jolly good question as far as it got. My answers to the first six questions are yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. I have seen the leaflet, circulated by the Liberal Democrat party in the Scarborough constituency and, mysteriously, printed by a teacher training college. That is an issue which I shall have to look into later.
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg rose—
  Mr. Patten: Ah, the voice of the NUT on earth.
  Mr. Steinberg: Will the Secretary of State spell for us the word "sincerely"? Apparently when he wrote to a school in Cleveland he failed to spell it correctly. Will he please spell it for us now?
  Mr. Patten: S-i-n-c-e-r-e-l-y. I hope that that is the last spell check for this afternoon. I utterly refute any suggestion of spelling errors on the part of my Department at any stage.
  If anyone is the parent of a bright child in this country, the chances are that that child will do well at school. Most bright children do. They always have done. We still need to do more to help the particularly gifted child, but at the upper end of the academic scale we have a record which is every bit as good, if not better, as any of the advanced industrial nations which are our competitors, whether in Europe, on the Pacific rim or in north America. It is a record of which schools, further education colleges and universities can rightly be proud. The new vocational qualifications that are being introduced are helping to give new opportunities to those in the middle ability range as well.
  It is at the other end of the scale—the 30 per cent. of the less able—that we do particularly badly. That tail of under-performance has been there for decades. The problem started back in the 1960s. It puts us at a distinct

  207
  competitive disadvantage with our competitors. More importantly, it blights the prospects of many of our young people and it causes unnecessary unhappiness and a lack of personal fulfilment.
  It is to those children that our reforms will bring most benefit whereas the reforms of the 1960s and the 1970s only did harm and lasting damage to a generation of children. We cannot ignore reality.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing rose—
  Mr. Patten: I will give way in a moment because I know the hon. Gentleman was a teacher and I respect his views. We have to confront the problem and we have to tackle it. Our reforms can, and will, put a halt to the years since the 1960s of under-performance and under-achievement of the three and sometimes four out of 10 children who, after 11 years of being taught, still leave school grappling with the English language.
  Mr. Spearing: In 13 years in the classroom I spent much time dealing with the very problems which the Secretary of State is describing. I believed in testing regularly and was an Ordinary level examiner. Can the Secretary of State tell me, because of his professional background, whether he believes in the efficacy of field work? If so, can he tell the House which secondary schools he has been to, where he has perhaps sat down for a couple of hours with the staff and talked about the efficacy of the mechanisms which he is imposing upon them? Can he also tell us what the teachers have said to him? Can he give us the name of such a school and say whether it was independent or private?
  Mr. Patten: In our first 12 months at the Department for Education, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools and I visited more than 110 schools in this country. The list of schools is recorded in Hansard —as I answered a question on the subject just before Easter—to which the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) should refer. My next visit to a school will take place tomorrow morning, when I am visiting a primary school in Chingford. I very much look forward to that visit. I am determined not to hide any of the problems in our schools as it does the Government no good at all to do so. For the sake of thousands of young people and the competitiveness of the economy, the reforms, which are vital to the national interest, will continue.
  Let us consider the Labour party's view as set out by the hon. Member for Dewsbury in her speech. She made much of the need for stability and frequently used the "S" word. I shall translate from Labour speak into plain English the definition of stability. In Labour speak, stability equals complacency and inertia. In Opposition speak, stability is code for orderly management of decline and for abandoning the reforms in our schools. That is the hon. Lady's agenda; she wishes to abandon our education reforms, as do the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers. Stability is a code for returning to the failed policies of the 1960s and 1970s, when high standards were subordinated, above all else, to the pursuit of equality, which did much harm to generations of children.
  Mr. Derek Enright rose—
  Mr. Patten: I shall give way later to a deputy head teacher.
  Stability is code for returning the running of our schools to the producer interests and for putting up the shutters against the measurement and publication of a school's performance and letting parents and the local community know about it. Stability is code for denying parents choice and for concealing results.
  Mr. Enright rose—
  Mr. Patten: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that his intervention will be in English, not Latin like last time.
  Mr. Enright: In view of the Secretary of State's comments about the NUT and the NAS/UWT, I merely wanted to ask what he thought of the decisions of the union to which I am proud to belong, the LTA—[Interruption.] Sorry, the ATL—[Laughter.]
  Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman cannot even remember the name of his own union. What is the modern Labour party coming to? The deputy headmaster should go to the back of the class.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson rose—
  Mr. Patten: Here is an ex-head teacher.
  Mr. Thompson: An ex-classroom teacher who is proud of that fact. I know that my right hon. Friend supports good classroom teaching. Many classroom teachers are opposed to a boycott as the best means of proceeding. What does my right hon. Friend say to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and her hon. Friends who are failing to support those moderate and responsible teachers who believe that a boycott is not the best way of obtaining change in the national curriculum?
  Mr. Patten: The hon. Member for Dewsbury is a boycotter and is in favour of industrial action in our classrooms—as parents are beginning to realise more and more. I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), who is a distinguished classroom teacher, that I have received many letters from individual teachers who take a completely different view about boycotting tests from that which the hon. Lady attempted to put to the House.
  I have a letter dated 12 April from a woman teacher of 19 years' standing from Ilford—[Interruption.] The Opposition should listen to and respect the views of a member of the teaching profession, not jeer at them. How dare Opposition Members jeer at a practising teacher—it shows the contempt that they have for teachers. The teacher wrote:
  "I welcomed the advent of the national curriculum. None of us is infallible; and it gave me the confidence to know I was not omitting anything vital in my planning. It also gave structure and continuity…I am now discovering how my children have progressed and how ably they are acquitting themselves under test conditions. They have enjoyed their assessment tasks…and the results have pinpointed strengths and weaknesses in each individual which may not necessarily have been picked up in less specific testing. The SATS workload is demanding…However, the exercise is proving worthwhile.
  I am aware that many teachers share my feeling."

  209
  The views of that classroom teacher are much more typical of the comments that parents want to hear than are some of the scenes that we saw on our television screens over the Easter period.
  The hon. Lady's speech was a clarion call to duck the issues and desert the nation's children. Today we have heard the authentic voice of Labour after 14 years in the Opposition wilderness. The Labour party is fleeing, with full speed, back to the past. It summons us back to toleration of mediocrity and a blissful unawareness of what is being achieved in our schools. The Labour party's message to parents, the community and the taxpayer is that as long as there is no sound and publicly available information about standards, and no information on rigorous and manageable tests, everything will be all right.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the Labour party's record on mediocrity. May I remind the House of Labour's mediocre record on rewarding teachers and attracting them to the profession? Under the Conservative Government, teachers' wages have risen almost two and a half times faster than they did under the last Labour Government and in the past three years the average classroom teacher has seen his wages increased from £15,000 to £20,000 a year—a record rise. This year, 32,000 people want to enter the teaching profession—the best record in the country for 30 years.
  Mr. Patten: Since I have become Secretary of State, teaching has become an extremely appealing profession and people are entering it in record numbers. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) is right —since 1979, teachers have enjoyed an overall salary increase ahead of inflation of 46 per cent. I confirm what my hon. Friend said.
  Mr. John McFall: The Secretary of State has been talking about mediocre records. I could refer to the mediocre record of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), on finding out the true state of the national curriculum. I consulted the book of Duncan Graham, the chief executive and chairman of the National Curriculum Council, which said in the second paragraph of page 21 that the right hon. Member for Mole Valley signed a letter that could have had fatal consequences for the national curriculum. The two had a furtive meeting in north Wales, where the right hon. Gentleman was running a half marathon. The right hon. Gentleman looked at the letter and asked Mr. Graham whether he had signed it because he could not believe it. Does not that show the incompetence of the previous Secretary of State? The neanderthals are not the parents and the teachers, but those running our education system, and that is why parents and teachers have no confidence in Education Ministers.
  Mr. Patten: I think that educational historians and political historians will look back at the Education Reform Act 1988 of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley as a bench mark in national achievement. My right hon. Friend deserves the thanks of all parents and children for what he did.
  I do not think that I, as Secretary of State, should ever duck an issue. I do not believe that education policy is best made by insulating myself from reality or information on what is happening in schools, which is why I have gone on
  210
  so many school visits. That is why I also believe that the Labour party's complacency is entirely misplaced. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research recently found that, although we spend a greater proportion of gross domestic product on state education than do Germany and Japan, the standards achieved by those in the lower to middle ability range is considerably lower than in France, Germany and Japan. The problem seems to date back to the 1960s. That was the problem that led my right hon. Friends the Members for Mole Valley and for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) and their hon. Friends to set about the process of reform.
  It is not nice to be presented with a report, as I was a few months ago, showing that of those entering further education colleges last year after 11 years of state schooling about one third lacked an adequate command of English to make a good fist of their courses. That is the problem that we face. That is why the national curriculum and testing are so important.
  It is not acceptable that, before the introduction of the national curriculum and its associated tests from 1989 onwards, parents should have had no solid information about pupils' progress until they reached O-level, as it was then, at the age of 16. They had no comparable information. It is only recently that the Government have introduced proper standardised written reports for all parents, which I, as a parent, value very much. Parents had no opportunity to judge the performance of their children against the performance of other children in other schools in other parts of the country.
  Mr. Stephen Byers: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way to a non-classroom teacher. Will he depart briefly from his prepared speech and address the excellent suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) that he should ballot parents on whether their children should be tested this summer? The right hon. Gentleman is keen to talk about parental involvement. Will he put that rhetoric into reality and allow parents to be balloted on the crucial aspect of testing this summer?
  Mr. Patten: I rather thought that we put our views to the electorate a year ago in a ballot where we won a splendid victory. The national curriculum and its associated testing regime were part of that.
  Parents in our main competitor countries in Europe or the Pacific rim would be scandalised not to be given such information about educational performance. Yet that is what the Labour party want. It is in the pockets of the producer interest. It does not wish to see standards. As the hon. Member for Dewsbury herself declared, she has been in the pocket of the producer interest for many years as a trade union adviser.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Secretary of State please pause and think again about his decision with regard to encouraging schools to ballot parents? I said earlier that, as a parent, I wanted a say in the education of my children. I know, as a parent, the information that I want from schools and the kind of assessment that is appropriate for my children. I think that other parents share my views and would welcome an opportunity to be consulted about the appropriateness of the tests.
  Mr. Patten: The hon. Lady wishes the introduction of the national curriculum to be brought to a halt. She has

  211
  made it clear that she does not wish to see national testing or school performance tables. It is right that parents should have available to them information about the performance of their children and the performance of their schools compared with others in the vicinity and elsewhere in the country. The national curriculum is central to that.
  Mr. Byers rose—
  Mr. Patten: I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman, who described himself as not being a classroom teacher. He showed himself to be little more than a barrack-room lawyer. I shall not give way to him again.
  The national curriculum, for the first time, establishes clear and challenging targets for pupils of all ages and abilities in the key subjects of the curriculum. Only last week I published proposals for the streamlining of those targets in English. My proposals reduce the number of requirements of the national curriculum, but give them much greater precision. They spell out the requirement that pupils must acquire a working knowledge of standard English, grammar and vocabulary. The contempt that poured from the Labour party last week about the need for children to speak standard English beggared belief.
  The proposals ensure that pupils have a good knowledge of our literary heritage. Under them, pupils will no longer be able to leave school without a sound grasp of the basics. They will no longer be able to leave school without having their sights and spirits raised by our greatest writers.
  Such reforms are fundamental in other countries. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research, to which I have already referred, found that the common factor in the higher standards achieved in France, Germany and Japan was the national curriculum that those countries have had for many years. Now, thanks to this Government, we are challenging our pupils to fulfil their potential as well.
  Ms Estelle Morris: The Secretary of State has just talked about new orders for the English curriculum, which were announced last week. Will the tests that are to take place, or may take place, in schools this term test the curriculum that he announced last week or the curriculum that has been taught for the past three years? If the latter, shall we have a new set of tests to test the curriculum that the right hon. Gentleman has announced for next year? If so, what is all the fuss about tests for one year that will cease to exist because he has changed the curriculum and so will have to change the tests again?
  Mr. Patten: The hon. Lady should be putting that question to the hon. Member for Dewsbury. Each year the syllabuses for A-levels and GCSE change and each year the tests for them change. The hon. Lady is not neanderthal, she is positively paleolithic in her knowledge of the testing regime at GCSE. I cannot go back further. I must look at my prehistory.
  It is an absurd idea that we should set in concrete a national curriculum and its tests and never alter them in the light of experience over the years as knowledge is pushed forwards.
  Ms Estelle Morris rose—
  Mr. Patten: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Lady again. It was a great mistake for me to give way the last time.
  The national tests are an intrinsic part of the national curriculum. There is no point setting targets if pupils' progress is not measured against them. That is obvious to everyone except the Opposition. The national tests introduced by the Government, which happen on only four occasions during a pupil's 11 -year school history, at seven, 11,14 and 16, provide vital information for teachers about their pupils' strengths and weaknesses. They enable parents to hold schools to account for their children's progress. That is a right of every parent. They also enable the taxpayer—the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was on the Front Bench earlier—to make his judgment. They certainly enable me as Secretary of State for Education to see what is happening to education. How could I justify education expenditure to the Treasury in the forthcoming public expenditure round without evidence of improving standards? We cannot have it both ways. We cannot ask for the bill to be paid without demonstrating that it is worth paying. That is a message to which the education world should listen carefully.
  Tests are the key to raising standards and they are already doing so. The inspectors of the independent inspectorate, Ofsted, have found in their first two years of operation that the tests for seven-year-olds have improved those pupils' attainments while showing—this is a cause for considerable concern—that one out of every three seven-year-olds have serious problems in dealing with the English language and simple arithmetical tasks. If that has all been put right in the past, as the hon. Member for Dewsbury was saying, why have the independent tests exposed that and why has the inspectorate said that the tests have raised teachers' expectations? I pay great tribute to primary school teachers in Britain who work hard, but the inspectorate has said that expectations have been raised.
  There are striking gains and it is unreasonable for some in the teachers' unions now to seek to mount an attack on tests which have already taken place and which are already raising standards in Britain. It is typical of the hon. Member for Dewsbury that she should give comfort to that attack by the unions, to join in and encourage industrial action. Like it or not, that is what boycotting is. It is industrial action. We cannot mess around with words. The hon. Lady is aiding and abetting industrial action, just like her hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.
  The tests were written by GCSE examiners and by experienced educationists and devised under the direction of the School Examinations and Assessment Council, which had six teachers and six lecturers among its membership. The subject groups were largely staffed by individual, working classroom teachers and head teachers.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: The Secretary of State mentioned working groups. Why, in the case of the English orders put out for consultation last week, did the right hon. Gentleman deliberately avoid the English working group and have the curriculum council itself produce the work?
  Mr. Patten: Because I announced some time ago that to keep the national curriculum up to date, there would be a rolling, five-year review of all national curriculum subjects.

  213
  Knowledge moves on. It was not written down in a book the last time that Labour held power. Knowledge and interpretation advance. There are changes all the time. [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend want me to give way?
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I accept my right hon. Friend's invitation. I was simply excited by his remarks about the sheer dynamism of education—particularly in the way in which my right hon. Friend represents it. The Opposition should take this lesson: when education becomes static, standards collapse. That has always been Labour's problem in running schools or anything else.
  Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend, who was a practising teacher, exposes the underlying fallacy in Labour's argument, which seems to be that a national curriculum should be written one day and remain exactly the same, not for years or decades, but for hundreds of years and never improved.
  Mr. Pawsey: Written in tablets of stone.
  Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right.
  Last summer's science and maths tests for 14-year-olds were extremely successful. There was much debate and there were problems and concern about those tests—just as there were in respect of the tests for seven-year-olds when they were introduced in 1991. There were threats of boycotts then. Happily, they were withdrawn and the tests went ahead and were improved.
  Exactly the same is true of last summer's mathematics and science tests. The inspectorate announced that it was extraordinary that not only were standards higher than it had expected, but that truancy levels plunged on the day that the tests were sat and children turned up in large numbers to take them. Ofsted's findings that the tests were well received and worked well are interesting. The fall in truancy shows that children enjoy being stretched—and it is a great mistake not to stretch and to challenge children.
  Talk of boycotts is an absurd over-reaction to tests that have been much more carefully prepared over a longer period of time than the average GCSE new syllabus. It does no service to the reputation of the majority of hard-working teachers who have conscientiously implemented the national curriculum. I am glad to pay tribute again to their professionalism.
  I do not believe that those committed and professional teachers will turn to their pupils this summer and say that a test required by law—and it is, under the Education Reform Act 1988—and for which a pupil aged 14 has been preparing for three years, should be torn up and tossed in the wastepaper bin. I do not believe either that those committed and professional teachers will look parents in the eye and tell them that they do not think that they will bother with the tests this year and will not give the evidence.
  The hon. Member for Dewsbury wants that to happen. She made it clear that she is in favour of industrial action, boycott, and withdrawing co-operation. That is reinventing the 1970s. The hon. Lady's analysis is fundamentally flawed.
  The sensible response to the genuine concerns of some teachers about the manageability of the existing curriculum and assessment arrangements—I say "some" because many other teachers have written to support our policy—is to feed those concerns into the review that I
  214
  have asked Sir Ron Dearing, chairman-designate of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, to undertake.
  That wide-ranging review will examine the curriculum and assessment framework in its totality—not just individual subjects. It will be taken forward urgently. Sir Ron has already spoken to head teachers, teachers and many organisations interested in education. Although head teachers, deputy head teachers and classroom teachers have a prime interest in education, so have many others. We are all concerned about state education—we are all shareholders in state education.
  However, Sir Ron cannot make progress and identify ways of improving the current arrangements unless he has sound evidence. That involves this summer's tests going ahead—that is Sir Ron's opinion, not mine. I quote from the letter that Sir Ron wrote to me:
  I have to tell you that if I do not have information from tests this Summer, I am going to have difficulty in giving well-informed and convincing advice on what changes should be made to the testing arrangements."
  Those are the words of someone of enormous distinction and a great independence of mind. In other words—in my words—a boycott would be self-defeating. It would damage children's education by depriving teachers, pupils and parents of important information about children's progress. A boycott would retard the evolution of the national curriculum and its testing arrangements and would undoubtedly rebound ultimately on public perception of the teachers themselves.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important not only for pupils and parents to see the results of the tests but for employers, in order to ensure that British commerce and industry has the best products of our education system in future? Employers as well as pupils and parents want the tests to continue.
  Mr. Patten: I listen carefully to employers and I am sure that the major employers' organisations will feed their views into the review, and rightly.
  If a child's performance in mathematics or English is not checked at 14, that child may leave school at 16 with a low or poor GCSE performance, by which time it will be too late.
  Ms Estelle Morris: It is already too late.
  Mr. Patten: It is never too late. The hon. Lady is arguing, then, that nothing can be done for a child who is under-performing at 14. That is complete rubbish. A lot of help can be given in two years.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: Is the Secretary of State under the illusion that the performance of pupils in mathematics and English at the age of 14 was not checked before the introduction of that examination?
  Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman is on to a very good point. The evidence available from the inspectorate is one of the important things that we must look at. We must deliver to each child in England or Wales—my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister of State are in their places on the Government Front Bench and are listening to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption]—in whichever part of England or Wales for which we are responsible. That means giving each child

  215
  in England and Wales a chance in life—not a hit-or-miss chance over whether or not there is testing at a school in Wales or in the area in which I live.
  The tests at ages 7 and 11 will therefore go ahead this summer. Just how self-defeating a boycott would be is well illustrated by the evolution of the tests for seven-year-olds. It is important to work through this example briefly. Since those tests were introduced in 1991, we have listened to teachers and streamlined the tests to meet their concerns.
  I am told that the 1991 tests for seven-year-olds were problematical. They were modified and focused on the basics of reading, writing, spelling and arithmetic—and quite right, too. Ofsted reported that the 1992 tests were more manageable than the 1991 versions as a result.
  The 1993 tests that are under way in schools throughout the country now are better still. It is perverse for some in the teacher unions to incite their members to boycott tests which those members have worked so hard over the past two years to establish. Those tests are fundamental to our reforms and will help to crystallise the standards that we expect our children to reach.
  The review illustrates another facet of our reforms, which, although carefully thought out, have been implemented pragmatically since 1989 on the basis of experience. It was only in that year that the national curriculum began to be phased in; it will not be fully in place until 1997, nearly a decade later and not until 2001 will the first pupils who embarked on it as five-year-olds complete it as 16-year-olds. That is a very long time.
  At each stage of the introduction of the testing and curricular arrangements, we have demonstrated our keenness to take the views of professional teachers into account. That is why the maths and science curriculum, and the first tests for seven-year-olds, were simplified. The way in which the School Examinations and Assessment Council has listened has provided a model, leading to an improvement in tests year after year. That is why I decided earlier this year that results should be included in performance tables only for the second year of their introduction nationally. Our record shows that we have taken careful notice of professional views.
  I shall not go into all the many other matters mentioned by the hon. Member for Dewsbury, because I do not think that the House is in the right mood to debate the full range of education issues. Let me remind the hon. Lady, however, that the Education Bill—which she failed to mention—passed through the House of Commons undented by the Labour party, whose Front Bench was one of the weakest Opposition teams imaginable.
  The education system—underpinned by the national curriculum, testing and the Education Bill, which is now in another place—will last well into the next century. It will be the basis of our over-achievement during the late 1990s, allowing us to catch up with our competitors on the Pacific rim, in Europe and in North America. The Government constantly seek to achieve a balance between preserving what is best in our education system and improving what is less good.
  Our overriding aim is to improve standards, encourage diversity and increase the number of opportunities. The achievement of those aims—which the Opposition seem to have missed entirely—will mean continuing to take clear and concerted action to set higher standards by stretching
  216
  children in the national curriculum. It will mean measuring pupils' progress by means of rigorous and manageable tests and securing the publication of results in school performance tables. In that way, we shall ensure that our education system is fit for the challenges that lie ahead in an increasingly competitive world and that our children are as well educated as any in the rest of the world.
  5.32 pm
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As it is my birthday, I am especially grateful.
  As is customary, I declare my interest. I am one of the parliamentary consultants of the National Union of Teachers—
  Mr. Patten: How much is the hon. Gentleman being paid?
  Mr. Steinberg: That is between me and the National Union of Teachers. Let me record, however, that I fully support the action being taken by the NUT and other unions, which is backed by their members.
  The Government's education policy is only one of the many policies that they have dreadfully mishandled. They are now universally mistrusted. None of their policies is more mistrusted than their education policy, and none of their spokesmen is more mistrusted than the Secretary of State for Education. What a way to run an education service! What a way to treat the country's children, parents and teachers!
  During the Secretary of State's speech, the microphone went off for a moment. I fully expected the right hon. Gentleman to behave like the concert chairman of my local working men's club, and to say "Testing, testing" as he does before a performance. That is what I think of the right hon. Gentleman's ability.
  We need stability in our schools, but all that we get from the Secretary of State are threats—threats that teachers may be fined if they boycott the tests; threats that school spending will be cut if teachers refuse to test pupils; threats that governors may be taken to court and personally surcharged if they sanction the boycotts. Even governors responsible for the running of our schools vehemently oppose the Government's reforms. Recently, the Northumberland School Governors Association wrote to me as follows:
  "Governors in Northumberland are opposed to tests currently being required by the government for children aged 7, 11, 14 and 16… The Northumberland School Governors Association trusts its teachers to exercise their professional skills in assessing the academic progress of pupils in a sensitive and positive way. And they place reliance on the objectivity and standards of GCSE and 'A' level examinations as genuine measurements of schooling.
  In our view it is high time that ideology and rhetoric were banished from education. Parents and governors know what is needed for their children. And in Northumberland they have every confidence in their teachers to meet these needs." It is a great pity that the Secretary of State has not the same confidence in his teachers.
  If the Government cannot get away with threats, they use the courts to take legal action against teachers. They use their puppet and lackey, Wandsworth council, to try to force teachers to carry out flawed and damaging tests; and they lose in the courts. They use the tactic of division by virtually forcing schools to opt out of local education authority control. They are setting one school against another, and one local education authority against

  217
  another. They show contempt for those whom they most need if our education system is to succeed; they show contempt for parents, whom the Secretary of State describes as neanderthal. The right hon. Gentleman shows his contempt for teachers by rewarding their increased work load and dedication with a pay award of 0·5 per cent. —a miserly halfpenny in the pound.
  The Government constantly use patronage to implement their right-wing dogma. They appoint Tory poodles to key posts. The chairman of the National Curriculum Council is David Pascal', a Tory hack; the chairman of SEAC is Lord Griffiths, another Tory hack; its vice-chairman is Ms Lawlor's husband, yet another Tory hack. The Government use bribery to implement their opt-out policy, giving opted-out schools vast amounts of capital expenditure as a reward. This year grant-maintained schools have received a 300 per cent. increase in capital expenditure, while LEA schools have received a 10 per cent. increase. If that is not bribery, what is?
  Lady Olga Maitland: If, as the hon. Gentleman implies, he does not approve of tests, how could he possibly discover that some children are falling behind in their literacy and numeracy skills? How, without tests, could we discover that one third of school leavers going into higher education have a reading age of only 14? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the lack of literacy and numeracy skills is costing British industry £5 billion a year in mistakes? Surely that justifies proper testing.
  Mr. Steinberg: Can the hon. Lady quote the part of my speech in which I said that I opposed tests? I shall give her a copy after the debate, and, if she can find the place where I said that I opposed tests, I shall take her out to dinner. I have not said that I oppose tests; I said that I supported the boycotting of flawed tests by the NUT.
  Ms Estelle Morris: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was good practice on the part of most secondary schools to give the new intake of 11-year-olds reading tests so that the reading age of every child was known and it was not necessary to wait until the children were 14 to discover that eight out of 10 had a reading age below their chronological age? It is a travesty of the truth to imply that teachers did not know that children were failing in some instances.
  Mr. Steinberg: That is absolutely right. I was the head teacher of a school for 10 years and, before that, a deputy head teacher for three years. I tested the children in my care every year for 13 years. I kept the test records and let the parents know at the end of each year the results of the tests. That is not new. It is an absolute load of rubbish to say that I oppose testing. We have been doing it for years and years.
  The Government were convinced that schools in Labour-controlled authorities would opt out of the system. This Secretary of State, and previous Secretaries of State, said, stupidly, that opting out would provide schools with the opportunity to escape from bad, socialist-controlled local education authorities. But what happened? By far the majority of schools opted out of Conservative local education authority control. That proves just how out of touch this Government are. If they cannot get away with threats and bribery, they use deceit. A previous Secretary of State—not the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) who, history will prove, was
  218
  a far superior Secretary of State under the Tory Administration of the past 14 years than anyone else who has followed him in that post—
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman repeat that?
  Mr. Steinberg: I never thought that I would say this, but when the right hon. Member for Mole Valley was Secretary of State he proved to be probably the best Secretary of State for Education that the Tories have ever had. To be quite honest, to say that takes the biscuit.
  The Government have used deceit. During the debate on the teachers' pay Bill, the previous Secretary of State said that we had to trust him. I would not trust him any more than I would trust a second hand car dealer. He said, though, "Trust me." During the proceedings on that Bill he said that he could not override the new teachers' pay review body. This Secretary of State has done that in his first year in office. He has given the teachers a 0.5 per cent. pay increase—absolutely disgraceful when one remembers that the Government tell us how much they respect teachers and value the work that they do. The Government show so much respect for teachers that they give them a halfpenny in the pound pay increase.
  I hope that those teachers who were conned and duped by the Government into accepting the pay review body now realise what this Government's words mean. The result of these appalling deeds has led to extreme dissatisfaction and instability in our schools. It is not surprising that 1 million days have been lost through industrial action in our schools since 1971.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Whose fault is that?
  Mr. Steinberg: Which party was in power when those 1 million days were lost? Tory Administrations have forced teachers into taking industrial action. Through their incompetence, 1 million days have been lost through industrial action.
  Mr. Dunn: May I put a question to the hon. Gentleman, whom I like and respect, as he knows. Does he know whether more children of blue collar workers are in universities today than in the 1920s?
  Mr. Steinberg: I do not know the answer to that question, but I suspect that there are. God help us if there are not. Since the 1920s there have been Labour Governments who have improved opportunities for children. We introduced comprehensive education which allowed the kids of blue collar workers to obtain the qualifications that they needed to go to university.
  Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood my question. There were more children from blue collar worker families going to university in the 1920s than there are today. That shows the failure, not the success, of the comprehensive system.
  Mr. Steinberg: I really cannot believe that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will show me the statistics later.
  Mr. Dunn: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take me out to supper.
  Mr. Steinberg: I do not really fancy that, though I owe the ex-education Minister a great debt, for it was he who kept my school open when the local education authority wanted to shut it.

  219
  The Government have managed almost the impossible: to alienate and unite the whole of the teaching profession. To make matters worse, the Education Bill, which is now in the other place, has nothing to do with raising standards in education—only with right-wing dogma, to get rid of local education authorities and place education eventually in the private sector. Education is not in the private sector now, it is not selective now, but the Bill that is now in the other place will encourage it to become both.
  It is already moving in that direction in Penrith where, needless to say, the Secretary of State appaluded and supported the actions of that school in becoming grant maintained and selective. Although it was absolutely appalling, the Secretary of State agreed with and accepted what happened. Teachers fear that the Bill which is going through the other place has only one objective: to obliterate local education authorities, thus causing further instability in our schools.
  The Government have said nothing about the statutory role of the teaching profession in improving the quality of education. The absence of a commitment to working in partnership with teachers reveals how little understanding the Government have of schools, how they are run and how they can be improved. Consequently, there is disquiet throughout education. The Government's attitude is exactly the opposite: one of confrontation, particularly as regards testing.
  I shall quote from a letter that was sent to the Secretary of State—I noticed that he did not refer to it in his speech today, but a copy of it was sent to me—by the heads of English departments in 42 comprehensive schools in County Durham. They wrote:
  "As Heads of English in Comprehensive schools across County Durham, we want to make clear our anger and professional disquiet at the way the tests in English for 14-year-olds are being implemented. We also feel that parents of Year 9 pupils should know the chaotic fashion in which these tests have been introduced.
  As responsible English departments, we had properly planned schemes of work in response to the National Curriculum when these pupils entered Year 7. It was necessary to plan a three-year course in order to ensure that all required activities were covered. The information on the tests, which only started to come through officially last term, has meant that we have had to abandon our plans in order to cover specified texts and prepare our pupils for a very narrow form of examination …
  This type of testing was not mentioned when we started the course, and we have had little time to prepare pupils. We were also asked to allot pupils to tiers within the tests before we had seen any sample questions. Contrary to reports, the new form of tests have not been tried out—or only in a very small number of schools, and with pupils of the wrong age.
  We are very disturbed by these changes which are preventing us from working as we have planned. We have acted professionally from the start, in accordance with all the requirements in the National Curriculum, yet these changes are being forced through in a most unprofessional way that will be damaging to all our pupils, and to the concept of good English teaching."
  It is incredible that the Secretary of State can be so stubborn and arrogant: all the professionals are wrong and he is right. For the life of me, I cannot understand how anybody can be so stubborn.
  I make it clear to Conservative Members, particularly to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), that teachers are not opposed to tests, and never have been. Tests are part of an array of means to
  220
  determine children's needs. The tests that the Secretary of State wishes to impose are fundamentally flawed. They will not benefit children; they will damage them.
  I had intended to quote from a letter that I received from Mrs. Granville, the head teacher of a Cleveland school, Huntcliffe comprehensive. It is, however, a long leter, so I shall not do so. Instead, I will get on with my speech.
  As if matters were not bad enough, the English orders, which were the most popular part of the national curriculum, are to be changed. Most professionals believe that major changes are not needed, and changes have been rejected in Wales and in Scotland, but not in England. Not only do teachers in England and Wales still have to operate flawed assessment and testing arrangements, in contrast to those that have been agreed in Scotland, but children in England are now to have a retrograde curriculum in comparison to that offered to children in Wales and Scotland, whose teachers have been heeded. It is a pity that the Secretary of State cannot listen to teachers in this country as the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland have listened to their teachers.
  That decision will further undermine the morale of teachers in England. They are being told what to teach and how to teach it. A teacher from Droitwich, Mr. Martyn Copus, recently wrote to me saying:
  "Like many teachers I welcomed the bulk of the national curriculum provisions and the delegation of school budgets, but foolishly I assumed we would have some years to implement and assess the impact of these measures. It is now clear that the Government has decided on purely ideological grounds that we have failed and is determined to pursue its own agenda without any concern for the professionals."
  Teachers who supported the Government now feel that they have been duped. They feel bitter about the Government's actions.
  The Secretary of State stumbles on regardless. In all his rantings I have never heard him once mention the need for extra resources. Instead of threatening to cut education budgets, he should fight for the bare minimum standards of resourcing for education, especially with regard to staffing levels linked to class sizes, to curricular needs, to nursery provision and to books and equipment. If standards are falling, the Government are solely to blame. After all, they have dictated education policy for the past 14 years. They have under-resourced education throughout those years, and now they are using the excuse of falling standards to implement their right-wing dogma.
  During the previous Parliament the Select Committee on Education investigated supposed declining reading standards. We found no evidence to substantiate that claim, which was made by a Mr. Turner, an education psychologist. Now—surprise, surprise—he has been rewarded for his unreliable report with a job as a member of the School Examinations and Assessment Council's English Committee.
  It is with great sadness that I must tell the House that the Tory Members of the Select Committee connived last week to prevent the Secretary of State from being brought back to the Committee—
  Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Steinberg: No.

  221
  Last week the Tory Members of the Committee connived to prevent the Secretary of State from being made to return to the Committee and answer further questions on the most topical current education issue.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Malcolm Thornton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Steinberg: Yes.
  Sir Malcolm Thornton rose—
  Lady Olga Maitland: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way.
  Mr. Steinberg: The hon. Lady should not be grateful, because I am not giving way to her.
  Sir Malcolm Thornton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. May I put the record straight for the House? Before the meeting of the Select Committee, and without reference to any of my colleagues on either side of the Committee, I made it clear through the Press Association that my view as Chairman—clearly it had yet to be endorsed by my colleagues—was that it would be inappropriate and unhelpful to have an inquiry at this stage. That is the precise position. There was some brief discussion and then we proceeded to other business. What Members may do when they consider such matters is entirely up to them, but I have told the House what happened.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Steinberg: I shall certainly not withdraw. As far as I am concerned, the Tory members of the Committee connived to stop the Secretary of State returning to the Committee to answer questions. The cat was let out of the bag twice, once when a member of the Committee said that we should not call the Secretary of State back because we should not put any further pressure on him—
  Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Steinberg: No. The other occasion was when the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) attended the meeting for the specific purpose of ensuring that the connivance was successful, then left and did not return.
  Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman is aware that he was in a minority of two, so connivance could hardly have taken place. The voice was rather weak on his side of the Committee. He should also recognise that what the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), said is absolutely true. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) was so busy rushing off to tell the Press Association his version of events that it was suggested that I leave, because I had a chest infection at the time, which would have made it difficult for an interview to continue.
  Mr. Steinberg rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It might help the House if we were to recognise that the statements referred to were apparently made in private during the Committee sitting, so there is no record of them. Perhaps we can move on.
  Mr. Steinberg: If the Secretary of State is not prepared to come back to the Select Committee, he must be shell-shocked; he must be in a dreadful state if he is not prepared to come back to the Committee and discuss—
  Mr. Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the practice in this place that when allegations have been made and have been proved to be unfounded, as has just happened, those allegations are withdrawn?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: All hon. Members are honourable; they will have listened to what has been said and they should all recognise the point that I made about the events having taken place in private session. Perhaps we can now move on to more substantive matters.
  Mr. Steinberg: Since 1979 education has received a declining share of the gross national product, despite what the Government may say. Education's share has fallen from 5·5 per cent. to 4·6 per cent., and central Government spending on education is 30 per cent. lower in real terms than it was in 1979. Figures recently provided to me by the Library reveal that, because of that, education lost the equivalent of £1·5 billion last year.
  There will be stability in our schools only when the ludicrous so-called reforms are halted, and schools are better resourced to meet the needs of the national curriculum. I fully support the vast majority of teachers and the action that they are taking over the dreadful tests.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member, may I remind hon. Members that Madam Speaker has imposed a 10-minute restriction from 6 o'clock, so whoever is called next will be asked to resume his seat at 6.10.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: Before the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) got into a procedural spat at the end of his speech, he had some kind things to say about me; may I tell him that I have always believed his judgment to be perceptive and distinguished?
  I heard the speech by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), and I must tell her that I was disappointed by it. It reminded me of the speeches that I heard from the Labour Front Bench in 1986 and 1987. The Labour party has been in favour of the national curriculum. It did not vote against it during the passage of the Education Reform Act 1988, but Labour Members' attitude has always been one of hesitant support. They have always taken the line that they would like the national curriculum, but not just yet—a sort of secular version of St. Augustine. We have heard that line again from the hon. Member for Dewsbury.
  I recognise that there is considerable consensus in the country about the need for the national curriculum.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor rose—
  Mr. Baker: I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not give way, because I am short of time, and she spoke for quite a long time. What I have said does not do her a disservice.
  The more that one can cement an agreement across the House between the parties on the importance of the national curriculum and the need to consolidate it, the better. The debates that we have about the national curriculum are not now heard in France and Germany, for

  223
  the simple reason that in those countries the national curriculum has lasted for decades. Bismarck started the national curriculum in Germany, and in France it started at the beginning of the century. It has ceased, as it should have done, to be a matter of debate or dispute between politicians. The hon. Member for Dewsbury said that, in the revision of the national curriculum, politicians should step aside, and I echo that sentiment. I shall deal with that subject in a moment.
  I must chide the Labour party, because, for all sorts of reasons, it has always been hesitant about going ahead with the national curriculum. In yesterday's edition of The Times, I read that Mr. Pascall, the outgoing chairman of the National Curriculum Council, has said:
  "The 1988 Reform Act is our best chance to ensure that our children receive the education they need."
  He said that there should be no slowing up in its implementation.
  The process of getting the national curriculum on to the statute book has been long. It started with a speech by Jim Callaghan at Ruskin college in 1976. It is a matter of record that the education establishment, including the then Secretary of State, formed up against him. The establishment said, "Keep out of our garden. The curriculum is ours. It is the secret garden of our profession, so don't intervene." It took almost 10 years before I could introduce a Bill establishing a national curriculum. From some teachers—not by any means the majority—and certainly from some in the education establishment there has been hostility to the concept of the national curriculum.
  If one has a national curriculum, one has to have detail and standards. The whole reason for our introducing a national curriculum was that we were disappointed by the education standards in our country over many years. Employers complained to us about the literacy and numeracy of 16-year-olds. We discovered that there were 6 million people who could be described as functionally illiterate. That was a disgrace to a country as civilised as ours was—or should have been. The whole purpose of the national curriculum was to elevate the standard of education for all our children.
  When we fashioned the national curriculum, I was determined that it should be broad and balanced. One school argued strongly just for the three subjects: mathematics, science and English. I believed that that was a Victorian, Gradgrind curriculum, and I wanted a broad and balanced curriculum which contained not only science, mathematics and English at its heart, but history, geography and technology—the jobs of tomorrow. Now every child has to take technology up to 16, so that decision was a revolution. We are very bad at languages. I wanted to ensure that every child took a language up to the age of 16. That is now secure. I also included the cultural subjects: art, music and sport. The children in our schools must experience the pleasure and joys of those subjects as well.
  It took a great deal to get that curriculum established. The question asked was, "How can all that be fitted in?" Much of the argument was that we should not be so prescriptive, that we should be more relaxed about the curriculum. I felt that we had to be prescriptive.
  On the problem of fitting all the subjects in, one of the things that I most regret about my time as Secretary of
  224
  State for Education and Science is that I did not open up the argument for extending the teaching day. If one could have one more lesson of 40 minutes a day in schools, all the pressures on the national curriculum could be eased, as could the pressures brought about by testing. I should have had open negotiations with the teacher unions again.
  In schools in England and Wales, children are taught by someone standing in front of a class and teaching them for about 24 hours a week. In Scotland, the figure is 27 hours a week. In 1960 in England, the figure was 30 hours a week. In Japan, it is now more than 30 hours a week, and in France and Germany, it is between 27 and 28 hours a week. Those figures refer to teaching time. We must consider the structure of the school day and the use of teachers' time to ensure that there is more teaching in the classroom. That means reopening the settlement which I reached with the teachers in 1986.
  I now come to the current point of great concern. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, there does not seem to be much dispute now about the mathematics and science curriculum. I remember the passionate debates when we had to fashion the mathematics curriculum. I thought that there would be no debate on mathematics. However, there were debates about whether there should be calculators, whether calculus should be taught to children under 16, and how the teaching of number was approached. Passions raged. Passions also raged on science. Should there be two or three sciences? Should we teach the old three sciences, which we all learned, of chemistry, physics and biology?
  I knew that the passions would be greatest in English, and that is why I set up two committees, first under Sir John Kingman, to try to define what English was. I appointed Sir John Kingman because he was not an English scholar, but a distinguished scientist and engineer. I did not want him to get involved in the whole linguistic debate, the phonics debate and all the rest of it. His report was not very satisfactory, so I asked Professor Cox to fashion the first national curriculum. That was better, and it has formed the basis of the English curriculum since then.
  I did not disguise from the world in those days the fact that I wanted a return to basics in English. The most important thing that one has to give our children today is a mastery of our language. Our language is one of the great enduring assets of our country, and it needs to be taught properly. That is why we went to great pains to try to establish a curriculum, and why the then old-fashioned concepts of punctuation, grammar and spelling were so important. Those matters are not a subject of debate in France. French children are taught to discuss the nature of the Franch language and French grammar; it is not so here.
  I took the trouble to look at the document on English which came out only last week from the National Curriculum Council. It is a very good document, which is a development of the original English curriculum. It says sensible things about key stage I for children aged seven. It says:
  "Communications. Pupils should be able to use accurate and simple vocabulary."
  The document gives good examples on grammar. It says:
  "Subject-verb agreement. 'We were late back from the trip' not 'We was late back from the trip.'"
  Such documents help teachers, and I do not see why the teaching profession has anything against this document.

  225
  The document also deals with literature, which is very dear to my heart. It says of key stages 3 and 4:
  "Response to literature. Discuss narrative techniques."
  This is for 14 and 15-year-old children. It says:
  "Discuss narrative techniques, character development, conflict, tension, and atmosphere in a novel or a play, for example"—
  it is not prescriptive—
  "'A Tale of Two Cities' by Dickens or 'An Inspector Calls' by J. B. Priestley."
  Studded throughout the document is a range of access to literature, which is sensible. The document says broadly that children should have read by the age of 16 or have had experience of—
  Mr. Mike Hall: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Baker: No; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
  The document says that children should have read or have had experience of by the age of 16 two plays by Shakespeare, of five poets, one before 1900, and of works of fiction, one before 1900. The document is not prescriptive. I have heard some teachers say that it is narrowing and restrictive, but I do not believe that.
  We never try to tell teachers how they should teach in classrooms. The national curriculum provides the essential framework, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will proceed with it.
  I am glad that he has appointed Sir Ron Dearing, a distinguished public servant. I first came across him when he was chairman of the Post Office and I was Minister for Information Technology. I appointed Sir Ron Dearing to be the chairman of the Polytechnics Funding Council where he did an outstanding job. I am sure that he will do a very good job of looking at the national curriculum.
  We never envisaged that the national curriculum should be set in tablets of stone for ever. As the hon. Member for Dewsbury said, it must be looked at from time to time and reviewed. That is sensible.
  Part and parcel of the national curriculum are attainment levels, and part and parcel of those are tests. There has been much discussion about tests. I tried to have simple tests. I wanted pencil and paper tests, but the advice I received was that they had to be more complicated, so we set up an elaborate system which has become too complicated.
  Now we want it to be simpler. However, I suspect that, when it becomes simpler, quite a few teachers will say that it is too simple and that they do not want to go back to pencil and paper tests. There is an element of pencil and paper in all tests.
  The boycott is utterly wrong. I do not believe that teachers should take industrial action in any circumstances. I speak as a Secretary of State who had to deal with a strike that had lasted for three years. A strike or industrial action, whatever the semantics, in the classroom is wrong, because it sets a bad example to children. Teachers are people to whom children should look up, so I beg the various teaching unions not to proceed with the boycott.
  When I was Secretary of State, I had to face a boycott of the GCSE, which was far more important than a boycott of the tests for 14-year-olds. If the GCSE had been boycotted, there would have been no certificates for a whole year, and we could not have caught up on that. I
  226
  shamed the National Union of Teachers into abandoning its boycott, and I hope that the teacher unions will be shamed into abandoning their present boycott.
  In 1989, at the north of England conference to which all Secretaries of State go from time to time—
  Mr. Hall: This one did not go.
  Mr. Baker: I said, "from time to time". I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will go in the fulness of time.
  After the Education Reform Act 1988 was on the statute book, I said that the national curriculum should do five things:
  "give a clear incentive for all schools to catch up with the best and the best will be challenged to do even better; provide teachers with detailed and precise objectives; provide parents with clear, accurate information; ensure continuity and progression from one year to another, from one school to another; help teachers concentrate on the task of getting the best possible results for each individual child."
  That is the object of the national curriculum, and I believe that it has achieved it so far.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: The Secretary of State for Education began his speech by listing a number of firm principles which his party supports. Perhaps I shall surprise him and other Conservative Members by saying that I entirely agree with the principles of a national curriculum, the testing and assessment of that national curriculum and the provision of information to parents on the strengths and weaknesses of their children. It is easy to speak in slogans and headlines. This debate should be about the details that underpin those principles—the type of national curriculum, the type of testing and the type of information that should be provided to parents about those pupils.
  In the few minutes available to me, I shall address my concerns about the approach to those matters. The Government's approach is leading to a crisis in our education service. That crisis is of the Government's making. They have created strife where once there was harmony. For decades since the Education Act 1944, an education partnership has built up in the United Kingdom among parents, teachers, governors, local education authorities, the local community and central Government. The Government's actions undermine that partnership and bring instability to the education system.
  The Government's attacks on local education authorities and many within the education service, their abject failure to consult and their continuing lack of direction are leading to unprecedented and unnecessary chaos, division and strife, and a significant lowering of morale throughout the education service. They are interested only in forcing through their views—views which are the cause of much of the strife in the education service. The real disgrace is that they mask that behind the pretence of choice. In reality, the only choice is that there can be an education system of any colour, as long as it is Tory blue.
  During the passage of the Education Bill, I proposed an amendment that would have allowed grant-maintained schools to opt out of that status and return to local education authority control. The Government refused to accept it.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I would prefer not to give way, because time is short.
  The Government will accept the opportunity for people to vote only if they can be sure that the vote will go the way they want. That has been demonstrated today by their unwillingness to accede to the request of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and other hon. Members that there be an opportunity for parents to ballot on their thoughts about the current testing procedures.
  The problem is the approach of the Secretary of State and his Ministers. Perhaps it is not surprising that the Department for Education, under this new Secretary of State, has moved into new premises which are aptly called Sanctuary buildings. When the Secretary of State is closeted in that sanctuary—as he frequently is—he is unwilling to listen to the vast majority of views of the people in the education service. He prefers to listen only to the views of those who share his views.
  Occasionally, the Secretary of State emerges from the sanctuary bunker and sadly undermines, by the things he does and says, the education partnership. We have seen a number of examples—the rubbishing of last year's GCSE examination results, the debacle over the league tables, the way in which he called the views of some parents' organisations "neanderthal", and the constant and piecemeal changes to different aspects of the national curriculum and the associated assessment procedures.
  We have now seen the disorder that has been caused by the proposed key stage 3 tests this summer. With all those statements, the Government still fail to get it right, and the nation sadly suffers as a result. It is no wonder that, only six months into the reign of the Secretary of State, a Conservative party document—referring to the Secretary of State—talked about too much fire and brimstone, ill-defined attacks on education experts and not enough attempts to raise morale in the education profession.
  As the motion before the House says, there is an urgent need for stability in our schools. The Secretary of State is in a curious position. He is largely responsible for the malaise that we are in, but he is about the only person who is capable of treating it. He could treat the malaise today —although I suspect that he will not—by accepting the motion, especially the part that refers to the key stage 3 tests.
  On the issue of testing, the right hon. Gentleman has built, ranged against him, a most amazingly powerful coalition of people interested in the future of education. He has managed to unite parents, governors, teachers, local education authorities, directors of education, Conservative party organisations and, indeed, many leading Conservative politicians in the belief that the current curriculum testing arrangements are unworkable, unmanageable and likely to harm the education of children.
  Many people would agree that it was an absolutely singular triumph for the Secretary -of State to unite the traditionally moderate Association of Teachers and Lecturers in their vote on the boycott of the tests. It has certainly been a singular triumph to have so many traditional Tory supporters opposed to the tests. Indeed, the list of those who claim that the whole process is like a juggernaut careering to disaster reads like a "Who's Who" of previous fans of the Tory party education reforms.
  228
  The hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) and the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), who are in their places, have made highly critical comments. That traditional Tory party newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, suggested that the only way out of the Secretary of State's current dilemma was unilaterally to scrap this year's tests. Of course, there are many other people to whom the hon. Member for Dewsbury referred.
  To the voices of those Conservatives must be added —as anyone who has looked through the press recently will know—the views of a vast number of parents who oppose the Secretary of State on the issue of testing. Many governors, local education authorities and chief education officers oppose it. Of course, a huge number of teachers oppose, from a professional view, the testing procedure proposed by the Secretary of State. Incidentally, I must congratulate the investigative talents of The Mail on Sunday which, this weekend, managed to dig up two teachers who support the Secretary of State. Apart from those two people, the Secretary of State stands almost alone, deserted even by his traditional allies. He cannot rely on the support of the independent school sector.
  With so many voices ranged against him, one might have expected the Secretary of State to reflect on the advice offered by Oliver Cromwell to the Church of Scotland:
  "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
  Sadly, the Secretary of State is mistaken about many things. Most importantly, he is mistaken in his claims that the vast majority of teachers are opposed to testing and assessment.
  Those teachers are definitely not opposed to testing and assessment. Indeed, a teacher union leader said to me only yesterday that teachers do not need some Johnny-come-lately Secretary of State telling them about testing and assessment. The vast majority of teachers agree not only with testing and assessment but with the importance of some external moderation with national testing as part of the development of the education process.
  The real anxiety of the vast majority of those in the education service is with the particular testing regime imposed by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has told us today that it is vital that that testing procedure be continued as a way of developing the procedure. But no one who tests any product even begins the testing procedure with real people, especially pupils in our schools, when all the professionals say that it is flawed. Until there have been major reforms—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I call Dame Angela Rumbold.
  6.19 pm
  Dame Angela Rumbold: Little would have persuaded me to join in an education debate at this time, because I believe passionately that, when one has had time on a subject as I have had time on education, one should perhaps leave a decent interval before one returns to it, especially from the Back Benches. However, several reasons have made me decide to join in.
  One of the most pointed reasons is that I have normally managed to shut up the clarion voices of people on radio and television who carry on at one stage or another about the introduction of the national curriculum, testing and all the other reforms introduced in the Education Reform Act 1988 of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley

  229
  (Mr. Baker). This time, I found it more difficult. The voices invaded my kitchen via the radio, and even invaded my television during the Easter weekend. I found that unforgivable, so I decided that I would say something about it.
  The second, and much more serious and important, reason is that I felt strongly that I should state the principle of testing, which is critical to the national curriculum, the inception and implementation of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley so eloquently described. The essence and success of the national curriculum depends on the principle of testing and its implementation throughout our schools.
  The third reason was my sheer enjoyment of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley. I greatly enjoyed it, because it took me back to an extremely happy time when we were working together on the Education Reform Act 1988.
  Many people on the Opposition Benches and in the country at large have asserted vigorously that they are, of course, in favour of testing. They say that they want to see children tested. Indeed, we are told by many teachers, who I believe are genuine, that they test their children regularly at every interval. However, that is not what we are talking about, and it is not what the national curriculum and the testing attached to it is about. Nor is the Education Reform Act 1988 about that.
  Now, as in 1988, we are talking about the standardisation of tests at the ages of seven, 11, 14 and 16. We have not addressed that in the debate this afternoon. It is unfair to many good teachers throughout the country to pretend that testing by individual teachers of individual pupils at every point in their career in the classroom is the same thing as the standardisation of tests for seven, 11, 14 and 16-year-olds.
  In our schools today, standard tests for seven-year-olds have been introduced. They were introduced over a period. I do not say that the early introduction of any of the testing was absolutely perfect. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained clearly that the system is one of evolution. The introduction and implementation of anything as large as the Education Reform Act 1988 cannot be arranged in two or three years.
  The Education Reform Act was a 10, 12, 15 or perhaps 20-year programme to ensure that, throughout our schools, standards were raised, practices were introduced and education was inexorably lifted, so that teachers who came into a classroom knew what they were expected to teach and test on, and children knew what those tests involved. More importantly than ever before, parents receive the information that they want.
  The ambition of parents when their children are tested at school is to know two things. The first is how their child is doing. They do not want to be told, "He is doing nicely. You will find that he is integrating well into the class." They want to know whether he is keeping up with the sums, whether he can spell and whether his essays and little offerings are as good as those of the other children in the class.
  The second thing that parents want to know is whether their child's school is as good as the school down the road. They want to know whether their child's class is as good as the class at the other school. They want to know where their child stands. Not only middle-class parents who live in houses with pianos and books but all parents instinctively want to know that. Many parents who may
  230
  not be able to articulate that desire want that information. To deny them that information and say that it is not possible to say exactly and precisely how the child is doing is fundamentally wrong. It is a serious matter for the country to consider. That is why the boycott is so dangerous.
  The boycott undermines the principle, which has taken some five years to establish in the country and in schools, that testing is important. I remind the House that it is not so long ago that we introduced another reform in the education system. In the same Education Act, and in my time as Minister of State, we introduced local management of schools. I travelled around the country talking to primary and secondary school teachers. They told me that it was impossible to introduce LMS, that it would involve far too much administration, that they were not administrators, and that they were there not to manage anything so crude as money or consider budgets but to teach. They said that they did not want to be taken out of the classroom to administer the school's budget and that LMS would be a disaster. That was only three years ago.
  I defy any Opposition Member, parent governor or anyone anywhere in the country to say that they would prefer that we took LMS away. The majority of schools are 100 per cent. in favour of it. I draw a parallel with the introduction of testing. I simply say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it may take longer for people to accept testing, but I know full well that his intention is right. It is entirely the rights of parents as well as children to have those tests introduced.
  We are considering tests for 14-year-olds at present. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley described eloquently and directly those wonderful days when we began to introduce English as a subject and to set up what one should or should not ask teachers to consider teaching children at various ages. Of course it is a controversial subject, and of course people will argue, but eventually they will come back to the basics, as I believe that Sir Ron Dearing will quickly do after this year's experiment and testing. It is extremely important that the tests continue.
  We shall see the programme evolve and develop. I remind the House that this is 1993. In 1994, we shall introduce tests for 11-year-olds. I can imagine the language that will be used. The phrases are resonant. I can hear it all. People will say that it is all about the 11-plus and selection of children. That is nonsense—it is old education-speak. We are going forward now. We shall take our children forward.
  Many of the excellent teachers out there will be reluctant to boycott education practice in the way that has been suggested to them by some of the more militant unions. They will take education forward with the tests to ensure that their children—for they are parents, too—our children, my grandchildren and all the children of Britain can achieve the standards we need in our schools and universities for our ideas to materialise and continue to be as good as they always have been, so that Britain can export brilliance and success.
  If the boycotts go ahead, they will be a devastating blow to the introduction of many of the reforms which have succeeded, although with difficulty, so far. I wish this reform success, and I hope that the clarion voices will no longer be heard.
  6.29 pm
  Ms Estelle Morris: It has been customary in this debate for hon. Members to declare their interest at the beginning of their speeches. I declare an interest as a consultant to the National Union of Teachers and as having spent 16 or 17 years teaching in an inner city multiracial school and community college.
  Those of us who have visited schools in the last year can be in no doubt that this term schools are in crisis. It is clear that teacher morale is at rock bottom, that schools are continuously and increasingly under-resourced and that, as a result, children's education is suffering. Anyone would think from the flurry of media interest in education in the last few weeks that this was something new, but those of us who are interested in education know that this crisis has been growing for some time and that this dissatisfaction with what is going on in education has been around for some years.
  There is a feeling among parents and teachers that those who currently exercise political control over what goes on in our schools are removed from the reality of classroom practice. I sometimes think that the utterances that come these days from Sanctuary buildings have more to do with the posturing of the Secretary of State than with raising standards of education for the children for whom we have a responsibility.
  One of the Secretary of State's infamous predecessors was the "I know best; I do not need to listen" type. It has been one of the saddest things in the past year that the present Secretary of State seems to rate her higher than he does some of his better predecessors. Nowhere can that be seen better than in the chaos of what has gone on in key stage 3 English testing in the last year. A year ago, schools were busy teaching the national curriculum key stage 3 English. As recently as last September, the Government commissioned its third attempt to get an acceptable form of testing English at that point. The pilots that were published last autumn were radically different from the two that had preceded them. When they had finished, the response was unanimous: the tests were bad. The teachers, the governors, all those who had looked at the tests were unanimous: the tests were ill prepared, they were prescriptive, they lowered expectations of our pupils and, most important of all, they were not based on the national curriculum that had been taught in schools for the previous three years.
  How can the teachers have been teaching the books on which the children are to be tested when it is now only four months since the book list was published?
  I listened carefully to what the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) said. It was a sensitive speech and one that I enjoyed. He talked about a variety of literature. He talked with some feeling about books, choosing them and giving access to them to the whole range of children. That is not what is being said by the Secretary of State. He is saying "Thou shalt read this, that and the other book that I have chosen".
  The right hon. Member for Mole Valley talked about Shakespeare and the other great writers of our history. The Secretary of State's testing will prevent children in the lower ability range from reading and learning about Shakespeare, when in many schools they have been doing that for the past decade. The right hon. Member for Mole Valley said that it was not for us to tell teachers how to teach, but the effect of the testing introduced by the
  232
  Secretary of State is to forbid strategies that have enabled teachers to teach Shakespeare and other great writers successfully to children in a wide ability range.
  What were the results of those pilot tests? No results were published, we never saw what the teacher response was, and the Secretary of State refused to enter into discussions with those who had been involved with the tests. Instead, he used the opportunity to demonstrate some sort of political strength, some sort of growing opposition to teacher unions, and what seemed at that time to be a total disregard for the work that teachers were doing in schools.
  Key stage 3 English testing is not about who runs schools, it is not about left and right, it is certainly not about whether children should be tested. What the key stage 3 English debate is about is whether Ministers want to work with teachers and parents to get the best for our children, or to carry on making changes in spite of the opinions of those important groups.
  In the last few months the Secretary of State has turned an educational discussion into a political wrestling match. For that he cannot and must not be forgiven. Through December, January, February and into March, all we heard from him was that the tests were scrupulous and unflawed; they were unparalleled in their distinction. He refused to publish the evaluation of the results and he refused to talk to people.
  By April he was beginning to see the light. He called for a review; he talked of genuine concern among teachers. His conversion on the road to Cardiff was exceptionally welcome to me, for one. But he still did not have the political courage to withdraw the tests. He seems to have spent the Easter recess looking for excuses not to accept the logic of his own statement to the conference in Cardiff. He went to Cardiff, Brighton, Bournemouth and back to Brighton looking for anything to distract our attention from the real issue.
  Any statement by any union leader that could be interpreted as a political attack on the Government was seized on by him as a way of not discussing the real issue, which was testing. When one union leader talked about a campaign against the Government, that was it; gold had been struck. Baroness Blatch was dispatched to "Newsnight" and John Patten's picture appeared in every newspaper.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I know that the hon. Lady is among the last batch of hon. Members to come here and has probably not got used to our procedures. She must refer to the right hon. Member as the Secretary of State, not by his name.
  Ms Morris: I apologise Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The same picture of the Secretary of State appeared in all the newspapers the next day. He was more intent on renewing his battle with the unions than on talking about testing.
  Despite this, he has now said that the tests must go ahead, because he will not know how to improve the tests next year unless the pilot scheme is allowed to run this year. It is clear that the tests will go ahead this summer, not to test the children, but to test the tests. The children are being used as guinea pigs. There are pilots to test the tests, but nothing to test the children, because, as the Secretary of State has admitted, those tests are flawed.

  233
  The only people who seem to need the pilot tests to find out what is wrong with them are the Ministers on the Government Front Bench. Everybody else who has been involved in the tests knows what is wrong with them. Nobody needs to go through a pilot scheme this year to find out how they ought to be improved. We have an over-burdened curriculum and flawed tests piled on to an already creaking education system. For a decade now, financial cuts imposed on local authorities have meant that, as each academic year approaches and schools consider how to reorganise themselves, they tailor what goes on not to meet the needs of the pupils but to meet the demands of the Treasury.
  We have seen special needs money siphoned off for other uses, fewer resources and larger classes. And piled on top of that is the greatest conflict and instability that has yet hit our schools—the balloting process over grant-maintained schools. It is a system designed to create conflict; a one-off opportunity for everybody to cast a vote to decide whether a local education authority should be allowed to continue to exist.
  What would be lost by losing that battle is so important that all sides will play it for all it is worth. We have seen it happen already: bitter battles about ballots going on all over the country. The consequence of losing the ballot is great, because under the type of democracy introduced by the Secretary of State there is a one-off vote and one does not get another chance.
  There are many areas of our education system at the moment in which there is instability: an unstable curriculum, an unstable testing system, an unstable structure imposed on us by the Government. Teachers need a structure that enables them to do their job, which is being in classrooms, raising the standards of education of our children and having the highest expectations of them. Under this Government, with the proposals that we have seen, we as politicians have not given them that. Let us take this opportunity to give them what they deserve.
  6.39 pm
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I shall refer simply to the national curriculum and testing.
  It is a mystery that people feel that we never had a national curriculum before, but we did. My first job was as head of English in a secondary modern school in Lancashire. When I was appointed I went to the headmaster and drew up a syllabus and we put it into operation. A week later I was visited by an HMI, and in those days HMIs were very wise. He gave me a book called, "Handbook of Suggestions for Teachers", which came out in June 1944. It was first published in 1890. It comprised 564 pages telling teachers what to do in every year with the bright, average and least bright pupils.
  In 1979, when I became a Minister in the Department of Education, no one knew that there had ever been a national curriculum. It had collapsed and disappeared.
  There was also a book on primacy education entitled,
  "Suggestions for the Consideration of Teachers and Others Concerned with the Work of Primary Schools".
  It was last reprinted in 1963.
  It was not that we never had a national curriculum. Until the cultural revolution of the 1960s we had a national curriculum and we also had testing. The testing was the dreaded 11 -plus over which so many Labour
  234
  Members committed suicide. If any of them wish to do so tonight, it would be preferable if they did not do it in the Chamber.
  Some 50 per cent. of children sat the 11-plus. [Interruption.] I failed mine; the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) probably passed his and that is why he joined the Labour party. Children took the 11-plus in English, mathematics and general knowledge, which was scripture, geography, history and civics. I had the most homework in the year when I sat my 11-plus. I failed it because of Blackburn Rovers. I left the examination early to see them playing a cup match and I did not finish the last half hour. Blackburn Rovers are doing very well now, although it took them a long time to get there. I failed the 11-plus and that was the only time my father ever hit me from one end of the room to the other, and I decided from then on that education was very important. I have believed in corporal punishment ever since.
  Let me say a word about the English tests and the teaching of standard English. Children should be taught standard English, otherwise they will be handicapped for life. In the yard they will still speak their own language and it is no good having a teacher in the yard to tell them how to speak when they are playing games, but they must be taught standard English, otherwise they will be handicapped if they want mobility nationally or in their chosen work.
  In the 1960s we had the cultural revolution; the resurrection of Rousseau from France and Dewey from America by long distance telephone. It was said that every child should develop at his own pace. We had the Plowden report, which should be burnt in Trafalgar square as it did so much harm.
  We all know that it is better to find out than to be taught, but how can children discover by accident at the local library the theorems of Euclid or Faraday's electromagnetic laws or even the French subjunctive without going on a day trip to Boulogne? They cannot. It is the teachers' job to pass on the learning of the ages. If children could do it for themselves, we could save all the money we spend on education and put them in libraries and the teachers could go somewhere else and dig trenches or the potato crop.
  The national curriculum was destroyed as was the idea that teachers had a body of knowledge to pass on. Similarly, we had reading readiness or real books in primary schools. Very clever children will learn from those, but the others must have phonics and must be taught bit by bit. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) referred to illiteracy. He did so with his usual great wisdom. I am godfather to his son, so he is obviously a very wise man.
  Comprehensive schools were introduced at that time. The Labour party was looking for a programmme. It is looking for a programme again, if anyone has one to offer. The Labour party became the driver of the train of comprehensive schools. The Conservative party did not know what to do about it and became the brake man at the end of the train. The Labour party rushed towards it and the Conservative party tried to slow it down. Nobody knew what it was and what it was doing. It is interesting that no other country in Europe went that way, but we are still landed with it as against specialist schools.
  The Conservative party now has a national curriculum and testing, but we should think about the organisation of

  235
  secondary schools. It is all very well having grant-maintained schools, but they cannot all go their own way, otherwise we shall have a strange patchwork quilt of education. There will have to be some guidance.
  The Bennett report of 1976 contained some interesting findings about testing and checking. It was undoubtedly read by the then Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, who referred to it in his Ruskin college speech which was destroyed by the then Shirley Williams, now a member of the other House. That speech was a benchmark and would have done great good for the Labour party had it been followed through at the time.
  The destruction of the national curriculum and testing at that time led to a deterioration of standards. The Bennett report showed from a study of 700 infant schools in Lancashire in which there is the constituency of my distinguished hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowmati) that testing in schools and the 11-plus produced higher standards in mathematics and English and that the children were more at ease because they knew what they had to do. That report influenced what the then Labour Prime Minister said at the time.
  I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends agree that the testing of individual children helps to ensure that schools are doing their jobs. Good teachers carry out regular tests purely and simply to make sure that the school is living up to its standards.
  Over the past 15 or 20 years, and certainly over the past 30 years, we have had some of the worst schools in Europe. Our good schools remain good and the average ones continue, but in the centre of our cities—I always taught in downtown areas—we have some of the worst schools in Europe. That is why we decided to introduce testing.
  Let me say something about the national curriculum. I am in favour of the tests, and I believe that they will raise education standards in Britain. However, the education establishments have made it all far too complicated. It has been said, rightly, that teachers are also responsible for that. They did not want simple pencil and paper tests; they wanted assessment, but it takes up too much time. The national curriculum takes up some 85 per cent. of time in secondary schools and primary schools. I believe that it should take up no more than 50 per cent. of time in secondary schools and 75 per cent. in primary schools so that secondary schools could teach second and third languages and the classics as well as specialised subjects.
  I hope that Sir Ron Dinsey—I mean Sir Ron Dearing. I have a friend called Ron Dinsey who is also very distinguished and perhaps will be knighted. I shall leave the Secretary of State a note on the Board.
  The Secretary of State said that the committee of 15, under the chairmanship of Sir Ron Dearing, would have at least one head teacher and one teacher. I should like there to be a majority of head teachers and teachers as they recognise children in the classroom, instead of all those education theorists. If a child came into the Chamber, they would not recognise him: they would probably think it was a Manx cat or something. We should get down to the classroom teachers as they are the ones doing the jobs.
  To sum up my rather rapid speech—I have not had time to write it totally in verse as is my usual way—I welcome entirely national tests. They will be a great advantage to parents, particularly in downtown areas, if they can
  236
  guarantee good standards. The state has no right to impose compulsory education without compulsory minimum standards. I welcome that, and at the same time I hope that we can reduce pressure on individual teachers and schools. It is a great reform, and I back the Secretary of State totally in it. Undoubtedly, with the help of Conservative Members, it will go on to even greater things.
  6.49 pm
  Mr. Alan Simpson: I have no consultancies to declare in this debate, but I do have a more modest claim. I am still a member of the governing body of an imaginative, working-class, inner-city secondary school, which all of my children have had the privilege of attending. That school is not opposed in any way to a national curriculum or afraid of the notion of pupil assessments, but it does feel a huge sense of exasperation at the incompetence of the Government's current testing proposals. That exasperation is felt by parents, governors and teachers alike.
  If the Secretary of State is allergic to the notion of listening to teachers' views, perhaps he would care to hear some of the views of head teachers in the city of Nottingham. I have spent a fair part of today speaking, by phone, to head teachers in Nottingham, asking them what views they would like passed on to the Secretary of State in this debate. It was a timely set of telephone calls, because all the head teachers of the city schools received a letter today from the Secretary of State—it was an SOS from the SoS—in which he said:
  "If the test did not go ahead there would be no sound basis for an independent evaluation."
  Yet that is precisely the basis on which head teachers are exasperated about his proposals, because the proposals themselves offer no sound basis for independent evaluation.
  I have received a fax from the Nottinghamshire Association of Secondary Heads. This is not a trade union or a political organisation which would normally oppose, root and branch, the Government's policies. In the fax, the association has said publicly:
  "Head Teachers are happy to implement the National Curriculum and believe that testing is an essential part of education. Such tests have always been used to measure pupil achievement. However, the Secondary Head Teachers of Nottinghamshire are very worried about the national tests, especially in English and Technology … Detailed information about courses and testing arrived late and in a piecemeal fashion.
  The tests themselves have not been properly trialled nor validated."
  The fax concludes with the following remarks:
  "the way that testing is to be done this year is damaging to pupils' education."
  When I rang around today, not a single head teacher would speak up in support of the Secretary of State's proposals.
  When I spoke to individual head teachers, they were more forthcoming. The head teacher of one of the best performing schools in the city—one which one would expect to find to be most enthusiastic about the idea of assessments and stand to gain considerably from testing —was unequivocal in his condemnation of the approach of the Secretary of State. He said that the preparations for testing at key stage 3 had been
  "detrimentally draining on the school's education programme"
  and had
  "seriously undermined staff morale."

  237
  The Secretary of State mentioned the notion of improved standards, but another head teacher said that the English tests will not allow really able pupils to show their ability, and that one-word answers are not a way of demonstrating creative writing ability.
  Other head teachers went further. They said that, if only the Secretary of State had asked them and had been willing to listen, he would have heard that the argument used in his letter—that schools
  "had had three years to prepare for the tests"
  —was an absolute lie. The information about the English tests arrived at the schools in January. That is the period of real preparation within which schools have been asked to organise their testing.
  As school after school pointed out, there has not been enough time given to preparation and the approach to English that the Secretary of State is advocating would wreck good English teaching and force teachers to teach to a test, not to a sense of excitement about English. One went as far as to say that this was the closest he had come to understanding the notion of Stalinism in education.: that what the Secretary of State was offering was a prescribed reading list around which English would be taught, and presumably inspired!
  At one stage, elsewhere I understand, the Secretary of State has cited "Treasure Island" as an example of the books he has described as "a good read". To comment on this I should declare that I feel myself singularly privileged in many ways, because when I retreat from the House and spend some time with my children at the weekend, one of the joys for me is to read to them and with them. I feel privileged that I have three teenage children who still enjoy and get excited about poetry and literature … and in sharing it.
  I invite the Secretary of State to listen to the reading list that my children would recommend to him. It would include a wide range of contemporary literature, which breaks through prejudice and offers different, more productive and enhancing role models which challenge the out-of-date stereotypes of race and gender in some of our older literature. My children could provide a wonderful reading list. But it would be lost on the right hon. Gentleman.
  If the Secretary of State looks at "Treasure Island", for example, he would see that it offers two role models for women: one is an old crone and the other is a barmaid. If he thinks that such role models would inspire young girls to get excited about literature, he should be sent back to start his education all over again.
  If the Secretary of State is not happy to do that, perhaps he would go back to his own notion about the testing that he held last year. We have heard from some of my other colleagues that the results of last year's pilot testing have not been declared. Let me offer some information about some of the pilot testing done in Nottingham. It might be the litmus test against which the Government's education proposals should be measured.
  One of the schools tested was an independent school —the Nottingham high school for boys—and my understanding of its reaction to those tests is that now it will not touch SATs. Although the school was part of the pilot, it rejected out of hand the notion of continued involvement in SATs. Why? It found them time-wasting, badly constructed and a poor way of showing what the school already knew. That is the litmus test against which
  238
  the Ministers claim, that they 'were well received' and had a broad base of support. If the independent schools will not touch them, why should anyone else?
  I put on record my unequivocal support for the action that teachers up and down the country are taking in boycotting these tests. I will explain why, in very personal terms. Not long ago, one of my sons submitted a written piece in English and tried to work a flanker. He had not bothered to do much work on it or much preparation. The work he handed in was somewhat shoddy and ill prepared. To her credit, the teacher looked at it and said to my son, "What do you call this? It's rubbish. You have not put any effort into this. How can you expect me to treat this as a serious piece of work and mark it seriously when you have neglected the duties and responsibilities which, at this stage of your education, I expect you to live up to?"—and she threw it back at him. I saw her a couple of days later and she said to me, "I hope that you were not offended about it." I said, "Offended? I was pleased that you did it, because you sent my lad scuttling back home, and he has worked like a beaver on it". He went back and rewrote it, and delivered it in the sort of terms that he had to in order to meet the standards of education the school expected.
  Will the Secretary of State do the same—because that is precisely what teachers are saying about his own offering? Teachers are saying that the proposals are shoddy and ill thought out, and should be taken back to square one and completely rethought.
  I do not for one moment believe that the Secretary of State will do that. One of the tragedies of this debate and of the Government's education policies in general is that the Secretary of State does not have a fraction of my son's understanding of what real learning is about. The right hon. Gentleman does not have my son's wisdom in knowing how to learn from his own mistakes. Nor does he have a fraction of my own gratitude to teachers who are prepared to stand up and confront such ill-prepared and incompetent acts of educational folly.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  7 pm
  Sir Malcolm Thornton: For nearly 30 years in elected office, at local and national level, I have been a passionate and vocal supporter of standards in education. I wish to make clear at the outset my support for the main principles of the reforms—for the national curriculum and for the absolute necessity of testing as an integral part of that curriculum. Without testing, we cannot be sure that the right measurement is being made.
  I quote from two reports. One said:
  "Things have improved within the last 30 years … But the educational opportunities offered in most of our towns, and in nearly all our country districts, to boys or girls who do not proceed to the universities, but leave school at 16, are still far behind the requirements of our time".
  The second, referring to final examinations, stated:
  "we feel that the schools themselves may become uncertain in their aim and vacillating in their methods, if they have no suggestion of a definite standard to guide their work … There is wisdom in the saying of Plato, that 'the life without examination is a life that can hardly be lived'".
  Those reports were dated 1895 and 1924 respectively. The more things change, the more they stay the same. The debate has turned on statements such as "A return to the golden age." Those reports show clearly that the golden age, if it ever existed, exists largely in people's imagination.

  239
  The progressive reforms that we put in place in the 1980s are vital. The Education Reform Act 1988 brought matters to a head, and we are now starting to see the benefits flow through. I agree with all of that. Recent reports, some of which have been attributed to me, would have one believe that I am opposed to the Secretary of State for Education's efforts. Not so. I am totally behind the principles of his stewardship in that Department.
  It is vital for the success of our children that the reforms succeed, although I have found differences in the implementation of some of the reforms. I believe strongly in the sort of statements that have been made by Professor Alan Smithers, a member of the National Curriculum Council. For example, he said in a recent television broadcast that it was important to have a balance between external testing and internal assessment. If we can get that balance right, we shall get testing right and achieve the benefits that flow from a wide curriculum. We shall also have the rigour of external standard tests, enabling national assessments to be made, which in turn will benefit pupils, teachers and parents alike.
  Comments have been made about the report of the Office for Standards in Education. The Ofsted report also says that a fine balance must be drawn and that the dangers of teaching to the test—if the tests are too prescriptive—must be avoided at all costs. It is important that that is taken on board in any future review.
  The teacher unions have made many statements in recent weeks. I believe the boycott to be totally wrong. I appreciate the frustrations and understand many of the points that moderate teachers have made when writing to me over the months, but the boycott can do nothing but harm to the children and to the case of moderate teachers who wish to bring about change, and I condemn it unequivocally. It would take us back to the bad old days and allow a handful of militants in trade unions to use this focused debate to destroy the whole essence of the reform programme. That cannot be right, and I would not wish to be associated with it in any respect.
  But to deny that there is frustration is to misunderstand the huge volume of feeling that exists in many schools about the implementation of what is proposed and the way in which it is impacting on teaching practice. It is also important to consider whether it will work and deliver what the Secretary of State and I wish to achieve, which is improved standards.
  My right hon. Friend might consider the possibility of a way forward, and it can be no more than that. The threat of a boycott and its consequent disruption hangs over the schools. It would be in no one's interest and might be against the law. We shall have to wait and see. It would cause enormous problems for head teachers and governing bodies. I am married to one and am a chairman of governors, so I speak with feeling on the subject.
  The Secretary of State has made two concessions. He said that there would be no reporting of the tests. The fundamental point made in the early correspondence was that they should be piloted and unreported. That concession has been made. He has promised a review of the national curriculum, and Sir Ron Dearing has, I hope, our full support in the work that lies ahead for him. He has a major job, and should be given a chance to get on with
  240
  it. I was encouraged earlier when I think I saw the Secretary of State nod in assent at the suggestion that politicians should back away a little.
  Although I have made no secret of my belief that an abandonment of, or making voluntary, the tests for this year is perhaps a way forward, if that is not to be, a shift in the way that teacher opinion is sought could do much to persuade the majority of teachers, who are moderate, who support testing and assessment and who want to make the national curriculum work, that their views will be heeded.
  It is no use having the odd head teacher or teacher sitting on a working party or national body. However experienced, such people represent no one's views but their own. My right hon. Friend should seriously consider setting up opportunities by which groups of practising teachers and head teachers, perhaps regionally or at LEA level, have the chance to comment in detail on the way in which the principles of the reforms are implemented and on their practicability. That would be a significant and welcome move.
  Moderate teacher opinion would be more likely to turn away from confrontation if those teachers felt that their voices would be heard and that their professionalism and expertise would be put to good use. It would be a challenge to the teacher unions to show clearly whether their rhetoric of support for testing is matched by their willingness to allow their members to co-operate. Education for our children—for the future of the nation—works best when a genuine partnership exists.
  Mr. Patten: I have been listening with care to my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Select Committee, and I assure him that it goes without saying that the Government welcome the possibility of groups of teachers, along the lines that my hon. Friend suggested, making their views known, regionally and locally, to the review that Sir Ron Dearing is starting. That is exactly what Sir Ron wishes to happen. That is important, and I welcome my hon. Friend's suggestion. I am sure that Sir Ron Dearing will also welcome it.
  Sir Malcolm Thornton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention.
  As I was saying, education works best when a genuine partnership exists in which the views and experience of all are taken into account in the evolutionary development of the education system. Consensus is not a dirty word. While Government must clearly set the framework, those who work in the schools must be allowed to exercise their professional judgment and the benefits of their practical experience if they are to feel that sense of ownership that is vital.
  Whatever the outcome of the current dispute, my right hon. Friend's most urgent task is to use his good offices, as only he can, to bring about that genuine partnership. That would be a signal achievement. It is the way forward to restore the belief which most parents and all moderate teachers, who are the vast majority, have in the need—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time up.
  7.10 pm
  Miss Joan Lestor: It is so long since I taught that I would not use that as a qualification for speaking in the debate. When one has been a Member for a long time, like the previous Secretary of State for Education, and has

  241
  lived through arguments about setting, streaming, banding, comprehensive education and the great debate on education which was launched by the present Lord Callaghan, that is a qualification for making a contribution. Memory is very important in the House. I remember the statistics which showed that a previous Conservative Secretary of State for Education, later to become Prime Minister, closed more grammar schools than any Labour Government ever closed. I just make that point in passing.
  I have always been in favour of a national curriculum, and I do not want what I am about to say to make people think that I want to move backwards, but the Secretary of State did a great disservice to teachers in the 1970s and 1980s. The impression has been given, as hon. Members will see if they read Hansard, that at that time parents had no knowledge of what their children were doing.
  Like most sentimental mothers, I have at home a drawer full of documents about my children which in my old age I will look at with tears in my eyes. They are the reports of my children and the children I fostered at that time. They all attended state primary schools and comprehensive schools in the 1970s and 1980s. The reports told me how they were achieving. A remedial boy who needed special help was given the utmost attention and assistance so that he might achieve better.
  For the Secretary of State to give the impression that teachers at that time were not assessing their pupils and that no testing was taking place is a total misrepresentation of what was going on in education. When the Secretary of State and other hon. Members read what they said, they should have the grace to say that they were wrong. Thousands of parents like me, whose kids went through the system at that time, knew what their children were doing.
  The method of testing was different. It was not competitive, as it was when I was at school, when information about who was first, second, third, fourth and fifth was put up on the wall. Although I was not knocked across the room by my father or mother like the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson)—which may account for his views—nevertheless I have always questioned that system of classing children as successes or failures in education.
  I want to concentrate on nursery education, on which the Secretary of State refused to comment. I have always been apprehensive about the testing of children at the age of seven, particularly because we have a declining industry in nursery education. The nursery programme is becoming the casualty in many local authorities which are starved of resources. Indeed, many Tory authorities in particular have never put great stress on nursery education. The playgroup movement is in grave financial difficulties because it has become the substitute for nursery education in many areas. At least one hon. Member was present at the launch of the appeal of the playgroup movement for funds and greater assistance from the Government.
  Many children are denied any nursery experience. Therefore, some children who go to school at the age of five will have only two years of experience of school before being tested at seven. In some areas where there is only a once-a-year entry, children born in July will start school when they are aged four years and two months. Some will go into attractive reception classes equipped as nursery classes. Although I would prefer proper nursery education,
  242
  I recognise the benefits of such classes, but many will go into ordinary classes and will be expected to participate in more formal education.
  If testing is done at the age of seven, some children will have been three years in primary school, but some will have been there only two years; some will have had nursery education and some will not. Will any hon. Member who knows anything about young children tell me that all those children can be tested successfully at the age of seven on the same basis? It is absolute nonsense. Even one year less will make a difference to children throughout their school life until they begin to catch up at the age of 12 or 13. Most teachers recognise that. The fact that we are driven to once-a-year entry for children is very worrying in relation to tests.
  Some hon. Members have referred to the continent. We do badly in what we offer our young children. In most European countries, children start school much later, at the age of seven, having had superb pre-school provision. Our children are robbed of that experience.
  When the Secretary of State talks about the value of testing for very young children, I question it very much. I support the testing which took place in the past when parents knew how their children were measuring up. With such testing, any teacher could tell parents at any time how their children were doing, because that was their function. That is why I get angry when I hear people like the Secretary of State dismissing what happened in the 1970s and 1980s as if teachers were not communicating at all with parents. That is rubbish. We all went to parent-teacher evenings and discussed what was happening. As I said, we have reports to prove it.
  There was a time when I had some hopes of the Secretary of State. He kept being photographed with his young child, and I thought that anyone who loved a little child must have some good in him. I still like to think that that is so, but pomposity and dogma are no substitute for proper educational debate. Sadly, we have listened to much dogma and pomposity in the debate. There has been no real contribution to solving the problems which teachers are facing in schools today.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. David Madel: As has been said, the debate comes at a time of continuing reform in the education service. In a democracy a government are always under pressure to get quick results, but steady progress in the classroom and increasing parental support and commitment to the education service are not, alas, headline news. It is only when things go wrong that education gets the headlines.
  Of course, the debate comes about also as a result of the problem over testing. Concern about testing is not confined to seaside conferences. Many people who are not involved in education politics but who are committed to the education service do not think that we have got matters quite right. Such people want to work with the Government in the laudable desire to raise standards and thereby expand opportunities for young people.
  Therefore, much rests on Sir Ron Dearing and his new committee to sort matters out. We must stop the slide from ballots to boycotts and inevitable legal action which will benefit only the lawyers and certainly will not benefit many young people who are close to taking their GCSE and A-level examinations this summer term.

  243
  I suggest two immediate guidelines which I hope that Sir Ron and his committee can establish with the teaching profession as common ground. First, the more standards improve in schools, the greater the support for the teaching profession. Secondly, performance needs to improve fastest in the middle and lower ability groups so that we can better compete with our industrial competitors.
  Perhaps I may say a little about the changes which Sir Ron and his committee need to bring about in the tests. The people who have been constructing the tests so far subject by subject seem to have regarded them as a sort of Christmas tree; they keep putting extra things on the tree. We need early syllabus information and no late changes in the syllabus. We need a big reduction in the amount of printed material and paperwork that passes to the schools. It must be recognised that more preparation time is needed for both teachers and students. I particularly want tests for 14-year-olds to be dovetailed into the GCSE exams, which are looming pretty close for young people of 14. I do not want the tests for 14-year-olds to be an odd branch line, but part of the main track towards raising standards at GCSE level.
  In his "Who's Who" entry, Sir Ron Dearing lists one of his hobbies as do-it-yourself. If he can establish new and better guidelines on testing that are acceptable to the teaching profession, the schools will certainly do a lot for themselves and provide parents, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Department with the helpful information that they need, subject by subject, so that pupils' weaknesses can be corrected.
  I agree with the first words of the Opposition motion, which mentions the "need for stability" in schools. I believe that stability in schools encourages the Government to build on existing good practice in schools. The Conservative manifesto said that popular schools that become oversubscribed would be given the necessary funds to expand, which is a hugely popular policy and good practice. Many parents cannot wait to see more evidence of popular, oversubscribed schools expanding as a result of parental demand.
  With the local management of schools, more and more schools are steadily arranging for homework to be done at school rather than at home. Many homes in this country are, alas, simply unsuitable places for young people to do their homework. Much good practice is being built up in schools whereby pupils stay at school after school hours to do their homework. That good practice should be expanded. There is more than enough evidence that the better the homework, the better the exam results.
  I was delighted that the report of the Office for Standards in Education of March 1993 stated:
  "the 20-day INSET courses for primary school teachers have been effective and were much appreciated by the teachers."
  Such good practice should be built on. It will be welcomed by parents and teachers if they can see that the courses positively benefit teachers, which will inevitably lead to higher standards in the classroom.
  If schools continue to improve their careers guidance, underpinned by rising standards, the numbers who can usefully use the education system—with all that it has to offer—after school will expand. The country will also benefit from the fact that more and more people are going into higher and further education, which has been a great
  244
  triumph of the Government. That increase largely depends, not just on standards in the classroom, but on good careers guidance in schools to ensure that young people make the right choices.
  We must give the national curriculum a chance. Some people seem terribly keen to keep pulling it up and inspecting its roots. It is taking root well and simply needs to be given a chance. Above all, we must ensure that the tests, which must go ahead, are seen as supports to the public examination system and a means of raising standards. Raising standards in schools not only creates domestic happiness in families; it improves the country's economy in relation to that of its competitors, which is of the utmost importance.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Derek Enright: We should consider for a moment why our children are at school and how we should treat them once they have gone to school. We send our children to school, first and foremost, to encourage in them a sense of excitement about learning. They do not go to school to be given tests or a prescribed body of knowledge. The teachers should enthuse the pupils by the way in which they teach the subjects.
  It does not matter which history syllabus is used; it does not matter whether it is a wild west syllabus. If pupils are enthused by the way in which the topic is approached, they will read for themselves about what happened with Oliver Cromwell, the Commonwealth or the first world war. The most important factor is to grasp pupils' imagination at both primary and secondary school and ensure that they retain that imagination.
  The national curriculum will be tested in so far as it achieves that aim. Teachers must be able to interpret it and provide it for the children so that they benefit from it and continue to learn, not only for the brief period that they are at school, but for the rest of their lives. Children will then develop habits and a way of living so that they continue to read and study and have an inquisitive knowledge of life.
  The hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) quoted Plato and said that life must have its examination. Plato did say that, but he did so in the context of self-examination. We must give pupils the ability to look at themselves, analyse themselves and see where they are placed in relation to the rest of society. The reforms proposed by the Secretary of State and those already introduced will be successful if they contribute to that goal. They will be successful if they make pupils, not economic beings, but useful, essential and lively parts of the society to which they belong. That aim is crucial, which is why I am extremely worried about some of the reforms that have taken place.
  Not much has been said in today's debate about the Office for Standards in Education. It has been quoted, although it has been in existence for only a couple of years and has not yet officially produced its first reports on schools. It has produced pilot reports, which I have been lucky—or unlucky—enough to see. Compared with the old reports of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools, the Ofsted reports are poor and pathetic creatures. They are meagre and seem exactly like painting by numbers—a sort of MOT for education. They do not diagnose the problems within even the weakest schools so that they can be strengthened—a great flaw of the reports.

  245
  When I made inquiries about why the organisation was so weak, the reason became clear. One sample of those being trained—three people being trained locally—showed that they were aged 67, 69 and 70. Those people were embarking on a new career in examining what is needed for the young. It is simply not good enough. The Secretary of State must look carefully at the quality of the people entering Ofsted, or the reports that it produces will be unimaginative and useless to the state, school or individual pupil.
  When we consider the speaking of Standard English, which is a serious issue, are we suggesting that it is exemplified by the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) or by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) —the sort of estuary English that we heard this evening? Are those the models on which to base our English? Much nonsense has been talked and it is impossible to decide what constitutes standard spoken English. It is not good enough to intrude in the particular delicate way that the Secretary of State has proposed.
  English needs a little common sense. In an article in The Guardian today, Martin Turner says that what the Government are doing with English is splendid. He is a member of the English committee and he is awfully proud of it. I quote two paragraphs. He talks about
  "'writing (including Spelling, Grammar and Handwriting)', with six Strands: Composition, Forms of Writing, and Handwriting (which merge from Level 6), Grammar, and Punctuation (which merge at Level 1 and above Level 5), and Spelling (which joins Forms of Writing and Presentation at Level 7)."
  Is that an example of someone who is trying to tell our children how to produce clear and concise English?
  Towards the end, writing in a less technical vein, he says:
  "Writers are 'significant', 'major', 'reputable'. Such terms contain an appeal to implicit criteria which remain tacit."
  Perhaps someone can translate that for me into any language, I do not mind which. He goes on:
  "The stance is not chauvinistic but liberal. The bubbling republic of world letters is neither excluded nor ignored, but welcomed as literature in English".
  It really will not do that people who are attempting to set curricula are so divorced from what is happening in schools and from our young people that they produce such contentious nonsense.
  We are not helped by the Secretary of State when he makes his analyses of the state of education today One day they are upbeat and the next day they are downbeat. Let us examine the important question of illiteracy. It is extremely important that we deal with the 30 per cent. of children who are not, frankly, well dealt with at the moment in our schools and for whom we have to find imaginative paths out.
  But that said, when it comes down to it, illiteracy does not affect one in three, as was suggested by the Secretary of State. The report from which he quotes gives a figure of 16 per cent. How is that defined? It says that 16 per cent. have a reading age that is under 14. But the same report says that virtually nobody is illiterate now. Figures for 1951, before comprehensive schools came into existence, from the then Department of Education—so they must be correct—show that 30 per cent. of people aged 15 had reading ages under the age of nine. Therefore, there has been a considerable improvement since then and it is important to recognise that fact. Illiteracy, or an inability to read and write, was also constant at that time.
  246
  I could go on to mention tests and so on, but the real resource that we have in our schools is our teachers. Some teachers are brilliant, some are reasonable and some are not so good. But the amount of time that they put in is phenomenal. One thing that we do not measure is the voluntary time that is put in by our teachers. Nor do we know how long pupils spend on extra work outside school which, in other countries, is done in school.
  7.33 pm
  Sir Paul Beresford: The Labour party's motion talks of instability and calls for stability. It talks of too much change and of stopping key stage 3 tests. In many ways it is saying, "Let's sit back on our hands." That has been followed up in the debate with the cry, "Standards are low" and "The Government should be acting". That is a rather contrary posture to take. Part of the Government acting is to utilise the opportunity of testing. We need to use the tests at various stages to discover progress nationally, not just of the individual pupil or the individual school. In making progress—or hoping to make that progress—the Government have the big problem of the local education authorities between them and the schools.
  This evening there has been a lack of attention to our education clients—the parents and pupils. They wish to know how our schools are functioning. They want to know how their local schools are functioning compared with the national standard. They want to be able to choose a school, with some knowledge, so that they can maximise their children's abilities as they progress towards the work force. When their child is in school, they also want to know whether he or she is progressing. Tests are a key factor in that—tests, not individually but nationally; standardisation of tests.
  I think that all hon. Members accept that standards need to be raised. A number of facts have been given as examples. We should not necessarily compare ourselves now with ourselves in the past. We should be looking towards our competitors. When one hears that the average standard of maths for a 14-year-old in Britain's state schools compares with that of an 11-year-old in Germany, we have reason to be concerned. We need to raise our standards.
  However, the Labour party's motion says, "Don't rock the boat. Stand back and watch it gently sink." The Labour party is talking about stagnation when what we need is a continuation of the stimulation that has already started—started by the Government in 1988.
  First, as has been mentioned, there is the broad national curriculum. Secondly, there is the movement into testing and the publication of those results. Finally, as was touched on earlier, there is the chance for schools to break away from the frequently dead hand of their local education authority by going grant maintained.
  All that said, I was delighted that the Secretary of State announced a full range review. That means that he is listening. But I am also delighted that he has recognised that parents and pupils wish to know where they stand. He wishes, as do I, that the tests should continue.
  As the exercise this evening seems to be that we should touch on points for the review that is to follow the tests, I shall mention one or two. I certainly support the idea of the national curriculum, particularly with three or perhaps even four out of the total seven subjects. I also support the

  247
  attainment targets and the programme studies In addition, there are the four key stage tests. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) mentioned that there could have been a spot of hijacking by the profession. Perhaps we could look at the possibility of testing in three or four of the core subjects—English, maths, science and, perhaps, technology—leaving the rest of the various subjects for the schools to test in their own way looking towards GCSE. I realise that that may hurt the sensibilities of some teachers in those specific subjects, but practicality may dictate it.
  We have from Professor Black and his task group on assessment and testing a complicated system of 10 attainment targets, on 10 subjects, covering four key age groups, which is complicated. Furthermore, specific marks are available for allocation to specific age groups. To my mind, that engenders the impression that there will be progress in our schools, when in reality there has not been, merely because of the way in which those particular marks can be allocated by teachers to the various age groups.
  During the devising of all the complications, I understand that the teachers' unions requested more classroom assessment. The problem is that that was heeded, bringing a greater work load to classrooms. That arrangement also favours children with helpful parents, diminishes the chance of a realistic nationally assessed standard, and hurts children from homes where the environment is not educationally helpful.
  The answer is an increase in paper and pencil tests. The mere mention of them provokes the cry of teaching to tests—so what? If the syllabus is broad and not too prescriptive, and if the tests within it are selective, that approach can succeed. It succeeded before and continues to do so in many other areas today. I am sure that it will do so again.
  As for grant-maintained schools, it is a delight that they will be able to break out from their local education authorities. That is an excellent first step, but I hope that we continue with stimulation rather than stagnation. We need to move on. Grant-maintained schools need further independence and to be in the situation whereby their revenue, and the revenue aspect of their capital, improves on that independence. We should use those schools as independent schools serving state-funded pupils, rather than state-funded schools serving the pupils.
  As for the main topic of this debate, those tests must go forward so that the review mentioned frequently this evening will have substance and provide a basis on which to work.
  7.41 pm
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: I speak as someone who spent 31 years in a classroom teaching English—yes, English, and I am delighted to have done so. It was hard work, and we should all acknowledge that teaching is hard work. It is physically and mentally hard, and emotionally demanding. Few people are as exhausted at the end of their day's work as teachers. I have no regrets about spending all those years teaching. The work gave me great joy and satisfaction—but as I look back on that experience, I realise that it was soured to some extent by the experience of the latter years.
  248
  I will speak for teachers tonight, and especially for teachers of English, and for pupils. The one thing that they need is stability. The one thing that saps energy, undermines morale, and breeds anxiety and uncertainty—and has the negative effect that they all create—is the constant chopping and changing that has typified education in recent years. We must not underestimate the damage to the educational process done by the massive reorganisation envisaged in the current Education Bill, which could be incalculable.
  I was head of English at a comprehensive school when the GCSE was pushed through a year too soon. I undertook the massive increase in workload that suddenly came upon us at that time. I know of the long hours spent outside the classroom on training courses, and so on, to the great detriment of a whole year of pupils.
  Those of us teaching English were given the choice of setting 30 per cent., 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. course work. We were made to feel unco-operative and guilty if we did not go for the maximum option. It was said that all really good teachers went for that. I had left teaching when the same Government said that teachers must not on any account set more than 30 per cent. course work.
  I was head of English too when successive drafts of the expensively printed and bound national curriculum arrived on teachers' desks, with its impenetrable maze of programmes of study, key stages, levels, strands, attainment targets, and standards of attainment. There were 17 strands across five attainment targets.
  I remember discussions, under systems of continuous assessment, as to the level that each of the 30 pupils in a class had attained in each of those 17 strands. We tried to devise ways of conveying that mass of information to parents in a form of which they could make some sense. We did not know whether to laugh or to cry. In those days, the most familiar sound in staff rooms and on training courses was the belly laugh. That saved us from going crazy.
  I applaud much of the independence stance adopted by the National Curriculum Council for Wales in its recent document, and I will return to that point later. However, I cannot accept its claim in a press statement dated 15 April that the current order has gained widespread acceptance by teachers. I checked this morning by telephoning a teacher of English who knows the opinion among former colleagues in my constituency. It is plain that the order has not gained widespread acceptance. It has serious deficiencies and, specifically, it is unmanageable.
  I left teaching before standard attainment tests were introduced, so I did not have to endure being told in November 1992 which Shakespeare text would be tested the following summer; or until January 1993 before the additional reading list for the same tests was supplied; or until February 1993, before the poetry anthology was provided. Think of the effect on carefully constructed courses, planned to meet the requirements of the new curriculum, paced over weeks. Think of the effect on the attempt to provide a balanced syllabus, and the concentration given to those texts, in order to get them done in time for the examinations.
  I left teaching before the announcement was made that there was to be a review of the English curriculum. I was not there to enjoy the combination of relief and cynical self-righteousness that I would have felt had I still been a

  249
  teacher, nor the fury, given that the change meant that many of the long hours that I had spent devising courses were largely wasted.
  We should all acknowledge that those experiences—I have touched on only some of them—lie behind the decision to boycott tests, together with the realisation that an assessment authority is to conduct a review of the national curriculum. The tests therefore seem entirely redundant. Much of that misery could have been avoided if the powers that be—by which I mean politicians but also academics and curriculum developers—had listened to teachers.
  However, it is an ill wind that blows no one any good. One truly progressive element of the national curriculum was knowledge about language. At the school at which I taught, we used that element as an opportunity for collaboration between the English and Welsh departments in the construction of a two-week teaching module based on a pupil's experience of bilingualism. We studied dialect and accent, the relationship between dialect and accent and prestige, and the relationship between prestige and language choice—the choice between English and Welsh in particular circumstances and in a particular context. We examined the influence of one language on another, and what governed that influence—whether it is the influence of English on Welsh, the influence of Welsh on English or the influence of French or Latin on both. We studied Welsh literature in English lessons, and English literature in Welsh lessons. The exercise was visibly fascinating for the pupils, and it was intended to be a regular component of the English and Welsh syllabus—which would have justified a considerable input of time and resources.
  A flexible curriculum should encompass just such arrangements; but we have now been told that knowledge of language is to be replaced by the confident use of standard English. In other words, the use of standard English is to replace a creative, scope-giving element. We are told that, in England at least, seven-year-old pupils' English is to be corrected if it does not conform to the standard. It is difficult to imagine a more effective way of undermining fluency, stunting the growth of linguistic competence and damaging the interactive relationship between language and learning.
  That does not apply to Wales, thank goodness, unless the recommendations of the Curriculum Council for Wales are overridden. I hope that that will not happen. I urge the Secretary of State to read the CCW's explanatory note about standard English—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) has taught English. I must confess that I have not done so myself, although, before going up to university, I taught mathematics and physics for a year in a secondary school. Moreover, while studying for my doctorate before disappearing to the university of Southern California, I was a tutor for London university masters degree students, teaching binomial techniques in economic forecasting. That only goes to prove—to me, at least—that any form of economic forecasting is not worth the paper on which it is written. I am told, however, that this is an education debate, not a Treasury debate.
  250
  I want to say something about the teaching of English—not because I was a teacher for a year, albeit not an English teacher, but on the basis of my experience as an employer. Nigel de Gruchy, general secretary of a union with a rather unwieldy name—the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers—said:
  "Even Stalin did not force standard Russian down his subjects' throats."
  That, incidentally, demonstrates an appalling lack of knowledge of the USSR. Because of its vast size and the lack of communication, there was no standard Russian, as is still the case; but I would not expect Nigel de Gruchy to know that. There was no democratic tradition, no standard Russian grammar, no promotion based on merit and no internal or external market in the old Soviet Union.
  Last night, I read Mr. de Gruchy's entry in "Who's Who". He lists his hobbies as golf, cricket, football, music, opera, France, Spain and—wait for it—literature. Mr. de Gruchy has been a teacher and a trade unionist for most of his life. That, to me, rather sums up the naivety of his comments about what should and should not be taught in schools. What I cannot forgive him, however, is his elitism, which implicitly states, "I will enjoy literature to the full, having had the benefit of an education at De La Salle college in Jersey"—he might care to admit that—"and degrees from the universities of Reading, London and Paris". He does not want others to enjoy the same benefits of a good education.
  I like quoting Dr. Johnson, because he was born and educated in the great cathedral city of Lichfield, which I have the honour to represent. Dr. Johnson said:
  "Language is the Pedigree of Nations."
  That is true.
  Mr. Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman quote the next phrase?
  Mr. Fabricant: I remember from my university studies that, according to a principle in social psychology, "language is the font of a nation's culture". I consider it tremendously important how the language is spoken.
  Only last year, Nigel de Gruchy said in The Independent that to include Shakespeare in English tests was
  "fine for grammar school kids, but boring and irrelevant for a good half of pupils."
  That says little for de Gruchy's faith in the ability of either pupils or teachers. Perhaps he opposes testing for the same reason; it is very sad.
  The proposed reading lists in the national curriculum are not extensive. In his "Epistulae ad Lucilium", Seneca says of books:
  "It is the quality rather than the quantity that matters; a limited list of reading benefits; a varied assortment serves only for delight".
  How appropriate that quotation is.
  Nigel de Gruchy has something in common with Stalin: neither has lived in the real world. I must admit that I have something in common with Stalin—I am sure that you will find that hard to believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker—in that I share his love of vino krasna Gruzinska, Georgian red wine. It is excellent and I hope that it will be introduced in the Palace of Westminster.
  As others have pointed out, last year's pilot tests for 14-year-olds revealed that one in three children had the reading and writing ability of nine to 11-year-olds. Moreover—this has not yet been pointed out—one in 20 was shown to have the ability of seven-year-olds. That was revealed by testing. What does Labour fear so much? Are

  251
  Labour Members so frightened of exposing the weaknesses that exist in some schools? There is no room for complacency; Nigel de Gruchy had better begin to accept that and so should the Labour party.
  Before I was a Member of Parliament, I had to employ engineers and other staff. For 10 or 11 years, I worked in the real world. I was not a special adviser and I have never worked for Conservative central office, but I was involved in the manufacturing industry. We had to employ engineers and staff who spoke coherent English.
  The point is that English is an international language. The French try to preserve English, because French is almost a minority language in the world now, while English is an international language. It is essential that when our salesmen or engineers go abroad they speak coherent English: it is no good speaking a form of dialect English that is not understandable in Nairobi, Kampala, Java, Moscow; Reykjavik or Sao Paulo, all of which I have visited. Language is there for the purpose of communication.
  I have a weakness: I cannot eat with a fork in my right hand and a knife in my left, although I know that I should do so. I also know that when I eat a bowl of soup I should hold the plate away from myself. My point is that having table manners gives me the confidence to eat with my peers. Similarly, I believe that knowing the rules of grammar gives people the confidence to communicate—whether they are selling engineering products or communicating ideas. My one criticism of the present schooling system is that, sadly, students aged 15 or 16 are still asked to specialise in the sciences or the arts for their A-levels. My hon. Friend the Minister is aware of my views on AS-levels.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: But he is not listening to you, is he?
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman says that my hon. Friend does not listen to me, but I have always found that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Education are the most listening and caring of people. They do not believe that the curriculum should be written in tablets of stone. My God, if it were up to the Opposition Front Bench, a science curriculum would be taught that ranged from the Venerable Bede to Newton and was never changed. The all-important point is that, as circumstances change, the curriculum changes.
  There are those who argue that punctuation and grammatical structures are unimportant—that language is dynamic and ever-changing. That is true. There are those who argue that regional dialects and regional words have their place. That is also true. There is a time and place for colloquial English. Rousseau said that accent is the soul of a language and gives feeling and truth to it. Nigel de Gruchy and others of his ilk may sneer at the goal of testing and at the goal of teaching proper pronunciation and grammar, but Nigel de Gruchy has never had to employ anyone. He has never actually worked or lived in the commercial world.
  Sadly, both in this debate on education and in other debates, the Opposition display a naivety which comes from never having lived in the real world and from prescribing for their children that which is not for the
  252
  benefit of the nation for the nation's children, but which is self-seeking and self-serving—the socialist claptrap and dogma that we hear every day when we come here.
  8.1 pm
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate, in which we are dealing with major issues that directly affect many pupils and parents in my constituency. I have to declare an interest, in that I, too, have been a member of the NUT and the NAS/UWT. Like the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), I was a teacher of English. It is strange that the only two people who have spoken so far in the debate who at one time were teachers of English come from countries beyond England's borders.
  I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). As someone who claimed to be a mathematician, I was struck by the fact that he displayed so little logic in his speech. I was more interested, though, in the Secretary of State's speech and wondered whether he would pass the tests that he is so eager that our young people should take. I have very little hope for him, despite the fact that I had low expectations of him in the first place.
  Let us consider some of the Secretary of State's phraseology. He said that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) blew it when she made her speech. If, however, the Secretary of State were to pass key stage 3 in English, which I use because that is probably closer to his chronological age than key stage 1 or key stage 2, he would have to be able to convey complex ideas and views in clear, fluent, standard English that suited the particular listeners and circumstances and that included the correct use of a wide vocabulary, and he would have to display the ability to retain his listeners' interest through the originality and clarity of the ideas conveyed. I found nothing terribly original in what the Secretary of State said. His clarity left a great deal to be desired. Indeed, he was incapable of answering the questions put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris). It seems to me that he would not survive key stage 3.
  Perhaps, therefore, we should consider key stage 2. At that stage, the Secretary of State would need to be able to offer a fluent and well-organised account of an experience or activity and be able to convey information and ideas accurately, giving reasoned, sustained and detailed accounts of activities and viewpoints. The Secretary of State would have to learn to solve problems by defining the nature of the difficulty and suggesting solutions. Although he accused Opposition Members of ranting, he gave a very good example of exactly that. When pressed to do so, again and again he refused to admit that one way to resolve this difficult problem in which he finds himself would be to ballot parents on whether they would allow their children to take this test, in exactly the same way as parents in Scotland can make choices about whether their children should take the test. It appears that the Secretary of State would also fail at key stage 2.
  As for key stage I, the Secretary of State should be able to give simple, audible explanations—we cannot blame him entirely for the fact that the microphone was switched off for a short time during his speech—narratives and descriptions. He should also learn to listen attentively to

  253
  others and make thoughtful comments. Given the response from parents, governors, teachers' unions and professionals, it is clear that the Secretary of State is incapable of listening attentively to others. He has been singularly unable to make thoughtful comments, since he referred to organisations such as the National Parents Association as neanderthal and to professional teachers, whom he constantly tells us he respects, as Luddites.
  There we have it. The Secretary of State, the Dan Quayle of the Conservative party, who does not know whether an "e" should be in a word or out of a word, would hardly be considered to be the best boy in the class after today's performance. On reflection, the Secretary of State may be thankful that teachers will not be testing him on key stage 3 and his ability and peformance today.
  Teachers in Lewisham have written to me and my colleagues regarding their fears about testing. For example, the teachers at Catford county girls school say that they believe that the tests are unsound—that the format of the tests has been changed frequently without teacher consultation and that the English standard assessment tasks
  "have not had an adequate full-scale national pilot."
  Those are the people who, every day of the week, are teaching children. They know best what should happen in their classrooms.
  The head teacher of a school in Croydon, who is one of my constituents, said:
  "Apart from the intellectual absurdity of a set book list for Year 9 (both in principle and in content), it is not good enough for SEAC to send out a booklet containing many unanswered questions, on the last day of November, just to adhere to the published timetable.
  It is clear to us, at the chalkface, that the whole operation is behind schedule, rushed, and subject to change. This is not the way to run a National Curriculum or to communicate with teachers who have the unenviable responsibility of running the operation. It would be better to postpone it for one year."
  Another head of English asked me to ask a question in the House about where the money will come from to pay for all the glossies that are being put out by the Department and SEAC to deal with key stage 3. The answer that I received from the Minister was that it was costing an estimated £1·5 million to publish the glossy magazines dealing with key stage 3 English—yet still we have parents, teachers and governors who say that the system will not work.
  Parents in my constituency have written to me. Mrs. Corran wrote:
  "Teachers' coursework assessment at the end of this year can provide a reliable form of assessment, as it has done at GCSE level for the past few years,"
  Mrs. Hamilton wrote not only that the tests were wrong but that there should be a pilot before compulsory testing was introduced. Parents and teachers have written saying that they are concerned about the way in which the tests are being conducted.
  The governors of schools in my constituency have written saying the same. Those of Northbrook Church of England school wrote to the Secretary of State on 31 March. I do not know whether they have received a reply yet; I certainly have not seen a copy of one.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: It takes five months.
  Mrs. Prentice: My hon. Friend tells me that it takes five months to receive a reply—and even then we cannot guarantee that the spelling will be correct.
  The governors of Northbrook school wrote that the governing body had
  "assiduously undertaken its duties in implementing the 1988 Education Act and associated legislation. The governors have found much to commend in the underlying principles of the curriculum legislation—but much wanting in the statutory requirements. We are particularly concerned at the inappropriate nature of much of the Key Stage 3 assessment and of its demands on teacher time. We wish to draw your attention to the unacceptably high work load being demanded of teachers and to the derisory pay award made this year in the light of the above demands."
  That is not the teachers talking, but the governors—the people who are attempting to run their schools as efficiently and effectively as possible. They feel that they cannot do their job properly because they know that the colleagues whom they have appointed to do the job in the classroom cannot do that job properly.
  I shall touch upon one or two other matters that have been raised in the debate. We all understand now that nursery education is the key—if I may use that word—to ensuring that people do well later in their educational lives. In Labour authorities in London we have the highest number of three and four-year-olds in nursery schools and classes. But many boroughs are now having to cut places, funding staffing and support services to meet Government capping limits and to bring their funding more closely into line with the standard spending assessments, in anticipation of the new schools funding methodology.
  Yet again the Government tell us that they are committed to nursery education, yet they do nothing about it. In fact, they act in such a way as to ensure that people who want to provide nursery education cannot possibly do so. You might be shocked to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in the 14 years since the Government took office, only one extra child in every 100 in London will get a nursery place, despite the Government's so-called respect for education and for our young people.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury mentioned another matter that especially concerns those of us who represent London constituencies—Home Office funding for section 11. That funding greatly affects the teaching of English in our schools and it has been estimated that reductions in Home Office section 11 grants represent a loss to London of £15 million for 1994–95 and £19 million for 1995–96. Those cuts will cause a decline in language support services, which will lead to a decline in levels of achievement for all pupils. It will disadvantage some groups and the impact will be felt by all.
  Section 11 funding supports classes in English for speakers of other languages. That is not a national curriculum subject, so it cannot be adequately supported by mainstream staffing levels. My own borough of Lewisham has expressed concern that, where section 11 funded staff are already spread across several classes, pupil-teacher ratios could worsen to unworkable levels.
  We are concerned that cuts in Government support are further destabilising the education system and reducing local education authorities' capacity to implement local and central Government policy. Frequent change in Government education policies is having an enormously damaging effect on London's schools. We need stability so that we can create a climate in which effective learning can

  255
  take place and regular monitoring can provide opportunities for real evaluation of the need for appropriate change. The words of Mick Levens, the head of English at Forest Hill school, sum up our concerns about Government policy:
  "Badly written, poorly researched tests which look at a tiny amount of what a student can do and which will take preference over teacher's assessment, (which would be based on four lessons a week for three years), will be useless and have the potential to do lasting damage. The government will have several goes at getting it right but this time will not come again for our students who deserve much, much better than this."
  My hon. Friends and I can only agree with those sentiments.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. James Pawsey: I know the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) to be a formidable member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and I have seen her tackling witnesses. In full flight she is remarkable, and I pay tribute to her. Like the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), she raised the issue of nursery education, and I do not believe that what she said was entirely right.
  My hon. Friends will wish to know that the Government have provided about £150 million in additional funding for nursery education this year. That is a substantial sum. More than 90 per cent. of children in the United Kingdom now enjoy some form of pre-school provision; 175,000 more children aged under five attended maintained schools in England in 1991 than in 1979. Those are the facts. I appreciate the importance of nursery education, and my right hon. and hon. Friends in government appreciate it too. The Government have done much to support pre-school education.
  My hon. Friends and I should be grateful to the Opposition for providing us with their parliamentary time in which to expose their lack of policies. This debate, like so many others that have preceded it, is about our ideas and our agenda. We have heard from the Opposition the same ritual calls for more money, and more power for the trade unions. Opposition Members continue to oppose tests, excellence and, of course, grant-maintained status. They have no constructive policy, and they would not recognise one if it sprang from the Dispatch Box. Labour is travelling light, with no new ideas, only the same tired discredited dogma.
  I have to say—
  Mr. Enright: The hon. Gentleman does not have to say it, but he will say it anyway.
  Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Member is right. I shall indeed say it, and I shall refer to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) in due course; let him be patient.
  I have said before in the House that the national curriculum is too prescriptive. There is little doubt that the tests are indeed too complex. Both those aspects should be modified; I do not believe that there is a major dispute between the two sides of the House on those two general points.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in his admirable speech, acknowledged the fact that some change is necessary. He said that a wide-ranging review
  256
  would be undertaken by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority under the chairmanship of Sir Ron Dearing. I have no doubt that following that review the national curriculum and the tests will be substantially amended. I found it interesting, as I am sure my hon. Friends did, that Sir Ron Dearing said two weeks ago that the hands-on experience that will be gained from this year's tests will be invaluable in deciding the format of the new tests for schools in the next academic year. He repeated that point in the weekend press. He clearly sees the benefit to the nation's children of continuing the present testing process.
  I have no doubt that the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority will, with the experience that is now being built up, produce an entirely acceptable national curriculum and testing system which will meet the requirements of teachers, pupils and parents. It will be simpler and easier to implement, but sufficiently rigorous to test and to assess children so that subject weaknesses, when identified, can be remedied.
  I am concerned—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) made this point during his admirable speech—about some of the statements and comments that we have heard from teacher trade unions at recent conferences. I have long argued in the House that the majority of teachers are dedicated both to their profession and to the children in their charge. I have said for many years in the House that teachers should be adequately remunerated. I am pleased that, as a result of efforts by my right hon. and hon. Friends, the average salary for teachers is now substantially in excess of £20,000 a year. Most teachers earn their pay.
  However, I regret certain of the recent statements made by teachers at conferences and I deeply deplore the possibility of a boycott of all tests. That will cause the greatest distress and worry to parents because they know that it will damage their children's education. Children have been preparing for the tests, and for them now to be abandoned would be most frustrating.
  The National Union of Teachers has announced that it will ballot its members on whether to boycott all national curriculum tests both this year and next. That is a remarkable decision given the setting up of the SCAA. It is apparent that the NUT is prepared to condemn the SCAA before it has even seen its recommendations. That is not a responsible position for any trade union to adopt.
  The NUT boycott would include all existing tests which the independent inspectorate says are raising standards. It is clear that the NUT wants confrontation and not improvement. It opposes any reform because it wants to stay in some 1960s time warp and to return to the permissive and trendy methods that caused the problems in the first place. It wants to go back to the discredited ideas that caused Jim Callaghan to start the great debate on quality and standards in the nation's schools. That point was touched on by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today.
  The NUT's attitude was best summed up by its general secretary saying that he was
  "delighted to receive a letter from the Prime Minister saying he found the union troublesome."
  He then said:
  "We will continue to be troublesome for some time".
  I suspect—I think that some of my hon. Friends will join me in this belief—that Mr. McAvoy is concerned more

  257
  with his union's macho image and with his falling membership than he is with the education of the nation's children.
  My fears grew when a teacher at the same NUT conference said:
  "Testing is the link in the chain. If we break it the whole Conservative education policy goes down the tubes."
  Another delegate at the conference said:
  "This is not the end of the campaign, it is the beginning, a springboard to fight the Tories on all the other issues "
  There we have it. It is out in the open. The argument is not about testing and it is not about educating the nation's children. It is not about education at all. It is about taking on the democratically elected Government of the United Kingdom.
  I hope that parents saw on television the teachers' conferences which showed, as no words of mine can show, why a national curriculum and testing system must be in place. I wonder what the majority of hard-working, conscientious teachers felt when they heard the statements made by some of their militant colleagues who are pursuing not so much a classroom dispute, but more a class war.
  There are those who mistakenly believe that the Government will cave in to pressure. They are wrong. When the well-being of the nation's children is at stake, there will be no U-turn by my right hon. and hon. Friends in this Administration.
  I said at the beginning of my remarks that I understood teachers' frustrations. They naturally want to get on with the job of teaching the nation's children. Teachers well understand the importance of tests, but they resent the amount of time being demanded by the current tests. I have some sympathy with that view. That is why my right hon. Friend is instituting his far-ranging review which will substantially improve the testing system.
  I remind the House that not every trade union leader wants the disruption of this year's tests. I read again the comments made by the general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, the union of the hon. Member for Hemsworth. I was interested to hear him describe it as the LTA, and I wondered—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): It was dyslexia.
  Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend accuses the hon. Gentleman of having dyslexia. Having heard him in full flow, I do not believe that he suffers from dyslexia. He may have shortcomings, but dyslexia is not one of them.
  I return to the remarks made by Mr. Smith, the general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, and I quote his words, which make very good reading. He said:
  "Information about examination results is here to stay. Parents are entitled to information about the schools their children attend."
  Commenting on my right hon. Friend's commendable decision not to publish the results of this year's English tests for 14-year-olds, Mr. Smith said:
  "If English teachers genuinely think the tests are flawed they now have the opportunity to prove it and co-operate in improving them."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted to have the support of my hon. Friends. I will give them even more to cheer about. Mr. Smith then said:
  "If they reject that chance, was the concern ever really professional at all?"
  258
  Hon. Members should remember that Mr. Smith is the general secretary of one of the principal trade unions, so his viewpoint is important. Parents will naturally give substantial weight to what he says, especially as the overwhelming majority of the nation's parents agree with what he has said.
  It is worth while recalling that my right hon. Friend has met the trade unions on 11 occasions. During his first year—this point came out in his excellent speech—
  Mr. Enright: The hon. Gentleman has said that several times.
  Mr. Pawsey: I will say it three more times because it is worth saying again. My right hon. Friend is a caring Secretary of State who wishes to improve the quality and the standard of state education in which his child is being educated. Opposition Members should always remember that point.
  During his first year, the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues visited more than 110 schools. As a result of what they learnt from those visits, my right hon. Friend has made two substantial concessions.
  Mr. Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pawsey: I am sorry. I would normally give way to the hon. Gentleman, but, sadly, many of my hon. Friends wish to make important speeches. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way.
  The first point made by the general secretary of the ATL was that the test results would not be published. The second concession made by my right hon. Friend was to set up the SCAA to review the tests. My right hon. Friend has sought to meet the concern of teachers and the aspirations of parents. He has been successful in his aims.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Andrew Miller: As a Member who represents a constituency in the north-west of England, I am not prepared to see children in some parts of the country having to settle for second class education. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I welcome that response from Conservative Members because they acknowledge the words of their leader in the foreword to the "Choice and Diversity" document. I only hope that the Minister remembers that point when people from Cheshire put a logical case to him about the mathematical imbalance of the standard spending assessment as it affects north-west shire counties when we meet in the near future.
  I come to this debate not as an expert educationist or an experienced teacher but as a parent of a child who is going through the secondary system—a key stage 3 pupil—and as someone who cares deeply for the children in my constituency of Ellesmere Port and Neston. A wide range of views has been expressed to me by teachers in the constituency.
  I wrote at length to Baroness Blatch in mid-February and got a response in April. I was pleased to read in one paragraph:
  "We are not insensitive or unaware of the problems being faced by schools. We are always willing to listen to the informed views of those on the ground. Your points will be treated in this light."
  I hope that the Minister will listen to my points about a number of aspects.
  Early in her letter, Baroness Blatch says:

  259
  "As you may be aware, there has also been recent concern about the standard of technology education".
  As a member of the Information Committee—I can only assume that I was put on that Committee because I have some expertise in the field—I read that sentence with great interest. I also read with great interest the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on grant-maintained schools in England which was published only a few days ago. The report showed that there is an extreme weakness on the part of the Department for Education in information technology.
  In the overall conclusions, three of the four paragraphs—paragraphs 31 to 34 inclusive—criticise the way in which grant-maintained schools, in their activities of running the school administration, fail on information technology. That comes as no surprise because we know that the Department, in its role as the body responsible for education, fails properly to develop information technology in the classroom.
  There is an extraordinary statement in the key stage 3 document. It is bizarre. Many of the teachers to whom I have spoken, who are developing information technology in the classroom, also found the statement bizarre. At the end of what, on the face of it, is a well-structured block in the 1993 element, it says:
  "The information technology test will be a one hour written test, taken simultaneously by all pupils under controlled conditions. It will take place at 11.30 am on Monday 14th June. Four tiers will be provided covering levels 1–4, 3–6, 5–8 and 7–10. All questions in the test will be compulsory."
  Introducing people to information technology is a difficult task in the House, so perhaps some lessons can be learnt from teachers who are dealing with people who are slightly faster on the up-take than perhaps we are. It has been the experience of all participants that the practical hands-on element is especially important. A number of teachers have told me that, in the nine weeks, they have had to draw pupils away from the hands-on experience five weeks into the course. That seems to be an entirely daft way of teaching information technology.
  The information technology course is not designed to replace the skills which have been taught in English, mathematics or physics: it is an information technology unit. The unit needs to be reviewed most carefully. I urge the Secretary of State to undertake such a review in the forthcoming weeks and months. To draw pupils away from the hands-on experience is like telling driving students that in the future they will simply be tested on the highway code and they can learn the practical hands-on bits later. That is the wrong approach, and I hope that the Secretary of State will take that in the spirit in which it is intended.
  Another aspect of technology relates to design and technology—many of us used to call it woodwork and cookery. Some interesting concepts are being developed in that unit. The Secretary of State must question whether the notion that the continuous process from original thought through to manufacture and evolution, which in itself is extremely valuable, does not overly burden teachers who in the past would have spent more time teaching pupils about the hands-on skills of penmanship or mixing ingredients or using hand tools in the various components of the tests.
  260
  It is interesting to note that in practical terms—I have come across such situations and, indeed, this happened to my daughter—the complications facing teachers this year have resulted in pupils being entered into the wrong tiers for the testing process. When it was eventually recognised that pupils could have been entered into a higher tier, it was too late because there was no classroom time remaining.
  Let me refer to the English part of the debate. I must acknowledge that, like the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), I also failed the 11-plus test. [Interruption.] I do not want to hear any comments from Members on the Government Front Bench. We also have whiskers in common. I studied English at school. Perhaps I did not study it as well as some of the great scholars around me, but I learnt to appreciate wonderful literature, especially the works of Shakespeare.
  The difference between the process of education now and the process that prevailed then is that then it was common practice for pupils to be taken regularly to see Shakespeare live to learn about it, feel it and enjoy it. I am afraid to say that that happens all too infrequently today. When it does, it requires a parental payment which is prohibitive to people in the poorer parts of our community. If the Secretary of State genuinely intends to make the process of education open to all parts of the community, he must address that point more seriously. It would be a tragedy if literature and the arts were left to an elite few in our community.
  A broader brush approach has been taken tonight on matters which have impacted on us as a result of the Education Bill. Many hon. Members will have seen a letter from the director of Music for Youth in the past few days. He said:
  "The Education Bill will, I believe, bring about a diminution in the quality and range of this aspect of music teaching in our schools. Whilst I am certain this is not the intention of the Bill, it will be one of its side effects."
  In parallel with my comments about the theatre, I genuinely believe that those risks face us. I urge the Secretary of State in undertaking the review to examine them most carefully. If not, one might be tempted to quote "The Merchant of Venice". The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) indulged in many literary quotes, so why shouldn't I?
  "The man that hath no music in himself,
  Nor is mov'd with concord of sweet sounds,
  Is fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils;
  The motions of his spirit are as dull as night,
  And his affections dark as Erebus:
  Let no such man be trusted".
  I invite the Secretary of State to think most carefully about his handling of the debate.
  Mr. Dowd: How does my hon. Friend think that the Secretary of State got where he is?
  Mr. Miller: I leave that for the House to decide.
  I conclude by inviting the Secretary of State to examine the scale of changes that he is imposing on teachers and head teachers in the system. The scale of the changes is having an enormous impact on the ability of schools to deal with them in a cohesive manner. There are simply too many changes and they are happening too quickly.
  One of the schools in my constituency was referred to in Baroness Blatch's letter. She said that it had given helpful and thoughtful comments. I asked it to give me a list of documents that it has received recently. It produced

  261
  a list of documents received since September 1992. The teachers identified 19 major documents within half an hour this morning. No one undertook a detailed search for every last one. The 19 documents began with the White Paper "Choice and Diversity" in August and went through to the most recent English anthology, which it received in February. Over and above that, it received 17 glossy books on assessment arrangements for key stage 3.
  I say in all honesty to the Secretary of State that every school in my constituency with which I have had contact and discussed the impact of the changes with staff, teachers, head teachers, parents and governors has told me that the change is happening too quickly, that it is not being controlled and that some fresh thought needs to be given to how the schools are supposed to introduce the changes and resource them in terms of professional staff time.
  I suppose that a step in the right direction was taken when the statement was made that English and technology results would not be included in the schools performance tables until 1994. I guess that for that we can be grateful. But again, lessons could have been learnt from mathematics and science in the past year. No one is against change in education. No one is against ensuring that every pupil has the best chance that we can offer as a society. But I urge the Secretary of State to listen carefully to the remarks that have been made in the debate. Some fundamental changes could take place for the benefit of the consumer—the pupil—with some significant changes on the Secretary of State's part. He must take a step back and rethink his position.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) down his literary path. I shall return to the not very poetic terms of the motion, which says that
  "the current difficulties and instability associated with Key Stage testing are caused by the Secretary of State".
  That betrays a great deal of flawed thinking. It has already been said that introducing the national curriculum and associated tests is by its very nature a complex exercise. It would be surprising if adjustments did not have to be made and we did not have to rethink as we went along in order to get it right. We have attempted the task over very few years, so, of necessity, changes and amendments will have to be made. That cannot be said to be the fault of the current Secretary of State.
  When one boils it down, the real problem that has brought us to the difficulties that we face in our schools stem from key stage 3 tests in English and technology. I do not know what the Labour party is about in the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nor does it."] I do not know whether the motion is simply intended to make mischief. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) referred to guinea pigs twice in her speech and also used the term on Radio 4 this morning. She also accused the Government of confrontation.
  However, anything new that is tried in schools, whoever inspires it, is bound to involve the children on the receiving end in those schools being guinea pigs. I do not see why the term should be pejorative and why it should be used against the Government who introduced those reforms. Clearly, the pupils on the receiving end of those reforms are the first to experience them. Nor do we confront
  262
  schools if we present new ideas. The nation has willed us to make changes because it shares our perception that education standards are not as good as they should be.
  The hon. Member for Dewsbury dissimulated considerably about what she meant by tests. The sentence in the Labour motion which I quoted refers to key stage testing, but not to any part of it. Only later in the motion are key stage 3 tests in English and technology referred to specifically. Throughout her speech the hon. Lady did not distinguish between key stage tests. So she appeared to join in the condemnation of the tests as a whole which several of the teaching unions have expressed. She did not make her position clear. I hope that the country will take note of her apparent sweeping condemnation of the reforms that are being attempted.
  What is the real position? There are four strands to the argument. There is the question of key stage 3 tests in English and technology. There is the question of tests as a whole. There is the question of the use to which tests are put. And then there is a general assault on Government policy.
  I do not believe that the broad mass of professional teachers in this country are pursuing a political agenda. Some are—my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) referred to that—and the nation heard some of the contributions to the conference of the National Union of Teachers. Certainly, lurking in the background there is a political campaign being fought, but that is not of interest to the vast mass of teachers, certainly not in my constituency.
  We should acknowledge that there is misgiving about league tables and the use to which tests are put. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) made the point that of course these things are there as a measure of performance of schools, and why should they not be? But, fair enough, that is an area of discussion and controversy and we must recognise that not all teachers are happy about it.
  It is more difficult to establish whether people, professionals or other, are for or against tests as such. We heard conflicting remarks from the hon. Member for Dewsbury. Was she or was she not for them, because she seemed to be in favour of her kind of tests but not in favour of anybody else's? However, it seems to me that these tests have been proceeding perfectly well, although not, perhaps, in the literal sense of "perfectly". We have made good progress with the implementation of the tests for seven-year-olds. There were difficulties to start with, but they have been bedding down quite well and we have been gaining valuable information from them. The trial of the 11-year-old tests is proceeding satisfactorily, as I understand it. The tests at key stage 3 in maths and science are also proceeding reasonably well. It is the opinion of one of the schools in my constituency that the tests will be a valid and reliable indicator of pupils' achievements towards the national curriculum. So I do not believe that the debate is about maths and science at key stage 3.
  We come back to English and technology at key stage 3. We should acknowledge that there is considerable misgiving among many teachers about the content of these two subject tests.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made two important concessions in this respect. Early in February I had a group of people from one of the schools in my constituency to see me; it was made up of governors and senior staff. They said that, if the Secretary of State

  263
  could be persuaded that the tests might go ahead this year, but the results should not be published, it would be a reasonable compromise. It was a compromise that they urged on me.
  Well, without particularly listening to me my right hon. Friend, on 19 February, made that very concession. I do not believe that that group of governors and teachers was unique, so clearly there are many governors and teachers who believe that the Secretary of State made the right gesture on that occasion. He has gone further than that and said that there should be a review of the national curriculum and the content of these tests for a future year.
  I believe that those two gestures on the part of the Secretary of State deserve a degree of reciprocity by the teachers, particularly when reinforced by the statement of Sir Ron Dearing, who is to conduct the review of these tests, that the evidence that he believes that he will get will be valuable in determining what happens in the future. What is now required is a step back, not by the Government, but by the teachers.
  The teachers would, I believe, cut a more impressive figure with parents if they carefully distinguished their position. If they said to parents throughout the country that they believed in the national curriculum, subject to discussion about its future evolution, that they believed in tests, subject to discussion on getting the context exactly right; that they were quite happy to proceed with the tests for seven-year-olds and the trial of 11-year-old tests, and to pursue the maths and science at key stage 3—which apparently there is evidence to show is supported by the teaching profession—they might sound more credible on the subject of English and technology. It might be easier for us then to meet them on that particular point, which is clearly one of real and acknowledged difficulty.
  We have said that there will be a review, so the only question is whether the tests should go ahead this year as a source of evidence for next year. Surely that is not a great chasm for teachers to jump. It would be a worthwhile gesture in response to the Secretary of State to convince all the parents in the country that teachers are as committed as anyone else to the national curriculum and a system of tests with it. I believe that, if teachers can be satisfied that my right hon. Friend is genuine in his desire to hear their views on the correction of the content of English and technology at key stage 3, and for them to be involved, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) suggests, that could be a way forward that would ensure that there was peace and stability in our schools this summer.
  8.54 pm
  Dr. Tony Wright: I get more depressed in the House listening to debates on education than on anything else. I get depressed on many other things, too, but I get depressed on education in particular. This debate has typified what happens at every education question time. It fills me with total dismay about what is happening to the education system in this country.
  A debate such as this should be an occasion for celebration. When the British House of Commons discusses the education system, it should be an occasion to celebrate it, to laud it, to talk—as some of my hon. Friends tried to—about what education is all about, its excitement,
  264
  the joys of discovery and the vision that it brings. We hear nothing of this. We hear only about the machinery, the mechanics. We have lost sight completely of what we should really be talking about. I hope that the point that we have reached now is a warning to us that we can no longer go on in this way.
  I am not talking only to the Conservative party; I am talking to us all. If we go on talking in the way that we have been, we will be doing a massive and permanent disservice to the education system and to the children in it.
  We are all allowed a few autobiographical words, and perhaps I can say mine. I spent a lot of time in the middle and late 1980s when the education reforms of this Government were coming on stream, working with school governors and trying to arouse their enthusiasm about what might be possible. I have always been a great advocate of greater parental involvement in education. I had opposed the teaching unions when they were very resistant to involving parents in school government. I thought that I spoke for parents in this. Governors were excited about what was happening and so were parents. We wanted to see more power come to the school level, to empower parents. We believed in all that. We wanted to measure results, to drive up standards and to improve the standing of teachers.
  There I was trying to arouse their enthusiasm, but they also had worries—for instance, about the national curriculum. They asked if it would mean the nationalisation of the system. The answer was that it might, but assurances were being given that it would not be like that; it would just be a structure within which they could operate and explore, retaining the essence of what education was about. There were worries about the formula funding. Would it penalise certain schools against others? We were told that it would not.
  There were particular worries about the impact of testing. It used to be called assessment. We were told at that time that it would not be called testing as that would be to misunderstand its very nature; it would be called assessment and it was to be a servant of the curriculum. The worry was that the relationship would be turned round and the system would be driven by testing rather than by the curriculum. We were told that it was a false worry and that it would not be like that.
  We have now reached the pont where all those hopes and enthusiasms have been dissipated. I speak quite genuinely as someone who was enthusiastic about much of what was happening. Teachers are completely demoralised, parents are completely dismayed and governors are packing up in droves because the system has been kicked away from under them.
  We have to ask what went wrong, as something clearly has gone wrong, and how it could have been allowed to happen. My answer, and I believe it to be genuine, is that what has happened is the total politicisation of the system. What was originally an education agenda has turned out to be a political agenda for education. That was what went wrong. It is the only way to explain the history of those years.
  Why else were people put in to run the system found to be unacceptable and booted out? What happened in 1991 when the then Minister replaced Duncan Graham from the National Curriculum Council and Philip Halsey from the Schools Examination and Assessment Council with

  265
  someone who the Government thought would be okay, an oil executive who turned out not to be okay and had. to be sacked because he did not deliver the goods?
  The story continues with the curriculum committee being packed with people who were politically okay and often associated with the Centre for Policy Studies—that is the entry point into the system.
  Politicising the system destroys all confidence and trust in it among all those associated with it from teachers, who Conservative Members clearly do not like, to parents, governors and everyone else in the educational process. We have now reached crisis point. I take no pleasure in saying that. It is a defeat and a quite unnecessary one as it need never have happened.
  In the middle and late 1980s there was a consensus in the making that would have driven up education standards on a unified basis. The word used then was partnership. That has been totally destroyed. Hon. Members must remember Professor Brian Cox—the great "black papers" author. I agreed with much of what he said then. I felt that we had gone wrong in the primary sector, that teaching had slipped and that we needed more rigorous standards. Professor Cox, formerly chairman of the National Curriculum English Working Group, said earlier this month:
  "During the next few months the national curriculum in England and Wales may totally collapse. Great harm will be inflicted on children in state schools. Children in independent schools will find themselves at a considerable advantage, for their teachers are free to reject narrow and muddled national curriculum requirements."
  It is a system in crisis and chaos. Those are the words not of the Labour party, but of the friends of the Conservative party, the people who have tried to work the system and to believe in it. They are saying that we have reached a point of chaos and collapse.
  The question now is what on earth we do about it. I am against all boycotts. I am particularly against those people who boycott consensus, consultation and common sense. It is exactly that. The politicisation and the political agenda for education has produced the present crisis.
  I ask only this. Given the fact that we are doing an enormous disservice to the system and to everyone in it, the more I hear the political knockabout that is going on in debates such as this one, the more depressed I am about getting the chance to do anything about it unless we now decide seriously to stop playing politics with the system, with English, with history and above all with children. I should like the Minister to say—and I say this more in hope than expectation—that he has learnt all that and he is about to offer a new partnership that can stop all the nonsense that is going on at the moment.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Bob Dunn: I listened with great amazement to the speech of the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright). I have never heard such unmitigated drivel in my 14 years in the House. He said, "Stop playing politics with children" but that is what the Labour party has done for 30 years—it abolished the direct grant and grammar schools, it closed down good high schools, created neighbourhood schools and opposed the assisted places scheme. He forgets that we have been down this route before, to the same destination, time after time in education debates, whether to do with legislation or on a Supply day.
  266
  I have a strong suspicion that, when the shadow Cabinet comes to review today, it will regard it as rather a waste of time. It has been an empty day for the Opposition—their Benches have been empty and people have been dragooned in to speak at the last minute. A list of eminent Conservative speakers are down to follow me—and for that reason I will be brief.
  Labour Members have offered no new ideas but simply repeat the ideas of the 1960s, '70s, '80s, and '90s, all of which stem from the 1960s. I am sad beyond belief that, although in every other area of policy the Labour party has twisted, turned and turned again to fashion a policy for the electorate, in this area of education it has not changed one atom in 40 years. That is why I am surprised that the Labour party has the nerve to choose this subject for debate on a Supply day. How bogus; what cant; what hypocrisy.
  It all stems from the "great debate" of the noble Lord Callaghan. He started that debate for no other reason than the pressure from the Conservative party at the time and the success of the black papers written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). We had the great Ruskin college speech, and then we had nothing. We had nothing for years, yet we had anarchy in our schools, the winter of discontent, and ever since then the bleating of the Labour party.
  I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) was bizarre—there is no other word to describe it. Where is she? She should be here listening to me. It was immensely bizarre. She did not answer questions. I thought it was just me who thought that she did not answer questions—that it was some sort of cultural or psychological block—and then I discovered an eminent article in the Evening Standard of 15 April entitled "How Mrs. Ann Taylor avoided the question." She ought to have read it. Perhaps she knows about it. If she does not, the new custom is not to tell people across the Floor of the House but to send it to them after the debate in an envelope. Perhaps she will do the same, if she can find the stamps, and tell us, after the event, what she might have said if she had said it.
  What hypocrisy we have from the Labour party these days. At one time, it stood for something. In the 1950s, it stood for something; when Eric Heller was here, it stood for something. It now stands for nothing. It is bland, boring and futile.
  The Labour party talks about stability. What about the instability that it would cause to those districts in Kent where we enjoy grammar schools, city technology colleges and high schools? What about playing politics with the children of Kent and other areas where parents vote, year after year, to retain a selective system of secondary education? The Labour party says we should have a referendum or a ballot in schools. It can have a ballot any time it likes in Dartford on selective schools. It will be won time and time again by those who believe that selective education is a good thing for Kent.
  In the debate on 3 March I asked the hon. Member for Dewsbury:
  "If the hon. Lady was Secretary of State for Education and wanted to close grammar schools in my constituency of Dartford, and if the people of Dartford voted in a referendum not to have those schools closed, what would she do? Would she keep them open or close them?"—[Official Report, 3 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 385.]
  What was the answer? There was no answer. The traditional practice of the Labour party is not to answer

  267
  questions. It refers only to the image makers—let us see if they are happy with what is proposed. I challenge the Labour party to come clean.
  We decided to take the route of the national curriculum not because we had lost faith in all local authorities, although we had in some, or because of some centre for policy study's notion, but because the great consensus of the past, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North referred, had collapsed. The secret garden of the curriculum had been invaded by the left—by the pursuit of gay studies, lesbian rights, anti-police, anti-business and anti-capitalist studies. We had to move in. We had to take action to rescue the nation's children from the left, many members of which are still sitting on the Opposition Benches.
  Labour Members talk about money. If money was everything, ILEA, which spent more than any other education authority in the country, would have come top in the examination results. In the event, it was top in expenditure and bottom in examination results. My goodness, I was glad when I abolished the ILEA.
  I urge my right hon. Friend to continue the pursuit of what he has started. We need to measure performance within the national curriculum. Only by testing can we evaluate the work that we have done in the interests of the nation's children. About 95 per cent. of the population educate their children in local authority or grant-maintained schools. We have a duty and obligation to make sure that we educate them to the best of our ability. I wish my right hon. Friend every success in his policies.
  9.11 pm
  Ms Helen Jackson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, because I am anxious to relate the motion, and particularly the elements that refer to the centralising nature of the Secretary of State's performance, to the way in which the whole issue of education is bubbling up in my constituency.
  There is great interest in the subject in Hillsborough now, because we are faced with the potential closure of five schools, four primary and one secondary. That threat brings home to the children, parents and teachers—and it certainly brings home to me, their representative here—just what a school means to all concerned in an area. My postbag has been overflowing with letters from constituents about those schools.
  To discover the reasoning behind the proposed closures, I questioned the Secretary of State. After all, he is responsible for setting the standards by which LEAs make the choices available to them. He must spell out the standard of quality that he expects schools to achieve. I have been extremely disappointed by his lack of response.
  I asked the right hon. Gentleman to say what standards he expects from LEAs faced with restructuring programmes at the schools in their areas. I expected him to tell me what he required of LEAs, for example, in the context of propping up their educational needs programmes. I expected him to spell out what LEAs should do to protect nursery places in their restructuring programmes and to detail the facilities, including books and equipment, that should be provided.
  268
  I did not receive any satisfactory answers from the Secretary of State. On one issue alone, that of special needs, he said that he was expecting an equal number of places to be provided in schools. He did not say when he expected that to be achieved. He did not even say whether there would be a gap of a few years.
  There is no requirement that nursery places should be protected at all costs. There is no requirement to provide books and equipment. Many of us have seen the provision of books and equipment become increasingly dependent on the financial wherewithal of the parents. In schools where parents can raise money to provide them, books and equipment are available. In schools where the parents do not have the necessary financial means, provision is increasingly difficult.
  The issue on which I have taken greatest exception to the non-reply from the Secretary of State is school size, and, more importantly, class size. When I have asked about the maximum class size for satisfactory education at primary and secondary level, the answer has been that there is no maximum size. If teachers are asked whether the number of children in their care makes a difference, they will say that of course it does. In Sheffield, the local authority has had good pupil-teacher ratios over the years. Therefore, it has been penalised, with a rounding down of standards under the Secretary of State. Demoralisation among professional teaching staff is significant, and will do nothing for the quality of education.
  Hon. Members have referred to their experience in education. When I was a teacher, I specialised in teaching children with special needs at infant, junior and secondary levels. I dealt particularly with children who were slower at learning to read than others in their age group. The point that came home to me strongly, particularly at secondary level with children who had failed constantly at junior and infant levels, was the need to raise their self expectation. To do that, it was crucial that they were not faced with rigid testing which categorised them from first to 30th in the class, because they would have been towards the bottom, year in, year out. Such children needed to be tested frequently in a sensitive way so that they could be offered encouragement continually.
  The same is true of teachers. They should be encouraged to care about the status of the profession. Understanding the contribution they can make to education policy is the core of creating a good education system.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) referred to the Ruskin college speech of Lord Callaghan when he was Prime Minister. I was present that day when Lady Williams, as she is now, was Secretary of State for Education. My hon. Friend will remember that that was towards the end of the period of office of the Labour Government. Since then, we have had 14 years of Conservative government. What have they done about the problems which Lord Callaghan cited?
  Ms Jackson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. It has been said that standards are low and we cannot be complacent. Of course we cannot, and we should be asking what has happened to the core elements of teaching, which would encourage the standards to rise. Instead, the heavy hand of centralisation has caused a rounding down of standards. What has happened to the

  269
  qualitative nature of teaching? There has been a continuous rounding down of the status of teaching and teachers in this country.
  If teachers are perpetually told that they are asking for too much money, should not be listened to, and know less about the curriculum and the process of teaching than the Secretary of State, it is no wonder that the core element of our education system has declined. I welcomed the approach taken by teachers over the Easter holiday, when they decided to make a stand for their profession. I feel profoundly that that will be to the benefit of the education system and the educational future of our children.
  I know that the Front-Bench speakers want to wind up, so I shall finish on the issue with which I started my speech: the intense concern felt by my constituents about school closures. The pupils in one of the primary schools in my constituency have sung a song and put it on tape. They asked me as their Member of Parliament and the councillors on the local council to play the tape in our cars as we drive around. I do not play it continuously and I shall not sing it now, but the final verse of the song goes something like this:
  "Dear Mrs Councillor"—
  it was addressed to the chair of the education committee—
  "it makes us sad
  When we think of the good education we've had,
  Though politics and money have had their say
  But it's our education you are throwing away."
  That reflects the feeling of the children in Wharncliffe Side primary school—[Interruption.] That is why we must treat today's debate seriously.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I must remind hon. Members that sedentary interventions are to be deplored.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I was interested to hear the contribution of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Jackson), who was one of a number of teachers who have participated in today's debate. I am an ex-teacher, and taught for 23 years before entering Parliament. I believe that today's debate has been a failure for the Opposition. The hon. Member for Hillsborough talked about attendance, but the attendance of Opposition Members has been appalling when one considers that this is supposed to be a major debate for them to put forward their education policies.
  I have sat through almost all the debate and heard virtually no new ideas or policies on education from Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Hillsborough, who I know is an ex-teacher, talked about complacency. There is nothing more complacent than the motion that the Opposition have tabled. My colleagues have explained why it is a complacent and destructive motion, and I have to say to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) that the Opposition exercise has failed and been disappointing in many ways.
  I was once a member of the ATL. I forgive the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), who unfortunately is not in his place, for forgetting that it is the ATL and thinking that it is the LTA, because it has changed its name four times during my professional career—I make no criticism of that. Various teachers' unions have been mentioned, and I should at this stage declare my interest in and connection and work with the Professional Association of Teachers.
  270
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) that many teachers are not in favour of industrial action or a boycott. I think that I am right in saying that one Opposition Member, the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), had the guts to speak out against the idea of a boycott. But the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have been rolled over into supporting industrial action and a boycott, and that is an abdication of their responsibility.
  The hon. Member for Dewsbury spoke a little about the background to the problems of the national curriculum and testing, and she was right to do so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has acknowledged the problems by announcing a review, but I do not share the hon. Lady's analysis. She has not given a correct analysis of the problem, nor has she provided a solution.
  However, there is concern, as several of my hon. Friends have confirmed, and as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, among responsible teachers and head teachers about the amount of bureaucracy in and the complexity of the national curriculum and testing. The one positive message that has come out of the teachers' Easter conferences took the form of a photograph, which some hon. Members will have seen, of a supermarket trolley loaded with documents on the national curriculum and testing.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House will share my concern, and the concern that has been expressed by others, at the amount of bureaucracy and complexity that has crept into the system. I know that my right hon. Friend recognises that, and that is why there is to be a review. However, I am convinced that the support of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen for a boycott is unwise, ill-advised and an abdication of their responsibility.
  My right hon. Friend was good enough to promote me to headmaster earlier, but I was proud, for 23 years, to be a classroom sixth form teacher. I was a supporter of those of my colleagues who, in their heart of hearts, know that in the teaching profession industrial action is never justified. I suspect that that is true of the majority of classroom teachers. Strike action is never justified. The idea of a boycott of testing on the curriculum is never justified, even though, as I have done, it is perfectly possible to criticise the system as it now is and support the Secretary of State in his declared intention to review it.
  The teaching profession is in many ways a secure profession. I support the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) who reminded us that teaching is not easy, that it can be stressful and tiring. It is also a responsible profession, so there is no justification for industrial action or strike action. That is why I support my hon. Friends and those Opposition Members who have had the guts to speak out against that attitude on the part of the Opposition.
  The thrust of the Government's education reforms has been successful. Devolution of responsibility to the schools, governors and head teachers is working out well. I know that from visiting schools in my constituency, when parents express appreciation of their increased choice. The Government's aim of achieving higher standards, which is the whole purpose of reforming the national curriculum—but of which the Opposition have lost sight—is popular, recognised and supported.

  271
  The introduction of a teachers' pay review body, which I wholeheartedly support, is another step towards helping the profession to be respected, professional and successful, and to achieve high standards.
  I support the Government's amendment. The debate has been a total failure for members of the Opposition Front Bench, and I am totally opposed to boycotting—even though one recognises the need for continual change and reform.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: The speeches by Conservative Members can be categorised under the heading of great myths of our time. Many of their remarks could not even be described as half truths. The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) bemoaned the closure of so many grammar schools, supposedly by Labour, when the fact is that Lady Thatcher closed more of them than anyone else. Such misinformation was typical of the presentations of Conservative Members this evening.
  When the public see part of this debate on television or read of it in their newspapers, I hope that they will plainly realise the contribution made by my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Jackson) and for Eccles (Miss Lestor). [HON MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] Their speeches reflected much better the mood of the teaching profession, parents and governors towards the crisis—
  Mr. Dunn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it be possible to suspend the sitting to allow Labour Members to return to the Chamber?
  Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order, but I notice an absence of hon. Members at the conclusion of this debate. It is to be deprecated that hon. Members who participated in the debate are not present.
  Mr. Griffiths: I realise that Government Members do not like home truths about our schools, but teachers are disillusioned and their morale is low. Parents are concerned and dismayed at the way in which the Government persist in thrusting down the throats of pupils a system of testing that needs to be improved far beyond the promises of the Secretary of State.
  In newspapers and in the letters that right hon. and hon. Members receive, demands for change and improvement far outnumber expressions of satisfaction at the way in which the national curriculum is currently implemented. There is a crisis of confidence and things have been turned on their head.
  The right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) made a speech earlier, but has obviously been waylaid on his way back to the Chamber. On Second Reading of the Bill which became the Education Act 1988, he said:
  "We do not intend to lay down how lessons should be taught, how timetables should be organised, or which textbooks should be used."—[Official Report, 1 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 774.]
  In the case of the first and the last, however, that is exactly what is happening. We wait with trepidation for the
  272
  delivery of instructions as to how the timetable itself should be organised. Things have gone badly wrong, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood pointed out.
  Mr. George Walden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman arrived in the Chamber just over 10 minutes ago. I will not give way to him.
  There is a crisis of confidence. At a conference on design and technology management in South Glamorgan, curriculum leaders and heads of technology from 24 of the 26 schools in the county expressed grave disquiet about the nature, management and interpretation of key stage 3 SATs and long tasks. It was strongly felt that SATs were radically interfering with good course work, to the detriment of pupils' education.
  Another teacher—the Southampton teacher referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) who has been a member of the Conservative party since 1976—said:
  "The 'goal posts' have been moved around almost weekly and you"—
  that is, the Secretary of State—
  "must not be surprised to hear that senior professionals are concluding that there is little quality thinking being applied by the DFE before statements are made. Decisions are simply being dumped on schools for teachers to try and sort out and make some sense of for their pupils."
  The verdict in almost any paper on any day of the week—not only that of teachers, but that of others involved in education—is damning. According to John Sutton, general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association:
  "In English, the tests have produced real problems for many schools, not just because there was no pilot programme and the administrators at SEAC made a dog's breakfast of getting out clear and accurate information early enough, but because the assessment tail is now seen to be wagging the curriculum dog."
  Even David Pascall, chairman of the National Curriculum Council—who is soon to retire—said:
  "the fact remains that the national curriculum at primary level is overloaded and that quality and depth of teaching is being sacrificed in order to achieve the necessary curriculum coverage."
  The Ofsted report—which the Government cite in their amendment as supporting their changes—has been much quoted, but those quotations have been very selective. Its press release was entitled "Mixed Progress In The National Curriculum And Assessment Reported By Ofsted". In that press release, it said that the impact of assessment in the national curriculum could
  "lead to a distortion of the positive relationship between teaching, learning and assessment".
  It went on to say:
  "This year, however, and for the first time, the benefits and costs are finely balanced. There are some clearly discernible signs that the impact of 'teaching to the test' and the complexities of the assessment requirements could lead to this distortion."
  I could go on and on.
  Brian Cox had this to say:
  "Teachers are not against testing, but the new tests will result in bad teaching. And the new … curriculum will be disastrous for children: it goes back to ways of teaching that failed in the past and its ideas about English language are untrue."
  Whether we are talking about head teachers who have got together in their own national committee on learning and assessment or about classroom teachers who are

  273
  concerned about what is happening in schools, the fact remains that teachers are committed—whatever happens in this year's ballots—to ensuring that children are taught more, and that they will be tested and that the result of those tests will be reported to parents.
  Furthermore, all the teacher unions have offered to talk to the Secretary of State for Education about ways to get out of this impasse and to make sure that there will be intelligent assessment and testing of children this year. They welcome the review, but they say clearly that the tests are flawed.
  The Leeds university study showed that, if anything, there were three clear advantages to be seen in the tests. First, it is an advantage for a child to be born in the winter. Secondly, it is an advantage for a child to be born a girl. Thirdly, it is an advantage for a child to have attended a nursery school. I do not expect the Secretary of State for Education to do anything about making sure that children are born in the winter, or that they are born girls, but I should like him to respond to the evidence that nursery education is good for children by making sure that resources are provided for it. The millions of pounds that he and his predecessors spent upon introducing city technology colleges would have been much better invested in expanding nursery education and making sure that all children, before going to school, have the opportunity to take advantage of nursery education.
  Dame Angela Rumbold: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us, in answer to this interesting debate, what the Opposition's proposals on testing are?
  Mr. Griffiths: There is a simple and straightforward answer to that question. We believe—we refer to it in our motion—that the Department of Education and the Welsh Office should follow the example of the Scottish Office. That is the simple way forward. If the Welsh Office and the Department for Education were to adopt the Scottish model, there would be sweetness and light, as in a flash of lightning.
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be delighted to join me in congratulating Members of the other place on defeating the Government on the first day of their consideration of the Education Bill by supporting a Labour amendment, which means that there will have to be somebody on the funding council with expertise in special educational needs.
  Mr. Griffiths: I am very pleased to hear that. We pressed in this place for that provision to be made, but the Government remained implacably opposed to it.
  The chaos created over key stage 3 English has been further underlined by the differences between the Department for Education and the National Curriculum Council and the Welsh Office and the Curriculum Council for Wales. In press releases and letters to the chairman of the two bodies, the Secretary of State for Education admitted that it was novel for his curriculum proposals to be based directly on the advice of the council rather than on those of the curriculum subject working group. However, the Curriculum Council for Wales went out of its way to point out that
  "The Curriculum Council for Wales has consulted with the profession in Wales and has involved Council members and its English Committee in the shaping of its advice. Members of these Committees include head teachers, primary and
  274
  secondary teachers, LEA advisers, lecturers in further and higher education and representatives from industry and training organisations."
  I appeal to the Welsh Office to ensure that sufficient copies of the document from the Curriculum Council for Wales are distributed to all the schools in England so that teachers in England may have the same opportunity as teachers in Wales to read it.
  Finally, I appeal to the Secretary of State for Education to listen to some words that Oliver Cromwell spoke in the House exactly 340 years ago today, on 20 April 1653, to the parliamentarians of that day:
  "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you."
  9.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): A casual observer of the debate might find it difficult to believe that this is, or has been, an Opposition day. It would have been confusing to anyone who did not know the House and its ways and who had come here expecting some sort of fireworks on a day selected by the Opposition and on a subject of their choice. The Opposition would have been expected not only to criticise the Government, but perhaps to give us an inkling of their policies. Yet in the House today we have seen a Chamber almost empty on the Opposition side and we have heard lacklustre Opposition contributions, without any positive ideas or thoughts. The debate has been pathetically poorly attended by Opposition Members. That may suggest the extent of the Opposition's commitment to education policy; indeed, it sums that up extremely well. In contrast, there have been distinguished and scintillating contributions from my right hon. Friends the Members for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) and for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), to name but three distinguished former Education Ministers.
  That being said, it might be slightly surprising if I were to tell the House that some common ground has been exhibited in the debate. For example, everybody supported the concept of a national curriculum. Everyone tells us that they support the concepts of testing and assessment. Indeed, even the education trade unions say the same. The general secretaries of all six teaching unions signed a letter to the Secretary of State on 9 February which affirmed:
  "we are not opposed to testing".
  In a letter to Members of Parliament dated 16 March, Mr. de Gruchy of the NAS/UWT wrote:
  "I wish to reiterate the Association's support for testing and assessment procedures".
  In a letter dated 15 April Mr. McAvoy of the NUT said:
  "The National Union of Teachers is not against assessment and testing".
  There must be an answer to that apparent conundrum; there must be a catch somewhere. Of course, the catch is this: Conservatives believe in testing, but by that we mean relevant and effective testing. For example, testing should be standard in its approach, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden said; it should be fitted to the curriculum, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) said; it should be objective, reliable and informative to parents and teachers; and it should be transparent and reported regularly and openly to parents whenever it takes place. In other words, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North said, testing is

  275
  designed to ensure that schools are doing their job. That is the object of the exercise. That is the form of testing in which we believe.
  By contrast, it appears that Opposition Members, while paying lip service to the concept of testing, are content with the traditional approach, as they would call it, by which teachers assess their own work in their own classrooms and make their own judgment of what their pupils have done. That is not acceptable. It gives rise to inconsistency and it means—
  Mr. Hall: I shall not use this evening the example of Scotland. Instead, I have a question for the Minister. Is he familiar with the Neale reading analysis and with the National Foundation for Educational Research mathematics test? They are criteria reference assessments which teachers have used for a long time. It is not their own judgment at all.
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I am sure that some teachers have used those tests; probably the better teachers have used them. The real difficulty is what the not-so-good teachers are doing. How can we assume that teachers who are inexperienced or not very good at their job—there may be some of them out there—are assessing their pupils? How can they give information to parents about what the pupils are doing?
  Throughout the debate, Opposition Members have been in some difficulty and I shall give two or three examples. They allege that there is instability in the education system, yet it is Opposition Members who support a boycott that is designed precisely to render the education system unstable. Surely that is the most disgraceful hypocrisy imaginable.
  The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) told us that she supported last year's tests for seven-year-olds, which were an enormous success. Almost in the same breath, she said that she supported the boycott of all tests by unions this year. How she can arrive at that position is quite beyond me. Opposition Members have come to the House on their day and have offered us no policies of their own.
  Many Opposition Members have asked repeatedly that there should be a review of the testing regime. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has arranged for that to take place. He has asked the very distinguished new chairman of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, Sir Ron Dearing, to conduct just such a review. It is not good enough to say, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) said, that everyone knows what is wrong with the tests. That is a ludicrous statement. How can everybody know exactly what is wrong with all the tests? Some people may take the view that the tests need reviewing. We have conceded that. The Secretary of State has recognised that and he has asked Sir Ron Dearing to arrange for a review of the tests. My right hon. Friend asked him to look at the scope for slimming down the curriculum and to consider the future of the 10-level scale for grading children's attainments. How could the test arrangements be simplified? How could the central administration of the national curriculum and tests best be improved?
  276
  The key fact is this. In the letter written by Sir Ron Dearing to my right hon. Friend in which he accepts the challenge that he has been given, he says:
  "if I do not have information from tests this Summer, I am going to have difficulty in giving well-informed and convincing advice on what changes should be made to the testing arrangements."
  The very man who has been asked by the Secretary of State to conduct the review has said that if anything is done to prejudice the tests this summer he will not have the material with which to conduct the review for which Opposition Members have asked. How can they support the idea of a boycott which will undermine the tests and ask for a review that would be undermined by that same boycott? Opposition Members cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: If tests are a good idea for the state sector, why are not they a good enough idea for the private sector?
  Mr. Forth: We have always recognised that if parents wish to exercise their freedom of choice by sending their children to the independent sector, they do so in the knowledge of what the independent sector offers. If they wish to take advantage of mandatory, taxpayer-funded education through the state system, we must provide them with a guarantee of the quality of education in that state system to which they are entitled.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: On the subject of tests in the private sector, may I tell my hon. Friend that when I was at a private school, we were tested at the end of every fortnight and beaten if we got less than 60 per cent.?
  Mr. Forth: Today, my hon. Friend is a walking testimony to the system which educated him.
  I come to the old favourite of Labour Members: Ministers do not listen. It was trotted out once again by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), among others. The reality is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Minister of State and I go out of our way to talk to educators, professionals and teachers in their staff rooms, at conferences which we attend and at meetings in the Department for Education.
  Mr. Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Forth: I shall give way in a moment. I suppose I could claim that I had a dialogue with teachers which ran for something like 150 hours in the Standing Committee on the Education Bill, of which the hon. Gentleman was such a distinguished member.
  Mr. Enright: Can the Minister tell the House whether Education Ministers have apologised to the school which they shamefully tricked into taking part in a party political broadcast?
  Mr. Forth: I doubt whether anyone who was involved in such an exercise was naive enough not to know what was happening. The suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman does him no credit.
  I hope that we have laid to rest any suggestion that Ministers in the Department for Education do not speak to those involved in education. That brings me to one of the more serious aspects of the debate which was referred to with great feeling by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson). He raised the matter of the professionalism of teachers. If teachers want the respect that the profession demands, we must ask them to

  277
  act and behave like professionals. Acting as professionals in this context means working within the law, not breaking it. It means expressing concerns by dialogue and debate, not by industrial action. It means taking and accepting responsibility for the pupils in their charge, not casually dismissing the welfare of pupils to promote their own self-interests.
  Mr. Walden: My hon. Friend is not a naive man. If he is, he hides it successfully. Despite his kind words about the teacher unions, he knows that the whole spirit of comprehensive education is against testing. The only real hope that parents have to ensure a rigorous education for their children is to vote with their hands and feet for grant-maintained status.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend knows that an increasing number of parents are doing exactly that. With the number of grant-maintained schools at 800 and rising fast, the evidence is there that parents know how they can guarantee quality education for their children. Our testing regime seeks to guarantee objectivity, a level of standards and a reporting to parents of what is going on in schools of the sort which I sometimes think Labour Members are either ashamed of or want to conceal. That has certainly been the thrust of much of what they have said today.
  Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with Labour Members, many of whom benefited from a grammar school and direct grant school system of which this country could formerly be proud, is that a Labour Government got rid of it in the pursuit of trendy socialist thinking in the 1960s and the 1970s? Labour Members told their constituents and the British people, "Pull the ladder up, Jack. I'm all right". A Labour Government replaced the system with the low standards that we have seen from the militant teachers who are trying to align the teaching unions with the striking miners and the striking rail unions. Those militant teachers, unlike the majority of responsible teachers, do not deserve the status of the profession.
  Mr. Forth: That sounded like an extremely effective peroration to this debate. I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend. The contrast could not be clearer. This debate —which astonishingly was brought to the House by Labour Members, and flopping so dramatically as it has—has illustrated only too well the difference in approach taken by Labour Members and Conservative Members.
  Conservative Members wish to ensure that standards of education rise for all of our pupils. We want to guarantee all pupils in the state education system, regardless of their circumstances, their background or their school, an education of which we can be proud.
  As part of that, we believe that openness about what goes on in our schools is vital. The testing regime is important. It must be standard and objective. It must be reported to parents. We must be told what is going on in our schools and we must be proud of it. Opposition Members have no concept of that. I ask the House to reject the motion and support the amendment.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 317.

  Division No.241]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Eastham, Ken

  Ainger, Nick

  Enright, Derek

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Etherington, Bill

  Allen, Graham

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Alton, David

  Fatchett, Derek

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Fisher, Mark

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Flynn, Paul

  Ashton, Joe

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Austin-Walker, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Barnes, Harry

  Foulkes, George

  Barron, Kevin

  Fraser, John

  Battle, John

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bayley, Hugh

  Galbraith, Sam

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Galloway, George

  Beggs, Roy

  Gapes, Mike

  Bell, Stuart

  Garrett, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  George, Bruce

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Gerrard, Neil

  Benton, Joe

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Godsiff, Roger

  Blunkett, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Boateng, Paul

  Gould, Bryan

  Boyes, Roland

  Graham, Thomas

  Bradley, Keith

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Burden, Richard

  Gunnell, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Hain, Peter

  Caborn, Richard

  Hall, Mike

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Harvey, Nick

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Canavan, Dennis

  Henderson, Doug

  Cann, Jamie

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Heppell, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Clelland, David

  Home Robertson, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hood, Jimmy

  Coffey, Ann

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hutton, John

  Cox, Tom

  Ingram, Adam

  Cryer, Bob

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cummings, John

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jamieson, David

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Janner, Greville

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Keen, Alan

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

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Denham, John

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Dewar, Donald

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Dixon, Don

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dobson, Frank

  Leighton, Ron

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dowd, Jim

  Lewis, Terry

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Litherland, Robert

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Livingstone, Ken

  279

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Randall, Stuart

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Raynsford, Nick

  Loyden, Eddie

  Redmond, Martin

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Reid, Dr John

  McAllion, John

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  McCartney, Ian

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  McFall, John

  Rogers, Allan

  McKelvey, William

  Rooker, Jeff

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  McLeish, Henry

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rowlands, Ted

  McWilliam, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Madden, Max

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mahon, Alice

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marek, Dr John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Short, Clare

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Simpson, Alan

  Martlew, Eric

  Skinner, Dennis

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Meacher, Michael

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Meale, Alan

  Snape, Peter

  Michael, Alun

  Soley, Clive

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Spellar, John

  Milburn, Alan

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Miller, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Stott, Roger

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Straw, Jack

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Trimble, David

  Mudie, George

  Turner, Dennis

  Mullin, Chris

  Tyler, Paul

  Murphy, Paul

  Vaz, Keith

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Wallace, James

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Walley, Joan

  O'Hara, Edward

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Olner, William

  Wareing, Robert N

  O'Neill, Martin

  Watson, Mike

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Parry, Robert

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Pendry, Tom

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wilson, Brian

  Pike, Peter L.

  Winnick, David

  Pope, Greg

  Wise, Audrey

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Worthington, Tony

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Prescott, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Purchase, Ken

  Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Jack Thompson.

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Radice, Giles

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Batiste, Spencer

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bendall, Vivian

  Alexander, Richard

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Amess, David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Ancram, Michael

  Booth, Hartley

  Arbuthnot, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Ashby, David

  Bowis, John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Brazier, Julian

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Baldry, Tony

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Bates, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  280

  Burt, Alistair

  Hague, William

  Butcher, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Butler, Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butterfill, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carttiss, Michael

  Harris, David

  Cash, William

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hawkins, Nick

  Churchill, Mr

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clappison, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heald, Oliver

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hendry, Charles

  Colvin, Michael

  Hicks, Robert

  Congdon, David

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Conway, Derek

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Horam, John

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Couchman, James

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

  Cran, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Day, Stephen

  Hunter, Andrew

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Devlin, Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jessel, Toby

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Duncan, Alan

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Key, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Elletson, Harold

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Evennett, David

  Knox, David

  Faber, David

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Legg, Barry

  Forman, Nigel

  Leigh, Edward

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Forth, Eric

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lidington, David

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Freeman, Roger

  Lord, Michael

  French, Douglas

  Luff, Peter

  Fry, Peter

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Gale, Roger

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gallie, Phil

  MacKay, Andrew

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Maclean, David

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Garnier, Edward

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gill, Christopher

  Madel, David

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Malone, Gerald

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mans, Keith

  Gorst, John

  Marland, Paul

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Marlow, Tony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  281

  Merchant, Piers

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Mills, Iain

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Shersby, Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Sims, Roger

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Moss, Malcolm

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Needham, Richard

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Soames, Nicholas

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Spring, Richard

  Norris, Steve

  Sproat, Iain

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Steen, Anthony

  Page, Richard

  Stephen, Michael

  Paice, James

  Stern, Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

  Stewart, Allan

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Streeter, Gary

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Sumberg, David

  Pawsey, James

  Sweeney, Walter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Sykes, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thomason, Roy

  Redwood, John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Ronton, Rt Hon Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Richards, Rod

  Thurnham, Peter

  Riddick, Graham

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Tracey, Richard

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Tredinnick, David

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Trend, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Trotter, Neville

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Viggers, Peter

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Sackville, Tom

  Walden, George

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Waller, Gary

  282

  Ward, John

  Wilshire, David

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Watts, John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wells, Bowen

  Wood, Timothy

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Yeo, Tim

  Whitney, Ray

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Whittingdale, John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Wilkinson, John

  Willetts, David

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the commitment of Her Majesty's Government to the National Curriculum and its associated regular tests; notes that the new independent inspectorate, the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED), recently reported that the National Curriculum and regular tests were already helping to drive up standards in schools; believes that the progress made in the implementation of the Government's education reforms is due to the hard work and dedication of professional teachers and welcomes the review established by the Secretary of State for Education into the National Curriculum and testing; believes that a boycott of this summer's tests would disrupt children's education, cause unnecessary concern to parents and damage the professional standing of teachers; and looks forward to a definitive statement from Her Majesty's Opposition as to whether or not it supports a boycott of this summer's tests.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Charities Bill [Lords], the Clean Air Bill [Lords] and the Radioactive Substances Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Charities Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  10.18 pm
  Mr. John Fraser: I congratulate those who are responsible for consolidating legislation because it makes things so much easier for non-lawyers who must deal with charities.
  It is unfortunate that we will have a Charities Act 1992 and a Charities Act 1993, whose titles are obviously indistinguishable. Given that the Bill deals largely with incorporated charities, while the remit of 1992 Act is more general, it is pity that no distinction will be made between the titles of the respective Acts.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): If the hon. Gentleman looks at the statute book, he will find other examples of statutes with similar titles. I do not believe that that source is likely to mislead those who will have to refer to those Acts.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  Clean Air Bill [Lords]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  Radioactive Substance Bill [Lords]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Considering that we have whipped through all stages of three Bills in about three minutes—[Interruption.]—and while I have no doubt that hon. Members do not object to that, I suggest that it might be an idea for you or the Committee of Procedure to look at the wording used by the Whip as he introduces the various stages of Bills. I say that because it is a bit of a fallacy to say that the Committee told him to do anything, just as it is a fallacy to say that the Committee went through the Bill. By all means have a fast procedure for dealing with these matters, but let us at least be honest about the way we do it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I have no doubt that the procedure has been carried out for many years and that it is quite in order.

  Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland)
  10.24 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Mates): I beg to move,
  That the draft Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.
  The present order is the latest in a series of such orders required at invervals of every two to three years. The latest such order was passed in 1991. The main purpose of these orders is to adjust, as necessary, certain statutory financial limits and to deal with other routine financial matters including the simplification and rationalisation of accounting procedures. I will describe briefly the purpose of the various articles in the order.
  Articles 3 to 11 together provide enabling powers for the establishment and management of trading funds in Northern Ireland. To a large extent, those articles simply replicate the corresponding Great Britain legislation, which is the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 as amended by the Government Trading Act 1990. They extend the reforms introduced some years ago in civil service financial management, as well as the next steps initiative which created the first executive agencies.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Can the Minister tell the House whether the provisions in the order cover the situation which arose as a result of the fraud perpetrated on many investors in Northern Ireland, in Great Britain and, indeed, in the Irish Republic by a company known as International Investments Limited (Gibraltar)? For the last 10 years efforts have been made to have the matter resolved, but as yet no satisfactory conclusion has been reached. Many of my constituents, now pensioners, had been depending on their investment in the company, which is now in liquidation, to provide income for their retirement. Their experience has been replicated throughout the United Kingdom and in the Irish Republic. Will the order in any way help those investors—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. It is a very long intervention.
  Mr. Mates: I am fairly sure that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no. However, if I get better information, I undertake to speak again on the matter when, with the leave of the House, I hope to reply to the debate.
  Mr. David Trimble rose—
  Mr. Mates: I have not said anything yet.
  Mr. Trimble: May I take the Minister back to something that he said in his opening sentences? He said that the order is reproducing for Northern Ireland legislation enacted for Great Britain in 1973 and amended in 1990. As 1990 is the date for the Great Britain legislation, why has it taken three years to produce a Northern Ireland equivalent which runs merely to 10 pages of drafting?
  Mr. Mates: The hon. Gentleman bangs a familiar drum. There are advantages and disadvantages in the system which we have inherited as a result of direct rule. Sometimes we consider what happens in Great Britain and learn good lessons from it. Sometimes we want to replicate precisely what has happened in the rest of the United
  286
  Kingdom and sometimes we do not. I make no apology; the system which my colleageus and I have inherited brings the order before the House.
  Mr. Trimble rose—
  Mr. Mates: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Trimble: The Minister has not answered my intervention.
  Mr. Mates: I have indeed. I have told the hon. Gentleman that the reason is the legislative system with which we live.
  Article 3 provides the general power, already available in the rest of the United Kingdom, to establish a trading fund where its revenue would consist principally of receipts in respect of goods and services provided and where it would lead to improved management efficiency and effectiveness. Candidates for trading fund status would be considered on a case-by-case basis if and when they arose.
  Article 4 deals with how the originating debt of a trading fund is to be determined and the circumstances in which this originating debt may be varied to take account of subsequent changes in the assets and liabilities of the fund.
  Article 5 deals with the issue and repayment of public dividend capital and article 6 with borrowing by funds. In particular, article 6 allows funds to borrow from votes as an alternative to borrowing from the Northern Ireland consolidated fund. It is expected that the majority of borrowing by trading funds will be from votes.
  Article 7 describes how the income and expenditure arising from the routine activities of a fund should be treated and provides for a trading fund to reimburse the consolidated fund in respect of accruing liabilities for employees' pensions, and so on.
  Article 8 requires that a trading fund should be entirely self-financing and provides for the handling of temporary surpluses. It also describes the accounting and auditing arrangements to be put in place and contains an important provision relating to the production and publication of annual reports.
  Article 9 deals with the winding-up of funds and the distribution of the assets and liabilities. I should make it clear that the article refers only to cases where a fund's activities are to cease altogether. Examples would be where two funds are merged, or where it is decided that the activities of a fund would be better financed by other means within the public sector. There is no intention to deal here with privatisation candidates. Such cases would, in every instance, be pursued by quite separate legislative measures.
  Article 10 and 11 deal largely with minor consequential matters. Article 12 deals with a separate matter which may conveniently be associated with the previous articles. It extends section 22 of the Exchequer and Audit (Northern Ireland) Act 1921 to give the Department of Finance and Personnel powers to require any agency to produce commercial-style accounts, including balance sheets. The aim is to ensure that agencies that are not trading funds would supplement the appropriation accounts by producing commercial-type accounts on an accruals basis and, by so doing, increase the information available to the

  287
  House and the general public. The measure will bring the position in Northern Ireland into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Article 13 would enable the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General, in his corporate capacity, to purchase property leasehold. The only effect of that provision will be to place the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General in the same position as his counterpart in Great Britain, who already has such a power. The intention is for the Northern Ireland Audit Office, in keeping with its independent status, to move from its present location in a Government building to its own office accommodation.
  Article 14 amends article 3 of the Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 by raising the statutory limit on the net amount which the consolidated fund may lend to the Housing Executive to finance its capital programme.
  Article 15 provides that fees paid to the Registrar of Companies in respect of his function under the various companies orders should be paid into the consolidated fund. At present, the Department of Finance and Personnel must direct how those fees are to be handled. Recent legal advice suggests that the legislation, as presently drafted, could prevent the Registrar of Companies from recovering the full cost of his services for which he levies fees or charges. The amendment will remove that difficulty and simplify procedures generally.
  I commend the order to the House.
  10.33 pm
  Mr. Roger Stott: I shall endeavour to ensure that we treat the order almost as quickly as we treated the previous measures, but it is important that we give hon. Members from Northern Ireland an opportunity to examine the Minister's remarks.
  As the Minister of State has just said, the order is primarily technical and provides for routine financial and administrative matters within all—and I stress that word—Departments of the Northern Ireland Office. Remembering the late hour of yesterday's debates, I have no doubt that hon. Members will be relieved to learn that I do not intend to speak for long. However, I should like to take the opportunity to draw to the Minister's attention some of my concerns about the various Departments in Northern Ireland and the way in which the Minister and his colleagues are going about their business.
  The Minister will be aware that, despite just having embarked upon a new financial year, Northern Ireland still faces some regrettably familiar problems. Unemployment continues to rise and, judging by the most recent provisional figures, Northern Ireland's gross domestic product continues to fall. Those harsh facts, when translated into equally stark figures, mean that the Province suffers a jobless total representing 14·5 per cent. of the work force and a decline in GDP in real terms of 2·5 per cent. during 1991.
  Mr. Irvine Patnick (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): That is not in order.
  Mr. Stott: The Whip tells me that this is not in order, but I shall wait for the Chair to tell me that it is not in order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair will tell the hon. Gentleman that he is going very wide of the order.
  Mr. Stott: I accept that my initial remarks allude to the problems that face the Department of Employment in Northern Ireland. That Department has a problem in the ongoing and continuing rise in unemployment.
  However, article 3 provides for a trading fund to be established. The Government's explanatory document, which the Minister kindly sent me, says:
  "where a trading fund operation would lead to improved efficiency".
  I and my hon. Friends agree with the phraseology, and I am sure that the Minister will agree that we have actively demonstrated our commitment to improved efficiency throughout Labour local government in England and Wales. However, as we know from example, the Government's interpretation of efficiency is at variance with that of the Opposition. The Government should not see any trading fund as a halfway house to privatisation. I was interested to hear the Minister say this evening that that was not the case. However, I confess that I am not convinced. I still believe that this may well be a stalking horse for further privatisation in Northern Ireland.
  Improved efficiency means maintaining value for money and high quality service. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that any operations that are transferred to a trading fund will not merely result in corner cutting or a slapdash decline in the quality of the service that the Departments provide.
  I am sure that when the Minister replies he will gladly read into the record what is contained in the explanatory document, which says that the order has
  "no direct implications for public expenditure"
  that presumably means that there will be no cut in public expenditure—
  "and will not cause any change in staff numbers."
  I hope that the Minister will confirm that that means exactly what it says.
  The order will impinge on a number of Departments in Northern Ireland, one of which is the Department of the Environment. There is great concern in Northern Ireland and among hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland about water privatisation. The Government have already started the water privatisation procedure, and I hope that the order is not a behind-the-door way of facilitating privatisation.
  Mr. Beggs: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it would be appropriate for the Government to take account of the opposition of all Northern Ireland representatives elected to the House and to the European Parliament to any proposals to privatise Northern Ireland water and sewerage services.
  Mr. Stott: Whenever the House debates narrow Northern Ireland orders, it is difficult to stay in order. That is because there is no primary legislation allowing myself or Northern Ireland Members an adequate opportunity to debate the principles behind such orders and to table amendments. Therefore, on occasions such as this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we hope to enjoy your tolerance. I may be testing your tolerance to the extreme—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That may well be the case. Hon. Members must stick strictly to the order, which

  289
  concerns the establishment of trading funds in Northern Ireland. I do not know what that has to do with water privatisation.
  Mr. Stott: Trading funds have been established on the mainland since 1974. They cover a multitude of activities. The trading funds established by the order cover every Department in Northern Ireland. They include the Department of the Environment, which is in charge of water services, ports and airports; and the Department of Social Security, which is concerned with social security benefits. Therefore, there could be a small degree of elasticity in alluding to certain problems.
  I am not seeking to delay the debate, and I am desperately trying to keep within the rules of order. However, it is important to flag up certain issues that I and my hon. Friends feel are important.
  Mr. Mates: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman and the House. It was a little noisy at the start of this debate, as we had been proceeding at a fairly hectic pace. I will repeat more slowly my opening remarks. It is not the intention to deal in the order with any privatisation candidates. Such cases will in every instance be pursued by separate legislative measures. If there are to be any privatisation candidates, there will be an opportunity for full discussion of separate legislation. The order will not be used for that purpose.
  Mr. Stott: The Minister has put that firmly on the record and in the public domain, and it will remain so for ever and a day. However, one thinks of other statements, not necessarily in the House, such as that during the general election campaign, by no less a person than the Prime Minister, that there would be no increases in value added tax. As soon as the Prime Minister was elected, there was an increase—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I insist that the hon. Gentleman confines his remarks to the scope of the order, of which he is fully aware.
  Mr. Stott: I acknowledge your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will endeavour to cease to cause you any further problems.
  Mr. Beggs: The Minister did not spell out whether future legislation would come in the form of Bills or unamendable Orders in Council. I think that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) will agree that that should have been dealt with, and that representatives of the Northern Ireland community should have been told clearly whether we could effectively amend proposed legislation affecting Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Stott: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I cannot recall his constituency—
  Mr. Beggs: Antrim, East.
  Mr. Stott: Antrim, East: the hon. Gentleman represents the wonderful port of Lame. I hear what he says, but I am not speaking from the Government Dispatch Box.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Your day will come.
  Mr. Stott: Yes; my reward may well be in heaven. However, I will leave the Minister to deal with the problem identified by the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr.
  290
  Beggs), as he has offered us the opportunity of listening to his cast-iron guarantee that nothing in the order is a stalking horse for future privatisation measures.
  Provided that the Minister's response convinces me that there is no hidden agenda behind the establishment of trading funds, the Opposition will not oppose the motion.
  10.46 pm
  Mr. William Ross: I apologise for arriving a little late; because the business moved rather more quickly than I had expected, I missed the Minister's opening remarks. However, I have heard enough to realise that the Minister was entirely in order—although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) pointed out, we are very gratified that he touched the boundaries when he said that there would be proper discussion and proper legislative procedures in the future. We are also happy to have the support of Her Majesty's Opposition for Bills rather than Orders in Council.
  The order raises a number of questions. I have listened to a number of debates on such orders over the years; some have been purely technical, while others have ranged rather more widely. One thing that puzzles me is the fact that the last debate on an order of this kind, which took place on 14 March 1991, was in the Sixth Standing Committee; the one before that, which took place on 22 May 1989, was held on the Floor of the House, as others have been. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell me what criterion dictates whether orders are taken here, late at night, or early in the morning. After all, they are all in the same class.
  Is this a matter of convenience, or does it reflect the importance that the Government attach to such orders? The Minister points at the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott): perhaps he is responsible for the motion's being given the time of the House. We do not object to that, but consistency is always welcome.
  Mr. Stott: Hon. Members will recall that, when we last debated the consolidation order, I pointed out that it was important for us to do so on the Floor of the House. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) asked whether we would consider doing that more frequently; I acquiesced.
  Mr. Ross: I am very grateful to Her Majesty's Opposition: this is a happy move. I believe that more Northern Ireland business should be taken on the Floor of the House; if that moves us on to proper legislation, so much the better. Every tottering millimetre in that direction is welcome to us.
  The hon. Member for Wigan and the Minister will no doubt recall that the last order paved the way for water privatisation and showed that the Government hoped to have a Government-owned company to take over water and sewerage as from 1 October 1992. I shall return to that point at the end of my speech, but it is significant to note that that was a paving operation for water privatisation. Time has moved on, and we find that this order enables the establishment of trading funds in Northern Ireland.
  I understand that the Minister drew the attention of the House to the remarkable fact that the order brings the law of Northern Ireland into line with the law of Great Britain. It is of some interest that in this respect the law of Great Britain, in its present form, had its beginnings in 1973, 20 years ago, after the passage of the Government Trading

  291
  Funds Act. That Act was amended by the Government Trading Act 1990. It is evident, therefore, that there was some rethinking of the Government's policies, as embodied in the 1973 Act. I suspect that the developments in practice which flowed from the 1973 Act led to that rethinking.
  The order is a fairly surprising outcome for a Government who always told us that they were against quangos. Now we find that, as a result of those Acts, a number of new quangos and agencies have been created. In the 1970s and early 1980s we were told that the Government were against quangos and that they were all for folk taking on personal responsibility. There are few signs of Government Ministers accepting personal responsibility for what happened in the intervening years. A large number of agencies—108—have been created.
  I believe that in what is now the United Kingdom legislation there is the possibility of four different agencies being created—those created with gross running costs control, those created with net running costs control, trading funds and Government-owned companies. I believe that the latter has not yet been used; the Minister will no doubt correct me if I am wrong. However, as the hon. Member for Wigan and the Minister will probably recall, it was this fourth type of agency that was predicted for the first step of water privatisation in Northern Ireland.
  I wonder whether it was possible to create a Government-owned company in Northern ireland without this legislation. If it was not, why is it now being brought into operation? Like the hon. Member for Wigan, I always take ministerial statements with a fistful of salt.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned VAT increases. The Government did not increase VAT. They simply extended its scope and base. They kept within the letter of the promises made. That, I suppose, is what Ministers pay high-quality civil servants for—to find ways round the promises that they make.
  Of the 108 agencies that so far have been created, not so much in Great Britain as in the United Kingdom, there are seven which are Northern Ireland civil service agencies. They can be easily named. There may be a few that are not on my list, but they include the Compensation Agency, which is a Northern Ireland agency, the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency, where there must be a Northern Ireland input, the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency, the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland—which, I note, is a separate body from the Ordnance Survey for the rest of the United Kingdom—the Rate Collection Agency, which, the Opposition will notice, we still need, unlike the position in Great Britain, the Training and Employment Agency and the Valuation and Lands Agency. Those are all civil service organisations, not trading organisations in the real sense foreshadowed in the order.
  There are also 12 trading funds, some of which must operate in Northern Ireland. For instance, there is the Medicines Control Agency, which I suppose must have a Northern Ireland input. There is the Land Registry, too. I am not sure whether that is the land registry for Northern Ireland or for the United Kingdom, and I should be grateful to be told. We also have Her Majesty's Stationery Office and various others—the Central Office of
  292
  Information and so forth. I should be grateful if when the Minister winds up he would tell me which of those operate on a United Kingdom rather than a Great Britain basis.
  I have two basic objections to all those organisations. The first is that, whether or not the Government are willing to acknowledge the fact, by creating them they have admitted their own lack of ability to control the Government machine and to keep it efficient and clean. The second is that they put the Minister at arm's length in terms of accountability. I believe that "hiving off- is the term used in Government documents and statements.
  When someone hives something off, it means that he is trying to get some distance away from it, so that he can say, "It is not really me at all; it is the agency." I know that the Minister would respond to that idea by saying that at the end of the day Members of the House can demand an answer from a Minister. But there is not the direct accountability that we used to have. I regret that, because I believe that there should be direct accountability. If the Government cannot run a lean and efficient machine they certainly have no business telling other people that they should do so. Not only do the agencies mean arm's-length accountability, they are a demonstration that the Government do not really believe in their own capacity to do the job.
  In the light of all that, can the Minister assure me that the order leaves Northern Ireland law exactly the same as Great Britain law? Or are there some differences left, and if so, what are they? We deserve an answer to those questions.
  The Minister touched upon some of the matters that I wish to mention. I notice that under article 7 receipts and payments are not to be treated as part of public income and expenditure in Northern Ireland for the purposes of the Exchequer and Financial Provisions Act (Northern Ireland) 1950. Can we be told what the practical consequences of that change are? I am thinking of changes that may come about in the estimates and in the manner in which they are compiled and presented to the House. What difference will it all make to the appropriation orders and the debates on them? If it will make a difference, we need to know the details, so that we shall be prepared for the changes.
  Article 14 increases the limit on outstanding issues from the Consolidated Fund to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. That is to be done because we are approaching the limit. Can we be told what the outstanding issue from the Consolidated Fund is now and when it is expected to be breached? The Minister will know that the Housing Executive is screaming its head off because it reckons that it will not get enough money over the next year or two, so perhaps in two, three or four years—perhaps in only one year; no one really knows—we shall be confronted with another order to raise the limits. We need to know how long the Housing Executive is expected to exist—it might say "subsist"—on the sums against which it can now draw. Can the Minister give an undertaking that if its assertions that it is being treated harshly and is running out of cash are subsequently proved correct, more money will be made available by an immediate increase in the limits?
  The rest of the order is fairly clear. I have no objection to the necessary changes. However, if we consider those changes over time we shall see a considerable shift in how the Northern Ireland government machine has worked

  293
  and how it is intended to work in future. So I should be grateful for answers to the questions that I have tried to frame to the Minister.
  10.59 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: I rise only because of the Minister's failure to respond adequately to my intervention in his speech. He will recall that I asked him why we have had to wait, at a conservative estimate, three years for legislation equivalent to Great Britain legislation in 1973 and in 1990. Taking 1990 as the datum point, we have had to wait three years to have an Order in Council drafted.
  The Minister gave purely generalised arguments. He said that it is sometimes an advantage to wait until the Great Britain legislation is in operation so that one can fine-tune the Northern Ireland legislation. He did not address the issue specifically with regard to the order. I ask him to tell us whether this order had been fine-tuned compared with the Great Britain legislation. I noted that when my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) asked whether there were now any differences between the law in Northern. Ireland and the law in Great Britain, the Minister shook his head. I hope that he will address that matter specifically.
  Mr. Mates: I am ever the optimist. If that is the only reason why the hon. Gentleman rose, I shall help him. There was no need to follow Great Britain legislation, which was very restrictive and finely drawn, until we came to the next steps agency process. We are now enabling the next steps process, which has been going in the United Kingdom, to be introduced, because we have some candidates for it. So we need the same legislation.
  Mr. Trimble rose—
  Mr. Mates: I did not think that that was the only reason why the hon. Gentleman decided to speak.
  Mr. Trimble: Do I take the Minister to mean that there has not been a three-year delay in producing the order and that the Government considered producing the order only when they decided to follow the next steps agency programme? That raises two questions. Why is the order so many years behind the Great Britain programme on the matter? Does that reflect any question of policy? Was there a decision not to follow Great Britain in terms of the next steps agencies? Was that policy then changed? Or is it merely a reflection of the general sloth that afflicts the Northern Ireland Office?
  There are now, I presume from what the Minister has said, candidates in Northern Ireland for the next steps agency process. In that case, I hope that the Minister will tell us precisely who those candidates are and what the Government's plans are. If the Government did not consider it necessary to have legislation until they had candidates for next steps agencies and were preparing bodies for next steps agencies, clearly those plans must exist now. It is only right that the Minister should tell us what they are.
  From my intervention and from my brief contribution in the debate, you will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are most dissatisfied with the way in which the Order in Council procedure is used. It is not a satisfactory procedure. The Minister has given an explanation for the delay tonight. However, we could point to numerous other
  294
  items of legislation in which there are significant delays. No adequate explanation is forthcoming. Delays are built into the system and it is utterly inadequate for proceedings here, as we have demonstrated this evening. I am glad that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) commented on that.
  There are other faults in the system, such as its secretiveness. The Government have secret consultation procedures with certain interested bodies and keep others in the dark. We had an example of that only this week. Important legislative proposals were leaked in The Independent on Monday. It turns out that they have been a matter of consultation with other bodies for weeks. Yet no political party in Northern Ireland was consulted.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman heard me pull up the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) because of the scope of the order. The hon. Gentleman is straying very wide. I must insist that the hon. Gentleman sticks to the order.
  Mr. Trimble: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you considered that I was straying wide. I was merely referring to the legislative process, of which this is an example. The Order in Council procedure is an inadequate legislative process. Has the Minister read the report of the Hansard Society on legislation and its comments on this sort of Order in Council? Does the Northern Ireland Office intend to take those comments seriously?
  11.4 pm
  Dr. Joe Hendron: Normally, when one speaks on matters to do with financial provisions, one tends to do a bit of whining. I shall start by making a few positive remarks. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am conscious of what you said to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) about going a little wide of the mark, so I shall be as relevant to this debate as I can.
  Remarks have been made recently by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) as the leader of the Official Unionist party. Until one understands, one might wonder about the relevance of that to this debate. I see a direct relevance between financial provisions and political progress. The people in Northern Ireland are crying out for peace and I hope that a political dialogue will start soon.
  With regard to funding in Northern Ireland, I have studied this document. I must admit that it has nothing to do with appropriations. Perhaps the Minister could explain those matters which relate, for example, to the Department of Health and Social Services, the crucifixion of the royal group of hospitals in Belfast and the massive—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must stick to the scope of the motion.
  Dr. Hendron: I hope that this is relevant to the debate. I am referring directly to the document. I am aware of trading funds and other financial matters. I draw the attention of the Minister to one of the most deprived areas of Northern Ireland, indeed, in these islands—west Belfast. I am talking about the Falls and the Shankill. Catholic, Protestant, unionist or nationalist—one can call it what one likes. Could he explain how, in the order, the

  295
  Departments are using funds to help young people who are being exploited daily by the Provisional IRA and the Ulster Defence Association? I may be straying wide of the mark, but I have almost finished. I ask the Minister to refer to those specific issues because they are important to my area. I accept that this is not the most suitable debate in which to raise such matters.
  Mr. Mates: With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly to hon. Members' comments.
  I deal first with the comments of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott). I could not have been clearer in what I said. I think he heard it the first time, and he heard it quieter and more slowly the second time. The fact that he still claims not to understand it is a little of what I might call poetic licence, so I will not pursue the matter.
  I have answered the question of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) about the reason why we are doing this. [Interruption.] Perhaps he will listen; I listened to him. We already have seven next steps agencies. The hon. Gentleman was sharp to notice that I launched the valuation of lands agency at 2 o'clock today in Belfast. There are seven agencies, and three further candidates are under consideration. That amounts to some 9,000 civil servants—more than 30 per cent. of the staff of the Northern Ireland Departments in the Northern Ireland Office. That is not slothful. Nor is it a record of which we can be other than proud. But so far none of them has needed trading fund status or been candidates for it. Therefore, we are taking the steps that I have described. Far from being slothful, we are taking those steps in good time so that if we have any candidates for trading fund status, we have the legislation in place. I hope that that makes the position perfectly clear.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) was a little unfair when he talked about quangos. Several quangos were set up in two short intermissions of socialism in an otherwise long period of Conservative rule. But next steps agencies are not quasi-governmental organisations. They are distinct business areas within Government Departments. The chief executives are directly responsible to the relevant Ministers. As luck would have it, I am the Minister to whom the chief executive of all the agencies which he mentioned is responsible. Therefore, I am not answering at arm's length but answering directly to hon. Members from Northern Ireland constituencies for the actions of those agencies. The accounting officer is fully answerable too.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East asked whether there was a relationship between next steps agencies and Government-owned companies. Government-owned companies are a distinct category and the legislation is not relevant to their establishment.
  The last item that was mentioned by the hon. Members for Wigan and for Londonderry, East was water privatisation. As they put it, they were sailing on the perimeters of order in doing so. Perhaps I can sail down that limit and give them an answer. The House will want to know that a consultancy study into the options for the privatisation of water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland has been completed. It has confirmed the feasibility of privatisation. However, for technical reasons, privatisation will not be possible in the lifetime of this Parliament.
  296
  The Government remain committed to privatisation at the earliest practicable date. They believe that privatisation will offer benefits to the economy of Northern Ireland and, through appropriate regulation, directly to consumers, the environment and the general public. We are considering the best form of privatisation, including the benefits of a public offer for sale. In the meantime, we intend to explore the scope to introduce private finance into the provision of water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland to facilitate further improvements in drinking water quality and environmental standards in line with EC requirements. But, for the avoidance of doubt, let me say that it will not be possible, for technical reasons, to privatise the water industry in the lifetime of this Parliament.
  Mr. Trimble rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the Minister giving way or finishing?
  Mr. Mates: I give way.
  Mr. Trimble: I thank the Minister for the more precise explanation about the legislation. He said that the legislation was intended to prepare the way for next steps agencies that will require trading fund status. Presumably, the legislation will not be necessary if no next steps agencies will require trading fund status. It is a fair assumption to draw from the legislation that if the Government are making provision for next steps agencies to have trading fund status, there are proposals to give agencies such status. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us which they are.
  Mr. Mates: I can go no further than I went. I have been as open and frank with the House as I possibly can. We are introducing the order to bring the position of Northern Ireland in line with the rest of the United Kingdom. We are doing it in good time so that when and if we require the legislation to proceed with the next steps process, we have it in place in good time and properly. On that basis, I commend—
  Mr. Beggs: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Mates: I am being very generous.
  Mr. Beggs: I thank the Minister for giving way, and especially for the latter part of his response to this debate. I would not wish to claim that representations from Her Majesty's Opposition or from the elected representatives in Northern Ireland influenced the decision not to proceed at this time with the privatisation of water and sewerage services. Nevertheless, I welcome the announcement and trust that there will be no urgency on the part of the Government to proceed with that issue for some time.
  Mr. Mates: It is amazing the number of times I have had to say things twice tonight. The Government are fully committed to the privatisation process. For a number of technical reasons, we have come to the conclusion that it is not possible to do it during the lifetime of this Parliament.
  With those final words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I commend the order to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.

  Housing (Basildon)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  11.16 pm
  Mr. David Amess: I am particularly pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) here this evening. She is an inspiration to the House, and to me in particular. I know that she is highly delighted about the success of her constituent Eamonn Martin in the London marathon on Sunday. He is her constituent, living in Laindon, but he runs for Basildon athletics club.
  Much as I and the House appreciate the very considerable attractions of my constituency, I have to make it absolutely clear that it is simply not possible, or indeed desirable, for the whole of the United Kingdom to be housed in my constituency of Basildon.
  As any hon. Member will freely admit, the No. 1 demand from constituents as they come to one's surgery is always for accommodation. But throughout the 10 years that I have represented the town, some of the demands have become increasingly unreasonable. Much of this, I believe, is caused by what I describe as the breakdown of traditional family life in this country and the popularity of transient relationships. By this I mean men moving in and out of relationships with women, producing children and then abandoning those women and the children. This trend I utterly condemn. The women and the children are the victims of the irresponsible behaviour of many men. It is not acceptable for those men to regard the state as a substitute family; it can never be that.
  This practice is certainly causing mayhem to housing demands throughout the country, not just in Basildon, together with the inability of many family units to support 16, 17 and 18-year-olds. All this I see as impacting on housing needs, not just in my constituency but throughout the land. It is just not possible for the state to meet all the demands that are being made on it at the moment.
  Until May of last year, the socialists ran the council in Basildon, when they were thrown out of office. Their housing policy, such as it was, was an absolute disgrace, and led to continual charges of unfairness. There was complete hostility to the private sector, and the socialists saw housing simply as a means to foster their own insidious propaganda. Nowhere can this be more clearly seen than in connection with what happened over the transfer of housing and the ballot that then took place.
  A number of officers put aside the respected tradition of political neutrality and were recruited to help their brothers and sisters in their political cause. Those people, I recall, said that they would never work with a Conservative council, if it were ever elected, or indeed serve under a Conservative Government. I trust that the officers who made those statements are examining their consciences at the moment and are no longer in the council's employ.
  Quite what the housing policy was is not clear. Whether they saw senior citizens or young people as a captive market I do not know, but, whatever the demands, somehow they would pretend that the state could meet them.
  So we had the ridiculous situation whereby no one on the engaged couples list ever got housed. I grew increasingly tired of parents coming to my surgery and
  298
  complaining that their children were never offered accommodation. They said that they had come to the town as pioneers in 1952 and that they had been promised accommodation for second and third generations, but it had never happened.
  People complained that they had been given off-the-record advice in the area offices that the way to get housed was to have a baby. What disgraceful advice that was, and what an environment in which to bring a child into the world. Charges were continually made of unfairness in the allocation of property. Time after time, constituents would imply corruption, which was difficult to substantiate. They would say that so-and-so knew someone in the housing department and managed to get housed. They asked me how that could have happened. I never had an answer, as the charges were never based on firm evidence.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is it not a fact that, despite all the appalling Labour party policies, the Conservative party policy to allow people to buy their own home took off wonderfully well in a new town which had formerly only rented property, so that today more than 57 per cent. of all households in Basildon are owner-occupied? It is a much higher percentage than in Battersea, for example, which is reckoned to be a yuppie place, calls itself "Battarsia" and has a postal address of south west one one.
  Mr. Amess: I was not aware of the history of Battersea, but my hon. Friend is an inspiration to us all. She is quite right about the success of the sale of council houses. As we all know, the Labour party fought that policy word by word and line by line. Labour Members never wanted to enfranchise people by giving them the opportunity to own their own houses and enjoy the discounts. My hon. Friend was right to remind the House of that.
  It has been a nightmare for the newly elected Conservative council to unravel the mess. However, it is well on the way to arriving at a fair policy whereby we shall have to draw a line under what has gone before, and everyone will be clear about the criteria for getting public accommodation.
  I am advised that, later this month, the authority is to engage a new housing director with considerable expertise and that the new council enthusiastically embraces the Government's policies on the right to buy, share ownership and financial assistance for tenants to move back into the private sector.
  I am delighted to tell the House that council arrears have now been tackled; the reduction in the past six months is double the total of all reductions in arrears in the past 10 years. That is quite incredible. Default action initiatives have been successfully piloted in Basildon and Billericay. I pay a warm tribute to the leader of the council, Tony Archer, the chairman of the housing committee, Councillor Brin Jones, and his deputy Councillor Mark Francois, for their splendid efforts. The housing committee has accepted the citizens charter, with performance indicators produced by the Audit Commission.
  There was scarcely a clearer example of socialist hypocrisy in housing matters than in the ballot for the transfer of commission houses to either the local authority or a housing association. On a number of occasions, the socialist council had been offered the Commission for the

  299
  New Towns property and, when close to settlement, pulled out of the deal with the Departent of the Environment, producing considerable loss of income to local residents. That was in stark contrast to socialist-controlled Harlow, which accepted the property from the Commission for the New Towns.
  In a wicked fashion, socialist activists embarked on a campaign to pretend that the Government would deprive tenants of their democratic right to choose the landlord of their liking. I recall their many bizarre distortions of the Government's policy. They deliberately tried to scare tenants, particularly the elderly, against the attraction of any other landlord. It is somewhat ironic that it took a Conservative council to conduct the ballot and enable local residents to choose their landlord.
  I am delighted to tell the House that four out of five tenants felt sufficiently confident with the Conservative council to support a change of landlord—85 per cent. of them chose that council as their preferred landlord. The rest chose the admirable Basildon housing association. Sadly, some 2,000 tenants chose not to exercise their vote, and their properties are now in the course of being allocated. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) went through a similar process of housing transfer recently.
  I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could tell me about the time scale of the transfer, how that matter will be handled and how those tenants who did not express a preference will be allocated their landlord.
  The Government have already decided to provide finance for the Siporex redevelopment and rebuild, and the Basildon housing association will be responsible for the project. It is interesting to note, however, that their parallel consultation exercise resulted in more than two thirds of tenants choosing the Basildon housing association rather than the council as their landlord.
  In the time that I have been involved in the whole sorry saga, a number of the unhelpfully designed and environmentally hostile estates in my constituency have come to need structural changes. I know that the residents of those estates are delighted that the Government, through the CNT, will ensure that the Siporex properties are brought up to the highest possible standard. The local authority was pleased with its housing investment programme allocation and the fact that £319,000 has been applied to another housing association scheme. It is also pleased that all requested capital programme improvements by council JEM—joint estate management—schemes have been agreed out of expected funds of £2·4 million.
  The local authority and its tenants were also delighted that, thanks to Government support, the redevelopment of the Crudens estate has now started. I was privileged to be present at the recent start of work. I know that one of the Housing Ministers hopes to visit that scheme later this year. Because of the expensive works involved, that scheme must be carried out over a number of phases. Tenants have asked me to try to get some information from my hon. Friend about when the further stages, which include the remaining parts of the estate, will start. The council would, as ever, be grateful for any financial support when the appropriate allocations are made.
  300
  The council is also anxious for the Government to continue their support so that the extensive underpinning of works on properties opposite St. Mary's church hall, the Triangle, Langdon Hills can be finished. I hope that the contractors will bear local residents in mind, because they do not want their lives to be made hell by the constant flow of heavy lorries in and out of the estate.
  The housing committee believes that it has kept its homelessness figures relatively low by utilising all manner of innovative housing. That includes leasing short-term properties and leasing police and Essex county council properties, unused sheltered housing schemes and so on.
  The whole issue of bed and breakfast accommodation is a real worry for the council. My hon. Friends will agree that the amount of money being expended on that sort of accommodation is crazy, for it is not satisfactory, and most constituents must go to Southend which, although a lovely seaside resort, is not exactly close to our area. There must be a better and more cost-effective method of dealing with the problem.
  The council is reviewing its points allocation system. Some members feel strongly that the Government should agree to all waiting list applicants, and not all so-called homeless families, taking social housing that is available. They believe that that policy would mean that those on the waiting list would get into the homeless situation. They think it unfair that couples should wait three, four or five years when the homeless are housed in 18 to 24 months. The whole concept and application of homelessness requires careful definition.
  Mrs. Gorman: Is it not a fact that the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, a typical piece of socialist legislation, has been responsible for stimulating some very anti-social behaviour on the part of some parents, who deliberately throw their youngsters out of the house to put pressure on the council to house them, with the taxpayer footing the bill?
  Mr. Amess: I agree with my hon. Friend. Such anti-social behaviour, with children being thrown on to the streets, causes general disturbance and is totally unacceptable. Parents must accept greater responsibility.
  An Englishman's home, like a Basildonian's, is his castle. I thank and congratulate the housing ministerial team at the Department of the Environment for the support and encouragement we have been given over the years. I sometimes get angry, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay, with the lack of individual responsibility on the part of some people and the abuse of publicly provided housing. It is not necessary to have a lot of money to be clean and tidy and behave well. The anti-social behaviour of some people in settled areas, upsetting everyone, is not acceptable.
  Frankly, I and the council could never provide sufficient housing to meet the endless demand. A fair and reasonable policy is needed. I am absolutely committed to ensuring the provision of housing of the very highest standards for all local residents in my constituency. Clear evidence of the warm-heartedness of my constituents was revealed in the latest census of the possession of household amenities, which showed that Basildon enjoyed per household the greatest number of central heating units in Britain.
  11.32 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on securing this debate. The House knows that Basildon is close to the Government's heart, and I take this opportunity to congratulate Eamonn Martin, who typifies the spirit of Basildon, on winning this year's London marathon.
  My hon. Friend is right to point out that much of the pressure on housing results from changes in the way we live. Too often, we speak of housing "need" when it is really expectation. Naturally, youngsters like independence, but I urge them and their families not to be too hasty in parting company if they cannot afford to house themselves.
  There is no way in which the state can or could suggest, or has ever suggested, that it should house all young people when they become 18 and decide that they want to live on their own. There are already many spare rooms in private and local authority housing as families grow up and move on, and I hope that our tax incentives to people to let those rooms will help.
  I share my hon. Friend's concerns about bed and breakfast. It is a wholly unsatisfactory system. It is unsatisfactory for those who are put in it and expensive on the public purse. I believe that there are currently over 70 households placed in bed and breakfast by Basildon district council—a legacy of Labour control—but I know that council members are looking at ways of bringing those numbers right down. Already they have shown enterprise in successfully bidding under our housing partnership scheme for resources that, along with housing corporation funds and private finance, will enable a housing association to build more than 50 homes to rent, and so reduce the need for bed and breakfast accommodation. Basildon council also bid successfully for a share of the extra resources announced in the autumn statement for a cash incentive scheme aimed at reducing homelessness.
  We have recommended to council tenants that they think seriously about the right to buy. Now is the time to consider house purchase—with low prices, low interest rates and substantial discounts available. At the same time, to ensure that councils see the benefit in promoting sales, we are giving them an opportunity to put more of their capital receipts to work and to help homeless families. No doubt Conservative-controlled Basildon council will seize all those opportunities to benefit tenants who become home owners. The council will have the benefit of all the capital receipts which it can reinvest in housing in the district.
  I am sure that Basildon's Conservative council will also want to develop its enabling role in order to offer the people of Basildon a better choice of housing than just the near-monopoly of municipal renting that they have had in the past. The previous Labour administration's slowness to team up with the housing association movement cost the people of Basildon dearly. Both we and the Housing Corporation were forced to conclude that money would be better allocated to areas where we considered that more cost-effective use would be made of it.
  Basildon was under a Labour council with an unrealistic approach, which meant that it not only lost money from the Housing Corporation, so that housing associations could not build new homes to rent, but that it
  302
  also lost the capacity to draw in further resources for housing from the private sector. I am glad to say that that is now in the past. The people of Basildon have voted, and Basildon now has a sensible Conservative council, determined to go forward and ensure that every family has a decent home in which to live.
  As to the ballot among former new town tenants, I can understand that many voted for the familiarity of the council, encouraged by confidence in the newly elected Conservative council. The Basildon community housing association now has a useful stock as a basis for bigger and better things. I congratulate the association on its efforts. I am sure that those who voted for it will be pleased that they did so.
  When the ballot was over, there was the question of empty houses and those of non-voters. Those have been allocated between the council and the housing association in the same proportion as the voting went, but in ways that make for good management. I understand that both the housing association and the council are content with that policy, which seems all very fair and sensible to me.
  My hon. Friend referred to Siporex properties, which are coming to the end of their useful life and which it is proposed should be redeveloped. We have been very fair about them. Tenants of Siporex houses were given the chance to vote in the ballot in the same way as everyone else, even though it was not proposed that they should transfer for the time being. Most of them voted for the housing association, and as far as possible individual wishes will be met when redevelopment proposals have been worked out.
  As my hon. Friend knows, the Crudens estate has benefited from estate action resources to the tune of £2,900,000 over three years. I do not blame my hon. Friend for hoping for more—indeed, as a result of his continued lobbying, we found another £200,000 for Crudens, and the district has also been able to pull in another £1,500,000 from the Housing Corporation. Basildon council has not asked us for any more money for that estate.
  There is stiff competition for estate action resources, and I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that, if any further works are required on the Crudens estate, any bid would be considered alongside the requirements of estates elsewhere. We must recognise that some of those estates have problems that are even more serious than those of the Crudens estate.
  I hope that I have shown my hon. Friend that we are well aware of the key local housing issues in Basildon. My Department's regional office is in regular contact with Basildon council, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Planning and Construction met leading members at the opening of a new housing association development there only three weeks ago. I know that Basildon council's current Conservative administration has inherited considerable difficulties, but I am confident that it will be both flexible and pragmatic in ensuring that its housing policies attract a fair and proper share of public resources for housing in Basildon and tap the maximum potential of private resources.
  We are determined to have the best possible housing in Basildon, and I have confidence that, with a Conservative council, Basildon's housing strategy will continue to go from strength to strength.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Welsh Boundary Commission
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the deputy chairman of the Parliametary Boundary Commission for Wales is to be appointed.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The appointment of the deputy chairman of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales will be made as soon as possible, following consultation with Opposition parties.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  BCCI
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Attorney-General if the Serious Fraud Office is still pursuing inquiries into possible criminal conduct of individuals connected with the Bank of Credit and Commerce International; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Yes. Three persons have already been indicted at the Central Criminal Court on charges connected with the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. It is expected that a fourth person will be extradited from France in the near future. Other lines of inquiry are being pursued and the investigation will continue while there is still a realistic prospect of bringing criminal charges against persons in England.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps have been taken by the Serious Fraud Office to interview(a) the British citizens in Abu Dhabi and (b) the persons in Pakistan who have indicated that they will co-operate with the Serious Fraud Office in furnishing information about BCCI.

  The Attorney-General
  Requests have been made to interview detainees and view documents in Abu Dhabi. So far, it has not been possible to arrange for such access.

  I have taken the persons mentioned at (b) to be those about whom the hon. Member wrote to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. His letter of 29 July 1992 to the hon. Member explained the basis on which it would be possible to interview those persons and, since the Serious Fraud Office is unable to contact the individuals save through the hon. Member, sought assistance in confirming their willingness to be interviewed on that basis. No such confirmation has been received.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Students
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of Northern Ireland students obtain employment outside college or university term time annually.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate Cost.

  Labour Relations Agency
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons are employed by the Labour Relations Agency; and how many employees are(a) Roman Catholic and (b) Protestant.

  Mr. Atkins
  As at 15 April 1993, 54 persons were employed by the Labour Relations Agency, of whom 25 were Roman Catholic and 29 were Protestant.

  Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards establishing the electricity interconnector between Northern Ireland and the British mainland.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply gave to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) on 15 March,Official Report, column 47.

  Housing
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the amount of money spent on(a) new build, (b) improvement schemes and (c) maintenance schemes by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in each of the estates under its control in the seven housing districts of Belfast in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Atkins
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I have been advised by the chief executive that the information is not readily available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Squatters
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many squatters have had court proceedings taken against them by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for illegal occupancy in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Atkins
  The chief executive of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has advised that details of the number of squatters who have had court proceedings taken against them are available for only the last three years. The numbers are as follows:

  Number

  1990–91

  133

  1991–92

  227

  1992–93

  172

  Punishment Shootings
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many punishment shootings occurred in Northern Ireland in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Mates
  There were 106 casualties as a result of terrorist shooting attacks within own communities in 1990, 76 in 1991 and 133 in 1992.

  Explosions
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many explosions occurred in Northern Ireland in each year since 1990; and how many deaths and injuries were sustained by the security forces in these years.

  Mr. Mates
  The number of explosions which have occurred and the number of members of the security forces who have been killed or injured in each year since 1990 in Northern Ireland as a result of the security situation is as follows:

  Year

  Explosions1

  Security force deaths

  Security force injuries

  1990

  167

  27

  428

  1991

  230

  19

  302

  1992

  222

  9

  468

  1 Excludes incendiary devices

  Local Government Personnel
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number of local government personnel in Northern Ireland in each year since 1990; and what was the total cost in salaries and wages in each case.

  Mr. Mates
  The information, which is available only for financial years, is as follows:

  Year

  Number of personnel

  Salary/Wages cost £million

  31 March 1990

  9,324

  95·2

  31 March 1991

  9,082

  97·6

  31 March 1992

  8,935

  101·0

  Information for the year ended 31 March 1993 is not yet available.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Capital Projects
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements he has made to monitor the extent to which the private sector is participating in the Government's programme of capital projects.

  Mr. Portillo
  Departments are being asked to notify the Treasury on a regular basis of cases being considered, or in hand, where the total expenditure involved by the public 48
  and/or private sector exceeds £5 million. In addition, the Treasury expects to obtain information about other projects through its normal contacts with Departments.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement as to the reasons for the increase in value added tax write-offs between 1990 and 1991.

  Sir John Cope
  The increase in value added tax write-offs between 1990 and 1991 was attributable primarily to an increase in the number of VAT registered traders being declared insolvent. The figures for 1991 also include some £80 million written off following a special review of long standing debts on the VAT ledger.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances the 20 per cent. penalty on value added tax debt is incurred.

  Sir John Cope
  The maximum rate of surcharge affects only those who persistently fail to submit returns and pay tax on time. As a result of proposals announced in the recent Budget statement and subject to the passage of the Finance Bill, no surcharges of 20 per cent. will be issued for tax periods ending on or after 1 April 1993. Prior to 1 April 1993, a taxpayer would incur a 20 per cent. surcharge only if at least six returns or payments were submitted late.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the current rate of currency exchange to the pound sterling for(a) Bermuda, (b) Gibraltar, (c) Hong Kong, (d) the Cayman Islands, (e) Montserrat, (f) St. Helena and (g) Turks and Caicos.

  Mr. Nelson
  At the close of the London Market on Friday 16 April the sterling exchange rates were:

  Area

  Currency

  (a) Bermuda

  Bermudian $ 1·52

  (b) Gibraltar

  Gib £ 1·00

  (c) Hong Kong

  HK $ 11·7898

  (d) the Cayman Islands

  CI $ 1·2551

  (e) Montserrat

  E Carr $ 4·1099

  (f)St. Helena

  £ 1·00

  (g) Turks and Caicos

  US $ 1·5250

  The Gibraltar pound is fixed at parity with sterling. The currency in St. Helena is sterling, and that in Turks and Caicos is the US dollar.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Dioxins
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what maximum levels of concentrations of dioxins and furans within samples of soil and herbage are allowable before these trigger further surveys within an area into the concentrations of dioxins and furans in food and beverages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  No specific maximum concentrations of dioxins and furans in soil and herbage have been set as a
  49
  trigger for a corresponding survey of locally produced foods. The Ministry's general approach is to consider the need for a survey of local foodstuffs only when the concentrations or patterns of dioxins and furans in soil or herbage in a specific area differ significantly from normal background levels.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the maximum tolerable concentrations of dioxins and furans which are allowable in differing types of milk, milk products, meat, meat products, fish, fats, oils, eggs, fruit, vegetables, cereals, cereal products, water and other beverages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry has established a maximum tolerable concentration—MTC—of dioxins and furans in whole milk of 0·7 ng TEQ/kg. Action is necessary to prevent direct consumption of milk if it contains dioxins and furans at concentrations above the MTC. No MTCs have been set for dioxins and furans in other foods listed.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of confirmed cases of BSE during the first three months of 1993 that were(a) under two years of age, (b) aged two to three years, (c) aged three to four years, (d) aged five to six years and (e) aged seven or more years.

  Mr. Soames
  The number of cases of BSE confirmed in Great Britain in cattle in which the age has so far been determined in the first three months of 1993 by age at onset of clinical signs of disease, is as follows:

  Age Band (Years)

  Number of cases

  Under 2

  0

  2 and less than 3

  5

  3 and less than 4

  189

  4 and less than 5

  1,803

  5 and less than 6

  3,266

  6 and less than 7

  1,206

  7 and over

  437

  The majority of these cases will have been clinically affected and reported in 1992, and consequently the data cannot be used as an expression of incidence in the first quarter of 1993.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give his Ministry's estimated annual figures for BSE in beef cattle for the next five years.

  Mr. Soames
  The number of cases of BSE occurring in beef cattle has always been a small part of the total. However, because it is still not possible to calculate accurately the extent to which the national herd was exposed to BSE agent through feed, accurate predictions of future incidence cannot be made.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is able to report on the outcome of the independent review of slaughterhouses, and of the recent consultations on the Government's proposals to limit meat inspection charges; and if he will make a statement.
  50
  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to his reply, 31 March 1993, c. 251–52]: I have now considered recommendations from my officials to refuse to grant licences to slaughterhouses in England. I am delighted that, following very thorough scrutiny of all the applications and an intensive programme of advice from my veterinary officers specialising in meat hygiene, we have been able to license 438 slaughterhouses, almost all the premises for which applications were made. I have refused only seven applications, all of them from premises which had failed on successive inspections to comply with the basic hygiene requirements of the regulations.

  A small number of slaughterhouses which have not yet agreed a work plan to upgrade their premises have been given a time-limited licence to 31 May to enable outstanding problems to be resolved. No further licence will be issued unless by the end of that period the operator has agreed to a satisfactory work plan. The state veterinary service will continue to be flexible in finding practical solutions in individual premises. But we will not allow businesses which have invested in meeting the new structural standards to be disadvantaged by unfair competition from plants where structure-related hygiene problems persist.

  Marine Pollution
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in fulfilment of paragraphs B4.1 and B4.2 on radioactive substances in annex 3 of the action plan of the ministerial meeting of the Oslo and Paris Commissions on the Prevention of Marine Pollution, 21 and 22 September 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  The question of criteria for assessing and/or reporting on best available techniques for the prevention and elimination of pollution by radioactive substances in the north-east Atlantic—paragraph B.4.1—is one which has been the subject of extended debate among the contracting parties of the Paris convention. Further discussion of the possibility of developing such criteria will no doubt continue. The adoption of further measures—paragraph B.4.2—will be considered as and when necessary. The United Kingdom is applying the best available techniques and sees no need for any measures to be adopted by the Paris commission.

DEFENCE

  Departmental Property (Scotland)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the disposal of his Department's property in Scotland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is the Government's policy that the defence estate should be no larger than necessary for defence purposes. In order to ensure the best return is achieved for the taxpayer it is our normal policy to offer surplus property for sale on the open market although special provisions apply to the sale of surplus housing.

  Army Personnel Centre
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the relocation of the Army personnel centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Work is still in hand to determine the location of the Army personnel centre, but I hope to be in a position to make an announcement soon.

  United Kingdom Air Defence
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the Royal Air Force assets which are deployed in the air defence of the United Kingdom; and what they were in(a) 1983 and (b)

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Currently we have seven Tornado air defence variant squadrons, three Rapier squadrons and one Sentry airborne early warning squadron deployed in the air defence of the United Kingdom. In addition, 50 dual-role Hawk trainer aircraft are available as interceptor day fighters. This compares to a United Kingdom air defence force in 1983 of five Phantom and two Lightning squadrons, one Bloodhound and three Rapier squadrons and one Shackleton airborne early warning squadron. Seventy two dual-role Hawk trainer aircraft were then available as interceptor day fighters. In 1973 we had one Phantom and five Lightning squadrons, one Bloodhound squadron and one Shackleton AEW squadron.

  Amphibious Warfare
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he intends to take to improve the United Kingdom amphibious warfare capability.

  Mr. Aitken
  We are committed to improving Britain's amphibious warfare capability. We recently announced that we are going ahead with a new helicopter carrier and we expect to place an order later this year. We are proceeding with our plans to upgrade our three older landing ships logistic, Sir Bedivere, Sir Percival and Sir Geraint. We are also continuing with project definition studies for replacements for our two assault ships.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the discussion his Department's ministers and officials have had with the United States Government about nuclear tests.

  Mr. Rifkind
  We are in close contact with the United States Government on nuclear testing, at both ministerial and official level.

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his United States counterpart regarding nuclear testing.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I shall be discussing a wide range of issues with Mr. Aspin later this week.

  Communications with Industry
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to improve its communications with industry.
  52
  Mr. Aitken
  We have taken a number of initiatives to improve communications between my Department and industry. They include special conferences, meetings, briefings and industrial visits all with a new emphasis on providing the maximum information to industry, subject to the constraints of security and commercial confidentiality.

  Infantry Strength
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the total infantry strength in 1994; and what the figure was in 1984.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The total trained strength of the infantry on 1 April 1994 is expected to be about 29,000. The total trained strength of the infantry on 1 April 1984 was 38,373.

  Bosnia
  Dr. Blackburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many tons of food and other humanitarian aid have been escorted by United Kingdom forces on behalf of the United Nations in Bosnia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 18 April, 474 convoys escorted by British troops have carried 33,224 tonnes of humanitarian aid. A further 6,751 tonnes of aid have been flown into Sarajevo by 449 sorties of RAF Hercules.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many pages of evidence he has submitted to Lord Justice Scott's inquiry.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 26 March 1993,Official Report, column 759.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet the Spanish Defence Minister to discuss the EFA.

  Mr. Aitken
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to discuss Eurofighter 2000 with Senor Garcia Vargas. I met my Spanish opposite number, Senor Flos Bassols, along with the German and Italian State Secretaries on 5 April. We reviewed the progress that has been made in the task of reorientating the Eurofighter 2000 project in line with the agreement reached between my right hon. and learned Friend and the other three Ministers of Defence on 10 December 1992.

  Nuclear Missile Capabilities
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those countries which possess a nuclear missile capable of striking Britain.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Within the Commonwealth of Independent States, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus have such missiles on their territories—these are centrally controlled. The only other country outside NATO with such a capacity is China.

  Peace Dividend
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make an assessment of the peace dividend.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Under the plans set out in the 1992 Autumn Statement, Cm 2096, the underlying defence budget will decline by around 12 per cent. in real terms between 1990–91 and 1995–96.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will report on progress with market testing in the armed forces.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 9 March 1993,Official Report, columns 547–48.

  Aldermaston
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what inquiries were made about the health and safety record of companies bidding to take over the running of the Aldermaston nuclear weapons plant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Comprehensive and detailed inquiries were made about all aspects of the companies which bid for the contract to operate the atomic weapons establishment. These included health and safety factors, which were particularly important in judging the competition.

  British Army of the Rhine
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many troops are currently serving in Germany; at what cost to the Exchequer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The military manpower strength of the British Army of the Rhine is currently about 40,000 and the defence budget provision for BAOR is some £1,275 million for 1993–94.

  Yugoslavia
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions to date British troops have come under fire in former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  To date, there have been about 70 incidents in which British troops or the convoys they were escorting have come under fire or sustained injury or damage as a result of military type activities by indigenous forces. Except in a small number of cases it is not possible to distinguish between incidents in which UNPROFOR vehicles and/or personnel have been deliberately aimed at and those where they have sustained collateral damage as a result of an attack on a nearby target.

  Outrider Laser Weapon
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is his intention to procure for British forces the Outrider laser weapon system.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Outrider combat protection system is a United States research programme involving laser 54
  technology. The United Kingdom is also involved in research in this field, including in collaboration with the United States. No decisions have been taken on the procurement by the United Kingdom of systems which might result from such research.

  Reserve Forces
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the present and proposed tasks for(a) the Royal Naval Reserve, (b) the Royal Marines Reserve, (c) the Territorial Army and (d) the RAF Reserve; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Royal Naval Reserve exists to augment the Royal Navy with trained personnel in times of tension and general war. Its present major tasks are the defence of ports and anchorages; naval control of shipping; the provision of naval parties for ships taken up from trade; and the manning of ships of the 10th mine counter-measures squadron. The main purpose of the Royal Marines Reserve is to provide trained reinforcements to bring units of commando forces up to full war establishment on mobilisation. The Territorial Army provides formed units and sub-units, and some individuals, to complete the mobilised army order of battle. Some units would form part of the Allied Command Europe rapid reaction corps, and others contribute to the direct defence of the United Kingdom. The mobilisation tasks of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve are to support the Royal Air Force with units, squadrons and flights in the maritime headquarters, ground defence, am movements, aeromedical evacuation, intelligence support, photographic interpretation, foreign language interrogation, and public relations roles, and with a small number of air electronics operators for Nimrod maritime patrol duties.

  Work is continuing on the future role of the Reserves and proposals will be announced to the House later in the year.

  Transport Aircraft
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the future development of large transport aircraft and the replacement of the Hercules C130; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  We have received a number of representations on this subject from hon. Members and industry. I can confirm that we intend to replace or modernise the Royal Air Force's C-130 fleet. We have no plans to participate in a new development programme, as we believe that the technology already exists to meet our requirements.

WALES

  Dredging
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date the Llanelli Sand Dredging Company commenced dredging on the Helwick bank; and if he will indicate the tonnage of sand dredged on a weekly basis to date.
  55
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The dredging licence issued by the Crown Estate commenced on 1 February 1993. Monitoring of the licence is the responsibility of the Crown Estate, but I understand that so far only limited extraction has taken place.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what guidelines he has issued and will issue to Welsh health authorities and trusts in relation to the work and rest period within the 83-hour maximum for junior hospital doctors;

  (2) what provisions he will make regarding the work content and rest period content within the 83-hour maximum working time for junior hospital doctors.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The new limit on junior hospital doctors' hours came into effect and has been operated by all hospitals involved since 1 April 1993. Guidance agreed by all parties represented on the ministerial group on junior doctors hours on the new limits on total and continuous duty periods for junior doctors together with details of minimum periods of off duty had previously been distributed to all health authorities, NHS trusts and individual doctors. A copy is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional medical staff have been appointed by Welsh health authorities and trusts to facilitate adherence to the 83-hour maximum hours for junior hospital doctors.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Funds for a total of 78 posts have been provided to health authorities and trusts to facilitate the 83-hour target for junior hospital doctors. This is in addition to any staff that authorities and trusts may have appointed from their own resources.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will incorporate the recommendations of the Morgan report relating to the local delivery of crime prevention in the functions of the new unitary local authorities in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) by the Minister of State, Home Department, on 16 December 1992,Official Report, column 220.

  Welsh Coast
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what response he has made to Friends of the Earth, Cymru, in regard to their report, "The Threats to the Welsh Coasts", published in March, a copy of which was sent to him.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have not as yet received a copy of the report.

  Timeshare Dwellings
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has had concerning people in Wales and the orders relating to council tax and timeshare dwellings—S.I., 1993, Nos. 526 and 542; and if he will make a statement.
  56
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have received 16 letters.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet representatives of those people in Wales who are concerned about the impact of orders relating to council tax and timeshare dwellings—S.I., 1993, Nos. 526 and 542.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Before the order for England and Wales was made full consultation was undertaken with representatives of the timeshare industry.

  South Glamorgan Health Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the South Glamorgan health authority concerning the cost to the authority's 1993–94 budget of further proposed moves towards trust status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In the event of a formal invitation to prepare an application for NHS trust status, health authorities are aware that the Welsh Office is prepared to consider bids for a financial contribution towards the cost of the application process.

  Orthopaedic Operations
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total cost in Wales of(a) hip replacement and (b) knee replacement operations during the last 10 years for which records are available.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Health Service Costs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has agreed with the directors of finance of the Welsh health authorities for the rise in health prices for 1993–94.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The allocations to health authorities for 1993–94 includes provision for pay increases of up to 1·5 per cent. and forecast price inflation of 2·75 per cent. It is for directors of finance to calculate the effects of inflation locally taking into account the composition of pay and non-pay costs within their respective authorities' expenditure on services.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in relation to the level of cost adjustments required to compensate health authorities for the Towards 2000 proposals.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The introduction of the Towards 2000 arrangements for the central planning and funding of pre-registration education and training have been preceded by extensive research and detailed discussion with all health authorities.

  This research and subsequent discussions have addressed changes in the methodology of funding education and training together with other matters of detail. All adjustments of funds have been undertaken based on data provided by health authorities.

  Departmental Reports
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the total costs of the 10 most expensive reports published by his Department during the financial years(a) 1991–92 and (b) 1992–93.
  57
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Comprehensive information about reports and similar documents produced by my Department could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Wind Power
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his calculation of the amount of electricity produced in Wales from wind power during each of the past five years and his projection of the output during the next five years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Since 1990, figures on the amount of electricity produced in Wales from wind power have been collected by the Welsh Office, but cannot be released for reasons of commercial confidentiality. Prior to 1990, there was no centrally recorded generation of electricity from wind power in Wales.

  Planning Inspectorate
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what performance targets he has set for the Planning Inspectorate agency's work in Wales for the financial year 1993–94.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The key objectives for the agency in Wales in 1993–94 will be to continue to preserve the impartiality and quality of the inspectorate's work while seeking further to improve efficiency. The agency's key performance targets in Wales will be:

  Timeliness

  (a) Eighty per cent. of planning appeals by written representations to be decided within 18 weeks.

  (b) To provide an inspector for local plan inquiries on request within 26 weeks of the end of the objection period.

  Financial

  (a) Unit costs of planning appeals decided by written representations not to exceed £690.

  (b) Recover 90 per cent. of receipts due within eight weeks of invoice date.

  Efficiency

  Generate a 3 per cent. efficiency improvement in the use of running costs as compared with 1992–93.

  Quality

  High Court appeals and/or other justified complaints allowed against Inspectors' decisions not to exceed 1 per cent. of intake.

  Volume

  To determine 1,150 planning and enforcement appeals, subject to intake not declining.

  Information and Guidance

  To complete a second satisfaction survey by 31 December 1993.

  These and other performance targets for the agency's work in Wales will be included in its business plan for 1993–94 which will be published shortly.

  Separate timeliness and volume targets for the agency's work in England are being announced today by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Planning and Construction.

EDUCATION

  Students
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the numbers of undergraduate university students taking up employment during term time; and if he will increase student grants and end student loans.

  Mr. Boswell
  The student income and expenditure survey currently under way on behalf of the education Departments seeks information about the income of full-time and sandwich students, including term-time earnings. My right hon. Friend has no plans to change the current student support arrangements which work well and which have provided substantially increased resources to students.

  Pupil Costs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to have available details of the unit cost per pupil in each local education authority for 1991–92 for(a) nursery, (b) primary and (c) secondary pupils.

  Mr. Forth
  Figures for expenditure on nursery and primary pupils are not collected separately. The table gives the unit cost for nursery and primary combined, and secondary pupils by local education authority for 1991–92 for those English LEAs that have returned details of their expenditure to the Department of the Environment. The figures are subject to final checking by the Department of the Environment and the Department for Education.

  Unit cost per pupil in each LEA in England 1991–92 (£)

  Local Education Authority

  Nursery/ Primary

  Secondary

  City

  2,595

  0

  Camden

  1,943

  2,432

  Greenwich

  1,830

  2,296

  Hackney

  n/a

  n/a

  Hammersmith

  2,047

  2,739

  Islington

  n/a

  n/a

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,287

  3,200

  Lambeth

  2,083

  2,978

  Lewisham

  1,717

  2,376

  Southwark

  1,828

  2,460

  Tower Hamlets

  2,253

  2,946

  Wandsworth

  2,174

  3,215

  Westminster

  3,544

  2,579

  Barking

  1,528

  2,247

  Barnet

  1,654

  2,295

  Bexley

  1,372

  2,097

  Brent

  1,573

  2,477

  Bromley

  1,399

  2,437

  Croydon

  1,554

  2,356

  Ealing

  1,754

  2,621

  Enfield

  1,607

  2,287

  Haringey

  n/a

  n/a

  Harrow

  1,646

  2,376

  Havering

  1,375

  2,234

  Hillingdon

  1,597

  2,628

  Hounslow

  1,579

  2,168

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,496

  2,447

  Merton

  1,562

  2,676

  Newham

  1,603

  2,433

  Redbridge

  1,481

  2,281

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,655

  2,111

  Sutton

  1,448

  2,221

  Waltham Forest

  1,603

  2,609

  Birmingham

  1,370

  2,151

  Coventry

  1,380

  2,192

  59

  Local Education Authority

  Nursery/Primary

  Secondary

  Dudley

  1,416

  2,137

  Sandwell

  1,488

  2,284

  Solihull

  1,346

  2,109

  Walsall

  n/a

  n/a

  Wolverhampton

  1,515

  2,342

  Knowsley

  1,435

  2,271

  Liverpool

  1,410

  2,387

  St. Helens

  1,302

  2,073

  Sefton

  1,286

  2,021

  Wirral

  1,312

  2,140

  Bolton

  1,358

  2,119

  Bury

  1,269

  1,868

  Manchester

  1,399

  2,293

  Oldham

  1,535

  2,193

  Rochdale

  1,300

  2,137

  Salford

  1,293

  2,183

  Stockport

  1,334

  2,122

  Tameside

  1,409

  2,119

  Trafford

  1,271

  2,113

  Wigan

  1,242

  2,271

  Barnsley

  1,350

  2,047

  Doncaster

  1,286

  1,962

  Rotherham

  1,473

  2,161

  Sheffield

  1,484

  2,228

  Bradford

  1,628

  1,804

  Calderdale

  1,551

  2,001

  Kirkless

  1,384

  2,036

  Leeds

  1,631

  1,979

  Wakefield

  1,457

  2,076

  Gateshead

  1,573

  2,140

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,615

  2,028

  North Tyneside

  n/a

  n/a

  South Tyneside

  1,389

  2,088

  Sunderland

  1,412

  2,065

  Isles of Scilly

  n/a

  n/a

  Avon

  1,410

  2,063

  Bedfordshire

  1,475

  2,020

  Berkshire

  1,480

  2,165

  Buckinghamshire

  1,399

  2,160

  Cambridgeshire

  1,401

  2,007

  Cheshire

  1,329

  2,094

  Cleveland

  1,353

  2,221

  Cornwall

  1,380

  1,944

  Cumbria

  1,443

  2,173

  Derbyshire

  1,411

  2,165

  Devon

  1,376

  1,999

  Dorset

  1,371

  1,945

  Durham

  1,384

  2,051

  East Sussex

  1,388

  2,067

  Essex

  1,324

  2,111

  Gloucestershire

  1,379

  1,811

  Hampshire

  1,395

  2,108

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,446

  1,955

  Hertfordshire

  1,472

  2,175

  Humberside

  1,417

  2,082

  Isle of Wight

  1,447

  1,926

  Kent

  n/a

  n/a

  Lancashire

  1,477

  2,168

  Leicestershire

  1,444

  2,210

  Lincolnshire

  1,330

  2,096

  Norfolk

  1,427

  2,104

  North Yorkshire

  1,381

  2,153

  Northamptonshire

  1,332

  1,965

  Northumberland

  1,455

  1,942

  Nottinghamshire

  1,591

  2,482

  Oxfordshire

  1,574

  2,092

  Shropshire

  1,469

  2,332

  Somerset

  1,322

  1,927

  Staffordshire

  1,384

  2,043

  Suffolk

  1,561

  2,016

  Surrey

  1,486

  2,254

  Warwickshire

  1,277

  2,111

  West Sussex

  1,292

  2,156

  Wiltshire

  1,402

  2,017

  Notes to tables

  1. n/a indicates that returns of expenditure have not yet been
  60
  received from the local education authority, or that returns are subject to follow-up inquiry.

  2. Figures are derived from local education authorities' returns of their net institutional expenditure to the Department of the Environment and of their pupil numbers to the Department for Education.

  3. Net institutional expenditure covers the direct costs in schools of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services. It does not include the costs of school meals, home to school transport, local education authority central administration, and financing costs of capital expenditure. Figures include unspent balances held by schools at the year end under local management of schools schemes.

  Universities (Research)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will bring forward proposals to alter the criteria used in the universities research assessment exercise to ensure that those universities whose work is geared towards the needs of the industry and the economy are favoured; and if he will take steps to alter the membership of assessment panels to increase representation from industry.

  Mr. Boswell
  Arrangements for research assessment are a matter for the higher education funding councils. They will be consulting institutions and others on arrangements for future assessment exercises. Universities and colleges were free to submit evidence of the full range of their research in the research assessment exercise undertaken last year by the Universities Funding Council, including that related to the needs of industry.

  Fuel (VAT)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will uprate students' mandatory grants from April 1994 to take account of the imposition of value-added tax on fuel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Deptford (Ms Ruddock) on 24 March,Official Report, column 603.

PRIME MINISTER

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister what were the details of the last formal vote that was taken in a meeting of a Council of Ministers in the European Community; and if he will list the date of each subsequent meeting at which no formal votes were taken.

  The Prime Minister
  The last formal vote in the Council of Ministers was that taken on the proposed arrangements for bananas in the single market during the Agriculture Council on 13 February. Details were given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on 3 March at column 192. No formal votes were taken at the following Councils: ECOFIN on 15 February, Consumer Affairs on 2 March, Foreign Affairs on 8 and 9 March, ECOFIN on 15 March, Transport on 15 March, Agriculture on 16 and 17 March, Fisheries on 18 March, Environment on 22 and 23 March, Foreign Affairs on 5 April, Employment and Social Affairs on 6 April, and ECOFIN on 19 April.

  49 Whitehall
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those Government Departments having offices at No. 49 Whitehall, London SW1.

  The Prime Minister
  There is no Government occupation of 49 Whitehall. I assume that the hon. Member refers to 49/53 Parliament street, SW1 which is occupied by the Office of Public Service and Science—major occupier—the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security.

  Derbyshire
  Q10. Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Prime Minister if he plans to pay an official visit to Derbyshire.

  The Prime Minister
  I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to include Derbyshire among them.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Tourist Boards
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 8 March,Official Report, column 390, when the hon. Member for Don Valley can expect a letter from the chief executives of the English Tourist Board and the British Tourist Board in respect of their future.

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

  Tourism
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many visits of four nights' duration or longer were undertaken by British tourists in(a) Britain and (b) abroad on each year since 1985.

  Mr. Key
  The available information is contained in the table.

  (a) Domestic tourists in the Great Britain1/United Kingdom2The number of visits of four nights' duration or longer is as follows:

  Trips millions

  19851

  47

  19861

  51

  19871

  49

  19881

  49

  19892

  43

  19902

  39

  19912

  40

  Sources:

  1985–1988 figures—British Tourism Survey Monthly.

  1989–1991 figures—United Kingdom Tourism Survey.

  1 The British Tourism Survey Monthly (covering the period 1985–1988) refers to tourist trips in Great Britain.

  2 The United Kingdom Tourism Survey (covering the period1989–1991) refers to tourist trips in the United Kingdom.

  (b) Visits by United Kingdom residents Abroad1The number of visits of five nights' duration or longer2 are shown below:
  62

  Trips (millions)

  1985

  15

  1986

  18

  31987

  —

  1988

  21

  1989

  22

  1990

  17

  1991

  21

  Source:

  International Passenger Survey.

  1 The figures exclude visits to the Irish Republic.

  2 It is not possible to provide figures for trips of four nights' duration or longer from 1985 to 1991. The International Passenger Survey does, however, supply data on trips of five nights' duration or longer for the period.

  3 The 1987 figure for the number of visits of five nights' duration or longer is not available.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sex Trade, Thailand
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Thailand about the sex trade in women and children in that country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Her Majesty's ambassador in Bangkok has raised on several occasions with the Thai authorities our concern about the problem of the sex trade in Thailand, particularly the forced prostitution of children. We have been assured that the Thai Government are looking seriously at ways of tackling the problem. We will continue to encourage them to take effective measures.

  Abu Dhabi
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken since 1 March to secure the release of the British citizens detained in Abu Dhabi.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have made two further representations to the Abu Dhabi authorities about the British citizens detained in Abut Dhabi pending conclusions of the investigation into the affairs of BCCI. On 21 March, Her Majesty's ambassador in Abu Dhabi called on the United Arab Emirates' Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. On 6 April the Minister of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) called the UAE ambassador in London to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We were told by the UAE ambassador on 16 April that the prosecution case should be ready by mid-July. We will continue to press the UAE authorities either to charge or release the men.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit Abu Dhabi.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has at present no plans to do so.

  East Timor
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had on the issue of East Timor at his recent meeting with the Foreign Minister of Indonesia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  In my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs' discussions with the Indonesian Foreign Minister in Jakarta earlier this month, he reiterated our concern about human rights in East Timor. He encouraged the Indonesians—as we similarly encourage the Portuguese—to continue to seek an acceptable solution to the East Timor issue through their dialogue under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General.

  Inhumane Weapons
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans exist for the British Government to ratify the United Nations inhumane weapons convention 1981.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The situation remains as set out in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 9 March,Official Report, column 517.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many meetings he has had with hon. Members about the situation in Bosnia; and how many requests have been made for such meetings.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since the London conference in August 1992, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, has held 11 meetings involving hon. Members specifically to discuss the situation in the former Yugoslavia. The conflict in Bosnia was discussed at all of these meetings and many others. Records are not kept of the number of requests for meetings.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Manchester Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mobile and non-mobile staff at Manchester prison have thus far opted not to be redeployed within the Prison Service in the event of contracting out.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 19 April 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to write to you directly in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many mobile and non-mobile staff at Manchester prison have thus far opted not to be redeployed within the Prison Service in the event of contracting out.

  Staff have not yet been asked to state their preference for redeployment in the prison service or transfer to the contractor should a private operator win the market test of Her Majesty's Prison Manchester.
  64
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice on the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 has been given to companies tendering for Manchester prison; and what additional costs will be involved.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 19 April 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to write to you in response to your recent Parliamentary Question about the advice on the application of the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 1981 given to companies tendering for Manchester Prison.

  Tenderers have been informed that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (TUPE) will apply to the market testing of HM Prison Manchester. They have been informed that should a private operator win the contract the Prison Service intends to give staff at Manchester the option of redeployment and have been asked to provide information on the effect the application of TUPE will have on their bids.

  Any effect on costs will not be known until the tendering exercise has concluded and the number of staff transferring, in the event of a private operator winning the contract, is known.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which staff and union agreements will now be taken into account by companies tendering for Manchester prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 19 April 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to write to you directly in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking which staff and union agreements will now be taken into account by companies tendering for Manchester Prison.

  Companies tendering for the operation contract for HM Prison Manchester have been supplied with information about numbers of staff in-post, pay and the main agreements with the trades unions so that they can adjust their bids in the light of the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. Full details of the terms and conditions of staff and agreements with the trades unions will be made available to the preferred bidder before any contract is awarded.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance was offered by the prison department to staff preparing the in-house bid at Manchester prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 19 April 1993:
  65
  The Home Secretary has asked me to write to you directly in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about guidance to the Manchester prison in-house bid team.

  The Prison Service bid for the management of Manchester Prison has made appropriate use of an extensive range of central services—including guidance and advice from headquarters. It has received the same advice and guidance from the Unit responsible for the competitive tendering process as has been available to other tenderers.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the companies that have been invited to submit tenders for the running of Manchester prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated April 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to write to you in response to your Parliamentary Question about the companies that have been invited to tender for the running of Manchester Prison.

  In October 1992 the following organisations were invited to tender for the operating contract at HMP Manchester:

  — HM Prison Service

  — Premier Prison Services Ltd.

  — Securicor Custodial Services Ltd.

  — Group 4 Remand Services Ltd.

  — Securiguard Services Ltd.

  — UK Detention Services Ltd.

  — Contract Prisons plc

  — Reliance Security Services Ltd.

  — Sodexho

  Contract Prisons plc and Reliance Security Services Ltd withdrew at an early stage.

  Racial Attacks
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of reported or recorded racial attacks in the latest year available; what are the rates of prosecution and conviction; in what number of cases racial motivation has been raised by the Crown prosecution service during court proceedings; out of the total number of cases of assault involving racial motivation, how many defendants were juveniles; and how many defendants in cases recorded as involving racial motivation were granted bail, and of these, how many were defendants in cases of murder.

  Mr. Jack
  The only information held centrally relates to the number of reported racial incidents and I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) on 23 March at column 529.

  Contracting Out
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether existing trade union negotiating rights and agreements will be recognised in the event of Manchester prison or any other Home Office function or division being contracted out.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  66
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 19 April 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to write to you in response to your Parliamentary Question about trade union recognition if the management of Manchester prison were to be contracted out.

  When the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (TUPE) apply to the contracting out of a Home Office activity existing trade union recognition and collective agreements will transfer to the new employer. As a general rule whether or not TUPE applies depends on the facts of each case. Should a private operator win the market test for HM prison Manchester, TUPE will apply.

  Police Vehicles (Accidents)
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many accidents involving Metropolitan police vehicles there were during the last three years; and how many fatalities and injuries there were as a result.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Total incidents

  5,621

  5,958

  6,263

  (i)

  1,638

  1,954

  1,962

  (ii)

  2,409

  2,399

  2,268

  (iii)

  1,178

  1,331

  1,097

  (iv)

  393

  274

  936

  Number of fatalities

  7

  3

  8

  Number of injuries

  1,171

  1,222

  1,307

  Notes:

  (i) Police driver assessed as blameworthy.

  (ii) Police driver assessed as not blameworthy.

  (iii) Assessed as "For Record Only"—eg: The police driver was not in the vehicle at the time of the incident.

  (iv) Liability not yet determined or incidents not followed up.

  Prisoner Escort Services
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet Group 4 Security concerning the prison escort services it is providing.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. The director general of the Prison Service met Group 4 Court Services Ltd. on 15 April and a further meeting is scheduled for a month's time.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had about the prison escort service in the east midlands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been kept fully informed of the position by the director general of the Prison Service.

  Police and Fire Services (Radio Communications)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received the report of the major review into radio communications in the police and fire services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Copies of this report have been placed in the Library, and will be made available to those with an interest, both in the emergency services and industry. I welcome this report. It sets out a strategy for
  67
  the development of radio communications for the police and fire services which would enable these services to make the most efficient use of the radio spectrum and take advantage of the latest advances in technology and thus to ensure that their radio systems operate as effectively and efficiently as possible, and give good value for money.

  There are, however, a number of issues which require further work before decisions can be taken on which new systems are best suited to emergency service use and how they might best be implemented. This work will constitute a development programme which would be undertaken by my Department under the direction of a steering group including representatives from the police and fire services.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish(a) the Coopers and Lybrand Study of 1992 and (b) the privatisation return of the same year which identified Home Office businesses thought suitable for market testing.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No. Both documents were produced for internal management purposes and the former was classified "commercial-in-confidence".

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of Home Office jobs will be the subject of market testing exercises with a view to contracting out between September 1993 and March 1995.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  A provisional Home Office market testing programme for 1993–94 has been drawn up, but I have not yet settled the final programme which I will announce in due course.

  Fire Services
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to merge and create larger fire services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Apart from any combinations of fire authorities which appear necessary as a consequence of the reviews of local government in England and Wales, my right hon. and learned Friend has no present plans to combine fire authorities. Our proposals to replace the present eight fire authorities in Wales with three combined fire authorities are set out in the White Paper on the future of local government in Wales.

  Explosion (Liverpool)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Merseyside police on their investigations into the explosion in Liverpool 8; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am not aware of any such explosion.

  Criminal Injuries
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to reach a decision and advise a client's solicitor; and if he will make a statement.
  68
  Mr. Jack
  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board does not maintain detailed statistics on the time taken for a first decision to be made on cases. However, it has been established that some 80 per cent. of cases reach that stage within one year of the application having been received. The number of cases in which a first offer is made and accepted stands at about 50 per cent.

  Long Lartin Prison
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many attempted escapes there have been at Long Lartin prison over the last five years; and what category of prisoners were involved.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director-general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Michael Spicer, dated 20 April 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to write to you in response to your Parliamentary Question asking for details of how many incidents of attempted escape there have been at HM Prison Long Lartin over the last five years and what categories of prisoner were involved.

  I regret that this information was not recorded centrally until 1 January 1990, but from information derived from the number of incidents reported to the Incident Management Support Unit, a part of the Directorate of Custody, the information available is as follows:

  Date

  Number of prisoners involved

  Category of prisoner

  April 1990

  9

  Not recorded

  September 1991

  2

  Both 'A'

  October 1991

  1

  'B'

  Election Deposits
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out by political party how many deposits were lost in the 1992 general election.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 19 April 1993]: The table gives details of lost deposits by party. A deposit is forfeited if a candidate fails to secure 5 per cent. of the total valid votes polled in the parliamentary constituency.

  Political party

  Number of lost deposits

  Conservative

  8

  Labour

  5

  Liberal Democrat

  11

  Liberal

  70

  Plaid Cymru

  25

  Green

  251

  Natural Law

  307

  National Front

  14

  Sinn Fein

  5

  Others1

  207

  1Political parties with less than five lost deposits.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total spending by the Government in providing aid, assistance and investment in the Falkland Islands in each of the past 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Gross public expenditure on aid to the Falkland Islands since 1983–84 is as follows. Information on expenditure in 1992–93 is not yet available.

  £ thousand

  1983–84

  7,469

  1984–85

  8,394

  1985–86

  10,198

  1986–87

  11,021

  1987–88

  6,735

  1988–89

  3,389

  1989–90

  2,487

  1990–91

  1,430

  1991–92

  1,286

  Total

  52,409

  Additional assistance was provided by the diplomatic wing as follows:

  Assistance Under-Secretary's Programme Budget

  £ thousand

  1989–90

  2

  1990–91

  10

  1991–92

  11

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office scholarship awards scheme

  £'000

  1990–91

  10

  1991–92

  3

  1992–93

  12

  Further investment in the Falkland Islands has come from the presence of the British forces garrison since the end of the war in 1982. The construction of living accommodation and the new airfield at Mount Pleasant have resulted in some capital expenditure in the local economy. Similarly, the presence of the garrison has resulted in personal expenditure by service men in the local economy, and the new airfield has allowed the expansion of tourism. These benefits are difficult to quantify. Detailed information on Ministry of Defence expenditure on defence of the Falkland Islands can be found in the statements on the defence estimates for the years in question. Much of this expenditure would have been incurred in the United Kingdom.

EMPLOYMENT

  Unpaid Women Workers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make it her policy to collect data on the number of women working unpaid within family enterprises in the United Kingdom.
  70
  Mr. McLoughlin
  Such data are already collected by the labour force survey, quarterly for Great Britain and annually for Northern Ireland.

TRANSPORT

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the environmental appraisal appendix to Union Railways' report on the channel tunnel rail link to be published.

  Mr. Freeman
  The appendix has now been published and copies are available in the Vote Office.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 28 January,Official Report, column 800, what information he has received from London Transport and the administrators of Olympia and York in relation to (a) the private sector contribution, (b) European investment bank contribution and (c) United Kingdom public sector funding to the Jubilee line, set out in each of the first 10 years after any decision to proceed, and the residual figures for those three categories for the period thereafter.

  Mr. Norris
  The European investment bank has agreed to finance some £98 million—the first and largest instalment—of the private sector's contribution to the cost of the Jubilee Line extension. I hope that it will enable the private sector to conclude with London Transport and London Underground Ltd a satisfactory funding agreement covering the basis on which the contribution will be made. Government funding has been ready for some time, and once the private sector funding agreement is in place we will be able to authorise the start of construction.

  Railway Rolling Stock
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 15 March,Official Report, column 98, what proposals he has now received from British Rail about the rolling stock it wishes to order using the leasing facilities announced in the autumn statement.

  Mr. Roger Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) on 19 April, at column 7.

  M1/M62 Link
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement on the results of the public consultation exercise concerning proposals for an M1/M62 motorway link; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The implications of the large number of responses to the public consultation are still being assessed. When this work is complete we shall make a decision on the way forward with the proposed new road. It will be a few more months before we are able to announce the outcome.

  Tugboat Crews
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to strengthen controls on the qualifications, including local knowledge and experience, of tugboat crews.

  Mr. Norris
  None. Masters, mates and engineer officers of sea-going tugs are required to hold certificates of competency in accordance with the deck or marine engineer officer regulations. Tugs that do not proceed beyond the limits of smooth or partially-smooth waters are not required to carry any officers with formal qualifications. The accident record of these vessels does not give cause to impose further legislative requirements.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reports he has received of accidents and dangers arising from the employment of labour inexperienced in the area in operating tugs from Newport docks in the past four weeks.

  Mr. Norris
  None that involved any lack of local knowledge.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will recommend that recordings of messages between tugs and coastguards be retained for at least six months during the period of industrial action at Newport docks.

  Mr. Norris
  It is HM coastguard's policy to retain archive tape recordings of rescue centre telephone and radio messages for 30 days. Should an incident occur that may require the submission of a tape or associated transcript to an appropriate inquiry, such recordings are kept for a period dictated by the particular case. I see no reason to change this policy during industrial action at Newport docks.

  Roads and Bridges (Damage)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest assessment of the percentage of damage and wear to motorways, roads and bridges caused by(a) lorries, (b) other vehicles and (c) other reasons.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  For motorways and other roads, the vast majority of damage and wear is caused by vehicles over 1·5 tonnes unladen weight such as heavy goods vehicles, buses and coaches. Damage and wear from motor cars and from other causes including weather and spillages is negligible compared with that from commercial vehicles. Bridges deteriorate for a variety of reasons not necessarily related to traffic. No percentage breakdown is readily available.

  Road Safety (Blind People)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from, and what discussions he had with, the Royal National Institute for the Blind in preparation of his new code of practice for signing and guarding road and pavement works.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  In July 1991, the Department consulted a large number of organisations, including the RNIB, on its proposal to issue a code of practice on safety measures under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. Comments were received from organisations 72
  representing visually impaired people, but not directly from the RNIB. In February 1992, the Department convened a meeting of manufacturers of pedestrian barrier systems and visually impaired pedestrians, at which a representative of the RNIB was present. The views expressed by the RNIB on this occasion were taken into account in drawing-up the code of practice, now published as "Safety at Street Works and Road Works".

  Marine Archaeology
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Libary the letter of 31 March from the Minister for Aviation and Shipping to the hon. Member for Linlithgow regarding marine archaeology, ref. L/PSO/6890/93.

  Mr. Norris
  I have done so today.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his proposals for marine archaeology in relation to the current discussions on the special salvage convention 1990.

  Mr. Norris
  It is our intention to ratify the 1989 salvage convention and to consult relevant bodies prior to ratification. The convention allows any state to reserve the right not to apply the convention when the property involved is maritime cultural property of prehistoric, archaeological or historic interest. At the conference that adopted the convention, we supported the view that material of this nature should be excluded from the scope of the convention. That remains our view.

  MV Braer
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received urging him to set up a formal investigation under merchant shipping legislation into the grounding of the MV Braer on Shetland in January.

  Mr. Norris
  In addition to the one from the hon. Member, representations have been received from the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, North (Ms Walley) and jointly, from the Shetland Conservative Association, the Shetland Labour party, the Shetland Liberal Democrats, the Shetland Movement and the Shetland Scottish National party. My right hon. and noble Friend, the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, has also received several representations. In addition to those made to him directly by islanders in the course of his three visits to Shetland following the grounding of the Braer, he has also received a petition containing some 6,000 names which calls for a formal investigation.

  Road Pricing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent studies he has published on road pricing and the technological options for its implementation.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department of Transport published "London Congestion Charging—A Review of Technology for Road Use Pricing in London" on 31 March. This was an independent report commissioned by the Department from the University of Newcastle.

  Her Majesty's Coastguard Helicopters
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the occasions in the past three years on which(a) Ministers and (b) hon. Members have been conveyed by Her Majesty's coastguard helicopter, or by private helicopter companies on contract to Her Majesty's coastguard.

  Mr. Norris
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Minister:

  Occasion

  Location of coastguard helicopter

  Minister

  10 June 1990

  Lee on Solent

  Cecil Parkinson

  11 September 1991

  Stornoway

  Patrick McLoughlin

  1 May 1992

  Lee on Solent

  Lord Caithness

  6 January 1993

  Sumburgh

  Lord Caithness

  8 January 1993

  Sumburgh

  Lord Caithness and John MacGregor

  9 January 1993

  Sumburgh

  Ian Lang and Sir Hector Monro

  30 March 1993

  Sumburgh

  Lord Caithness

  (b) Hon. Member - Nil.

  Leicester Eastern Bypass
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the report by Travers Morgan into the proposal for an eastern bypass for Leicester.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A technical appraisal report should be submitted early in 1994.

  Minches (Tankers)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take action in addition to the voluntary control arrangements for tankers using the Minches pending the recommendations of the Donaldson inquiry.

  Mr. Norris
  Any further action to control the movement of tankers must have regard to the outcome of the maritime safety committee meeting at the International Maritime Organisation, Lord Donaldson's inquiry and international law on the right of innocent passage.

  Feja Svea
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further tanker control mechanisms he has recommended to avoid pollution incidents following the grounding of the tanker Feja Svea off the Teesside coast.

  Mr. Norris
  The grounding of the Feja Svea in severe weather conditions is being investigated by the marine accident investigation branch. The report and any recommendations will be considered when they are available.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Controls
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what powers he has to ensure that equipment granted an export licence so that it may be displayed at an arms exhibition or in trials overseas is returned to the United Kingdom.
  74
  Mr. Needham
  It is a condition of licences granted for temporary export that the exporter return the goods within a specified period. Under article 5(3) of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1992, failure to comply with any condition attaching to a licence is an offence, punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. If necessary, my Export Control Organisation may ensure compliance by visits to exporters' premises to check documentation and/or physical presence of the goods.

  Car Imports
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement regarding agreement with the Japanese vehicle manufacturers on car imports.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In accordance with the EC/Japan cars agreement reached in July 1991, the EC Commission and MITI have agreed forecasts for Japanese car and light van exports to the Community for 1993. The figure agreed for the United Kingdom is in line with the levels agreed under the previous arrangements between the United Kingdom and Japanese manufacturers.

  "The Prospects for Coal"
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Government will publish a full outline of their renewable energy strategy document as stated in the White Paper, "The Prospects for Coal."

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government will publish a renewable energy strategy review document later this year, in the light of the report of the Renewable Energy Advisory Group and the coal review.

  Astra plc
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his inspectors have received all papers removed from Astra plc by the MoD police.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The inspectors have confirmed to me that they have had access to papers of the company held by the Ministry of Defence police.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the DTI inspectors began work on Astra plc; and what reasons account for the time taken by the inspectors to prepare their report.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The inspectors commenced work on appointment on 16 August 1990 and their report was signed on 7 April 1993. In particular, the inspectors considered substantial representations received during the course of fairness procedures.

  British Coal Superannuation Scheme
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what considerations underlay his Department's decision to indemnify British Coal against any adverse legal consequences of its action in respect of the trustees of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme.

  Mr. Eggar
  No indemnity has been given or offered to British Coal for such legal costs.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of British Coal about the staff superannuation scheme; and if he will make a statement.
  75
  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had recently with the chairman of British Coal about surpluses in the corporation's staff superannuation fund.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him today.

  Defence Diversification
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much money has been provided by the EC Konver initiative for defence diversification in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 15 April 1993,Official Report, column 715.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to publish his response to the European Green Paper on Post.

  Mr. Leigh
  Following wide-ranging consultations on the Green Paper, the Government are completing a detailed response which will shortly be put to the European Commission. I will at that time arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he has given to maintaining current exemptions from the provisions of(a) road traffic, (b) customs and excise and (c) health and safety legislation for the Post Office after privatisation.

  Mr. Leigh
  No decision has been taken as to whether to privatise the Post Office. If such a decision where made, these matters would need to be considered in detail.

  Regulations
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library a list of the regulations of all Departments which impact on business.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  A consolidated list of all regulations and forms, grouped by Department, which Departments have identified as having an impact on business has today been placed in the Library of the House.

  Post Office
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answers of 25 February,Official Report, columns 705–6, if he will express the values of the Post Office 1993–94 capital investment programme in September 1992 prices.

  Hospital and community health services paybill costs

  £ billion

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  21993–94

  Nurses and midwives

  3·92

  4·64

  4·90

  5–26

  5·77

  6·4

  n/a

  Consultants

  0·59

  0·66

  0·71

  0·79

  0·89

  n/a

  n/a

  Junior doctors

  0·48

  0·53

  0·60

  0·64

  0·71

  n/a

  n/a

  Other medical

  0·15

  0·16

  0·17

  0·18

  0·25

  n/a

  n/a

  76
  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 15 April 1993]: The value of the Post Office's planned capital investment programme for 1993–94, expressed in 1992–93 prices, is £312·4 million.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide a breakdown of current Post Office employee numbers by British standard region and nation.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 15 April 1993]: A breakdown of Post Office employees by British standard region is not available since the Post Office businesses do not operate on such a regional basis. The breakdown by nation of the March 1993 employee figure was:

  Number

  England

  164,800

  Scotland

  14,300

  Wales

  7,800

  Northern Ireland

  3,600

  Total

  190,500

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total number of Post Office employees in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 15 April 1993]: The total number of Post Office employees in each year since 1988, rounded to the nearest thousand and excluding Girobank, was:

  At 31 March

  Number

  1989

  201,000

  1990

  205,000

  1991

  206,000

  1992

  197,000

  1993

  191,000

  All part-time staff counted as half.

HEALTH

  NHS Wages
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the total wage bill of the national health service in each of the last five years, and projected for the next two years, broken down into the principal groups of staff, including consultants, junior doctors, and nurses.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information is shown in the table and applies to hospital and community health services staff only.
  77

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  21993–94

  Combined medical and dental

  1·22

  1·35

  1·48

  1·61

  1·85

  2·1

  n/a

  Administration and clerical

  0·89

  0·98

  1·04

  1·19

  1·38

  n/a

  n/a

  Professional science and technology

  0·86

  0·95

  1·03

  1·19

  1·30

  n/a

  n/a

  Ancillary

  0·83

  0·84

  0·85

  0·87

  0·90

  n/a

  n/a

  General and senior managers

  0·03

  0·03

  0·16

  0·25

  0·38

  n/a

  n/a

  Ambulance staff

  0·21

  0·22

  0·20

  0·24

  0·28

  n/a

  n/a

  Other3

  0·50

  0·55

  0·60

  0·60

  0·71

  n/a

  n/a

  Administration and clerical to other total3

  3·32

  3·57

  3·88

  4·34

  4·95

  5·3

  n/a

  TOTAL

  8·46

  9·56

  10·25

  11·21

  12·57

  13·8

  14·0

  1 1992–93 estimated.

  2 1993–94 projected.

  3 Includes nurses and midwives and medical and dental agency staff costs.

  NHS Beds
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) national health service hospital beds and (b) national health service private hospital beds there were in each region in each year since 1979.

  Average of daily number of available beds, 1979 to 1991–92

  Regions

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Northern

  25,305

  25,283

  24,192

  24,679

  24,728

  24,332

  23,773

  23,240

  22,469

  21,520

  21,024

  20,195

  19,456

  Yorkshire

  29,946

  29,298

  28,959

  28,488

  28,034

  27,470

  26,793

  25,676

  24,001

  22,731

  21,702

  20,387

  18,968

  Trent

  31,712

  31,516

  30,944

  30,744

  30,481

  30,000

  29,391

  28,902

  27,568

  25,992

  24,554

  22,882

  21,723

  East Anglian

  13,094

  13,088

  13,038

  12,914

  13,001

  12,727

  12,534

  12,452

  12,180

  11,827

  11,291

  10,797

  10,418

  North West Thames

  27,905

  27,116

  26,947

  25,852

  25,342

  24,529

  23,816

  22,905

  21,119

  20,145

  19,221

  18,105

  17,414

  North East Thames

  29,443

  28,703

  28,357

  29,298

  28,741

  27,951

  26,854

  25,982

  24,369

  23,290

  22,199

  20,608

  18,727

  South East Thames

  28,408

  27,720

  27,217

  26,816

  26,357

  25,260

  24,297

  23,096

  21,250

  19,552

  18,461

  17,333

  16,442

  South West Thames

  26,242

  25,417

  25,267

  24,021

  23,719

  22,994

  22,210

  21,141

  20,140

  19,073

  17,888

  16,980

  16,678

  Wessex

  19,021

  18,844

  18,662

  18,547

  18,310

  18,074

  17,654

  17,170

  15,316

  14,826

  14,458

  13,939

  13,701

  Oxford

  13,664

  13,422

  13,247

  13,113

  12,817

  12,722

  12,555

  12,216

  11,584

  11,027

  10,746

  10,220

  9,693

  South Western

  24,456

  24,245

  24,143

  23,861

  23,459

  22,676

  21,932

  21,259

  20,145

  19,166

  18,310

  17,511

  16,677

  West Midlands

  36,263

  35,782

  35,437

  35,228

  34,544

  33,761

  33,108

  32,286

  30,351

  28,784

  27,897

  26,591

  24,774

  Mersey

  21,982

  21,332

  21,025

  20,519

  19,849

  19,028

  18,464

  17,959

  16,665

  15,776

  14,685

  13,290

  12,091

  North Western

  30,812

  30,839

  30,662

  30,677

  30,384

  29,756

  29,021

  28,406

  27,320

  26,409

  25,204

  24,057

  22,974

  Special Health Authorities and Boards of Governors

  3,419

  3,376

  3,407

  3,346

  3,327

  3,236

  3,086

  3,025

  2,860

  2,780

  2,669

  2,544

  2,619

  England1

  361,670

  355,978

  351,505

  348,104

  343,091

  334,513

  325,487

  315,714

  297,338

  282,897

  270,309

  255,438

  242,356

  1 Numbers may not add up to England total due to rounding.

  Source: SD2A, SH3 returns for years (1979, 1980, 1981.)

  KHO3 returns for years 1982 to 1992.

  Number of authorised pay beds in NHS hospitals

  Regions

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Northern

  56

  56

  78

  103

  103

  105

  95

  101

  96

  99

  97

  97

  Yorkshire

  140

  140

  154

  182

  199

  199

  193

  193

  187

  192

  188

  188

  Trent

  130

  130

  150

  143

  143

  143

  138

  136

  128

  136

  136

  136

  East Anglian

  90

  90

  94

  106

  106

  108

  108

  108

  96

  108

  108

  108

  North West Thames

  339

  339

  352

  292

  292

  292

  287

  285

  271

  285

  283

  283

  North East Thames

  278

  278

  286

  398

  404

  410

  413

  411

  347

  393

  411

  411

  South East Thames

  263

  263

  302

  332

  337

  337

  339

  341

  322

  333

  333

  333

  South West Thames

  156

  156

  168

  180

  182

  194

  182

  180

  141

  180

  180

  180

  Wessex

  99

  99

  106

  117

  120

  120

  116

  116

  105

  115

  116

  116

  Oxford

  164

  164

  180

  180

  180

  180

  183

  193

  188

  193

  194

  194

  South Western

  78

  78

  82

  102

  104

  104

  104

  102

  96

  100

  100

  100

  West Midlands

  181

  181

  217

  258

  267

  276

  273

  270

  209

  281

  276

  276

  Mersey

  67

  67

  92

  112

  123

  123

  123

  129

  123

  129

  129

  129

  North Western

  170

  170

  214

  231

  244

  245

  243

  237

  207

  233

  233

  227

  Special Health Authorities and Boards of Governors

  194

  194

  202

  183

  183

  183

  178

  178

  177

  160

  178

  178

  England1

  2,405

  2,405

  2,677

  2,919

  2,987

  3,019

  2,975

  2,980

  2,693

  2,937

  2,962

  2,956

  1 Numbers may not add to England total due to rounding.

  78
  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the tables. Over the same period, total hospital in-patient activity rose by 29 per cent.

  Prescribing Errors
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) men, (b) women and (c) children are known (i) to have been injured and (ii) to have died as a result of pharmacists' errors in the provision of drugs or medicines, in each of the last five years for which records are available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally. All the evidence suggests that professional standards in community pharmacies remain high and dispensing errors are kept to a minimum. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society employs a team of inspectors whose role is to ensure that those standards are maintained.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will now institute new requirements for pharmacists, whether by checking or otherwise, to minimise or to remove the risks of error in their provision of drugs or medicines in accordance with doctors' prescriptions;

  (2) what assessment she has made of whether United Kingdom requirements for the checking of prescriptions issued by doctors before the drugs or medicines are given to patients are (a) adequate and satisfactory and (b) in accordance with EC requirements;

  (3) if she will carry out an inquiry into the methods for checking of prescriptions by pharmacists, to remove or minimise the possibility or error in the provision of drugs or medicines in accordance with doctors' prescriptions.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The code of ethics of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society includes guidance which is designed specifically to eliminate errors in the checking and dispensing of prescriptions. The society employs a team of inspectors whose role is to identify any lapses in standards of performance. These arrangements have helped to keep errors in the dispensing of prescriptions to a minimum and I see no reason to change them.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what records she keeps to ascertain how many pharmacists query doctors' prescriptions, whether because the same are illegible or otherwise.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally. Pharmacists are encouraged to maintain good communications with general practitioners to ensure that, where questions arise, patients get their correct medicine.

  Health Boards
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision there is for chairmen of health authorities or trusts to be paid a financial settlement on termination of office.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Paragraph 9(3) of schedule 5 to the National Health Service Act 1977 provides for the Secretary of State to make a payment of compensation to chairmen of health authorities, with the approval of the Treasury, where it appears that there are special circumstances for that person to receive compensation.

  There is no such legislative provision in respect of chairmen of NHS trusts.
  80
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to start reviewing the actual time contribution of chairmen and non-executive directors of national health service trusts and the basis on which their emoluments are assessed; if her review will be published; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 8 March at column 386.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will consider holding centrally information on the professional qualifications and previous employment of national health service trust and health authority chairmen.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We do not specifically seek information on the professional qualifications of chairmen of health authorities and national health service trusts. However, these details and previous employment are usually included in a candidate's curriculum vitae. Those appointed are not required to notify any changes to such personal details after their appointment. I do not propose to alter these arrangements.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will consider holding centrally information on the number of chairmen and non-executive directors who declined to receive emoluments in respect of membership of(a) regional health authorities, (b) district health authorities, (c) family health service authorities and (d) hospital trusts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Nurses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will consider holding centrally information on(a) newly qualified nurses seeking employment and(b) nursing vacancies.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to do so. Managing the recruitment of qualified nurses is a matter for regional health authorities and local employers.

  Drug and Alcohol Misuse
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the new projects which are being funded in 1993 from the specific grant for drug and alcohol misusers.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The alcohol and drugs specific grant awards for 1993–94 were announced on 1 April. A copy of the press release is available in the Library and the 43 projects receiving an award for the first time have been identified. A further 65 projects which received funding in 1992–93 are also being supported.

  NHS Trusts
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what opportunities there are for public scrutiny of self-governing trusts; and how many trusts hold open public meetings.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  National health service trusts are obliged by law to hold at least one public meeting each year at which they present their annual report and
  81
  accounts. They are also required to publish their strategic direction and business plans. The local community health council has the right to visit NHS trust facilities and service contracts with health authorities are publicly available. Many trusts go beyond these requirements.

  NHS Sight Tests
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will extend the exemption from payments for NHS sight tests to deaf and hard of hearing people.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have no plans to do so.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Fund
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many applicants to the social fund in Nottinghamshire have two or more social fund loans outstanding;

  (2) what percentage of social fund loans are (a) being repaid at 5 per cent. of the income support applicable amount and (b) have been rescheduled to allow for a lower repayment rate in each of the West, East and North Nottinghamshire benefit areas during 1992–93.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to introduce a regulatory grant system to replace the social fund.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review access to social fund loans and grants for(a) applicants who cannot demonstrate an ability to repay loans and (b) applicants who have an income just above the income support threshold but who do not qualify for social fund help.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no such plans to change the basic principles of the current social fund scheme which has succeeded in helping very large numbers of needy people while helping to keep expenditure under control.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to increase the social fund budget in line with unemployment.

  Mr. Scott
  The social fund gross discretionary budget has risen by over 50 per cent. since April 1991. This substantial increase is substantially greater than the rise in unemployment.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average waiting time from first application for a social fund local review to decision by the social fund inspectorate for(a) budgeting loans, (b) crisis loans and (c) community care grants.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will implement the recommendation of the 82
  Social Security Advisory Committee in connection with crisis loans, in respect of the payment in advance rather than in arrears of income support.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from welfare rights advisers in Nottinghamshire on the working of the social fund; and what response he has made.

  Mr. Scott
  We receive many representations on the working of the social fund. We have received none recently from Nottinghamshire welfare rights advisers. I understand that there is regular liaison between the district offices and many of the advisers in the area.

  Pensions
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner households were below the 1979 supplementary benefit level in 1979; and how many were below the 1979 level in the latest year for which the figure is available.

  Mr. Burt
  Official estimates of the number of pensioner households below the 1979 supplementary benefit levels are only available for 1979. They were published in the low income families—LIF—series. Following a technical review in 1988, LIF was superseded by the households below average income—HBAI—series which provides estimates of the pattern of disposable income across the United Kingdom population and analyses change over time. The latest edition of HBAI, published in 1992, shows a reduction in the number of pensioners in the bottom 10 per cent. of the income distribution from 31 per cent. in 1979 to 14 per cent. in 1988–89, when measured after housing costs—36 and 23 per cent. respectively before housing costs—after adjustment for inflation. Copies of both publications are in the Library.

  Giro Cheques
  Ms. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will introduce legislation to ensure that Giro cheques that are reported lost can be stopped.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Under current legislation, the Department has the power to stop Giro cheques at any time before they are cashed.

  War Widows
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensions are currently being paid to war widows; and how many of those relate to service up to 30 September 1921.

  Miss Widdecombe
  On 31 March 1993, there were 50,886 war widows' pensions in payment; of these, 2,274 related to service between 4 August 1914 and 30 September 1921.

  Pensioners Living Abroad
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of extending full inflation-proofed state retirement pensions to those British pensioners aged 80 years and over living in countries with which there is no agreement allowing the payment of United Kingdom pension increases.
  83
  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  European Court
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the names and addresses of all the newspapers to which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State sent a copy of his letter dated 7 April to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow concerning, inter alia, the recent ruling of the European Court of Justice in case C328/91.

  Mr. Scott
  The letter was copied to the editors of the Evening Times, 195 Albion street, Glasgow G1 1QP, the Greenock Telegraph, 2 Crawfurd street, Greenock, and the West Highland Free Press, Industrial Estate, Broadford, Isle of Skye, IV49 9AP.

  A copy of the letter was also sent to the news and current affairs editor at Scottish Television.

ENVIRONMENT

  Greenhouse Gases
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent decisions have been taken at the European Environment Council in regard to the monitoring of the production and discharge of greenhouse gases in the European Community.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) on 26 March 1993,Official Report columns 737–39.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what calculations he has made concerning the contributions that each of the various policy measures now in place could contribute to reducing carbon dioxide emissions between 1990 and 2000, as compared to the predictions made in Energy Paper 59.

  Mr. Maclean
  The annex to the climate change discussion document, placed in the Library of the House, described measures already in hand at the end of 1992 to reduce CO2 emissions. The effect of most of these measures were included in the CO2 projections set out in "Energy Paper 59"—EP 59.

  The discussion document also identified a number of new measures, the effect of which would be to reduce emissions below the projected trend in EP 59, by some 3 to 5 MtC. The most important of these is the establishment of the Energy Saving Trust. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) for a description of these measures and their estimated effect on emissions—Official Report, 22 March 1993, column 495.

  In his March Budget statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced two measures which will play a significant part in the CO2 programme. The introduction of VAT on domestic fuel and power, is estimated to lead savings in CO2 emissions of some 1·5 MtC. The strategy of rising transport fuel duties, with a commitment to increase duties on average by at least 3 per
  84
  cent. in real terms in future Budgets in addition to the 10 per cent. increases announced in the March Budget, is similarly expected to lead to savings in CO2 emissions of some 1·5 MtC.

  On the basis of EP 59 a projection for CO2 emissions in the year 2000 of 170 MtC provides a reasonable baseline for our programme. This implies that savings of some 10 MtC will be needed to meet the convention commitment. Taking all the above developments together, some two thirds of Britain's programme is now in place.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines he has issued to Greater London council successor bodies on energy efficiency.

  Mr. Maclean
  No guidelines were issued to GLC successor bodies on energy efficiency. However, my Department actively promotes cost effective energy efficiency measures throughout the public sector, including organisations in London. For example, on 10 March, the Energy Efficiency Office organised a conference on energy efficiency in buildings at the Guildhall in the City of London to which the chief executives of all London boroughs were invited.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's current strategy on promoting energy efficiency in both new and existing public and private buildings across London.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department has a number of programmes in place to promote cost effective energy efficiency measures in the industrial, commercial, domestic and public sectors of the economy. These are not targeted at specific geographical locations; however, events are held in London to directly influence people in the London area, and the south-east regional Energy Efficiency Office promotes energy efficiency in the region. The Office is also involved with many local energy management groups which provide a forum for energy managers to identify their common problems and to find solutions.

  Packaging Standards Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent communications he has received from, and what recent meetings he has had with, the Packaging Standards Council.

  Mr. Maclean
  My officials met representatives of the Packaging Standards Council on 15 April to discuss the council's first half-yearly report.

  European Environment Ministers
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution his Department plans to make to the second pan-European conference of Environment Ministers, to be held in Lucerne on 28 to 30 April; what information he has received on the agenda of the meeting to date; and what documentation relevant to the conference he has received from the organising secretariat.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department has participated fully in the preparatory process for the "Environment for Europe" conference in Luzern from 28 to 30 April. We have also
  85
  helped with a number of analytical studies for the environmental action programme for central and eastern Europe. I shall attend the conference on 28 and 29 April. My right hon. and learned Friend will attend from 29 to 30 April.

  The main items on the agenda for discussion are the environmental action programme for central and eastern Europe; innovative instruments of environmental policy; and monitoring, compliance and enforcement in environmental policy.

  The executive secretariat has circulated a text of an environmental action programme for central and eastern Europe.

  Peat
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to introduce a levy on peat extraction to fund peat-free substitute products.

  Mr. Maclean
  None at present.

  Development Control
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many copies of his Department's joint publication, "Development Control—A Charter Guide", have been published; at what cost; and to whom it has been distributed.

  Mr. Baldry
  Just over 55,000 of this charter guide have been published, at a total cost of £9,400. Copies have been sent to all planning authorities in England and Wales, to the local authority associations, and to the relevant professional bodies.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which components used in calculation of standard spending assessments are being revised in the current review being undertaken.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The primary aim of the current review of standard spending assessments is to incorporate detailed information from the 1991 census into the underlying SSA formulae. We are taking this opportunity in consultation with local authority representatives to consider more widely the range of social factors used within SSAs and the weight placed upon them, the basis of the area cost adjustment, measures of population density and sparsity and the inclusion of day visitors. We are also prepared to consider representations about other aspects of SSAs.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the method of calculation of standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have so far received 33 letters from local authorities responding to our invitation to make representations on the review of standard spending assessments for 1994–95 and to provide evidence to support any proposed changes.

  There will be regular meetings between my officials and representatives of the local authority associations until September to discuss the technical aspects of the review.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what estimate he has made as to the amounts payable by his Department to each of the London boroughs for transitional relief in 1993–94;

  (2) what estimate he has as to the total amount which will be payable to local authorities in 1993–94 in respect of the transitional relief scheme which accompanied the introduction of the council tax.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Using information on household liability drawn from the family expenditure survey, we estimated that the cost of transitional relief nationally would be £340 million in 1993–94. We have made no estimates of the amount of transitional relief grant payable to individual authorities. Local authorities are currently submitting claims in respect of income forgone in respect of 1993–94. Ninety per cent. of each authority's claim will be paid in the current financial year, and the remainder in 1994–95.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what amount, and in respect of which authorities, his estimate of the amount payable in transitional relief to London boroughs has varied as a result of the changes to the transitional relief scheme of which local authorities were notified by his Department in a letter dated 1 March.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have made no revised estimate of the cost of the scheme since issuing the changes to the grant conditions in the letter of 1 March. A revised estimate of the cost of the scheme will be available once initial claims have been received from all authorities.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what matters will be discussed at the meeting of Europe's Environment and Energy Ministers in Luxembourg on 23 April; which Minister will represent his Department; and what target will be put before the meeting as Britain's accepted commitment for carbon dioxide reduction.

  Mr. Maclean
  The joint Council meeting is expected to be devoted principally to discussion of the Community's strategy on climate change, although there may also be some discussion of controls on ozone-depleting substances. I shall be representing the United Kingdom, along with my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy. Under the framework convention on climate change, the United Kingdom will be committed to taking actions aimed at returning emissions of carbon dioxide to their 1990 levels by 2000.

  Private Water Supplies
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance has been given on the treatment of private water supplies.

  Mr. Maclean
  A manual on the treatment of private water supplies is being published today by HMSO. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.

  It has been produced by the Water Research Centre under a contract steered by the drinking water inspectorate and gives guidance on assessing the suitability of small scale treatment processes.

  Housing Transfers
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the names of the authorities to be included in the programme for housing transfers by councils in 1993–94.

  Sir George Young
  I am today announcing the names of the 13 local authorities that will be able to proceed with proposals to transfer their housing stock, on a voluntary basis subject to the approval of their tenants, to housing associations during 1993–94, in the first year of the new annual transfer programme.

  I am delighted that 22 authorities responded to our invitation and am pleased that, because of lower than anticipated Exchequer costs of disposal, it has proved possible to programme 43,000 dwellings compared to the 25,000 dwellings I mentioned when I announced the programme arrangements last February.

  The 13 authorities which have successfully gained a place on the 1993–94 disposals programme, together with the intended recipient housing associations are as follows:

  Castle Morpeth District Council (3,430 dwellings) to Cheviot Housing Association;

  Epsom and Ewell Borough Council (1,773 dwellings) to Rosebury Housing Association;

  Hambleton District Council (4,262 dwellings) to Hambleton Housing Association;

  Hart District Council (2,504 dwellings) to Hart Housing Association;

  Havant Borough Council (3,587 dwellings) to Hermitage Housing Association;

  Leominster District Council (1,874 dwellings) to Leomister Marches Housing Association;

  Maidstone Borough Council (4,040 dwellings) to Hazlitt Housing Associations and (4,009) dwellings to Lenway Housing Association;

  Mendip District Council (5,262 dwellings) to Mendip Housing Association;

  Penwith District Council (3,431 dwellings) to Penwith Housing Association;

  Rother District Council (3,479 dwellings) to Downland Housing Association;

  South Ribble District Council (3,600 dwellings) to Progress Housing Association;

  South Shropshire District Council (1,632 dwellings) to South Shropshire Housing Association; and

  Westminster (partial transfer of 649 dwellings) to the Peabody Trust.

  The programme comprises some 43,000 dwellings in total, valued at more than £375 million.

  Clause 121 of the Housing and Urban Development Bill, currently before Parliament, enables the Secretary of State to control housing stock disposals through such an annual programme. The Bill also contains transitional provisions which allow my right hon. and learned Friend to ensure that the necessary arrangements are in place for the introduction of the first year's programme, once the Bill has received Royal Assent.

  Planning Inspectorate
  Dr. Blackburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what performance targets he has set for the Planning Inspectorate agency for the financial year 1993–94.
  88
  Sir George Young
  The key objectives for the agency in 1993–94 remain to preserve the impartiality and quality of the inspectorate's work while seeking further to improve efficiency. I have set the following further key targets for the agency's work in England:

  Timeliness:

  (a) 80 per cent. of planning appeals by written representations to be decided within 19 weeks;

  (b) To provide an inspector for local plan inquiries on request within 26 weeks of the end of the objection period;

  Financial:

  (a) Unit costs of planning appeals decided by written representations not to exceed £690;

  (b) Recover 90 per cent. of receipts due within eight weeks of invoice date;

  Efficiency:

  Generate a 3 per cent. efficiency improvement in running costs, as compared with 1992–93;

  Quality:

  High Court Appeals and/or other justified complaints allowed against inspector's decisions not to exceed 1 per cent. of intake;

  Volume:

  To determine 19,000 appeals, subject to intake not declining;

  Information and Guidance:

  To complete a second customer survey by 31 December 1993.

  These and other performance targets for the agency will be included in its business plan for 1993–94 which will be published shortly.

  Separate targets for the agency's work in Wales are being announced today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales.

  Regulations
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a list of all the regulations for which his Department is currently responsible with a descriptive title for each individual regulation.

  Mr. Redwood
  [pursuant to the reply, 12 February 1993, c. 831]: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs has today placed in the Library a consolidated list for all Departments of regulations which affect business. The Department's entry includes an explanation of the purpose and impact of each regulation.

  Housing (Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the environment how many additional housing units have been made available in the Chelmsford parliamentary constituency by(a) Chelmsford borough council and (b) housing associations in the latest three available years.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 19 April 1993]: The information is not collected by parliamentary constituency. The figures for the Chelmsford local authority district are as follows.
  89

  Additional housing units (completions): Chelmsford

  Provided by

  Chelmsford BC

  Housing Associations

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1990

  1991

  1992

  New house building

  113

  146

  34

  10

  11

  4

  Other1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  92

  Total

  113

  146

  34

  12

  11

  96

  1 "Off the shelf" purchases and properties rehabilitated for rent or sale.

  Source:

  DOE P2 return; Housing Corporation.

SCOTLAND

  Forestry
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the proceedings of the group charged with reviewing certain aspects of Government forestry policy whose existence was announced by him on 30 March;

  (2) whether members of the public may, at their own cost, attend as observers meetings of the group charged with reviewing aspects of Government forestry policy announced by him on 30 March.

  Sir Hector Monro
  No. As is the usual practice, the policy advice offered by the forestry review group and the discussions and papers on which it is based will be confidential to Ministers.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provisions exist for professional foresters, experts, other interested parties and members of the public to give evidence for the consideration of the group charged with reviewing aspects of Government forestry policy announced by him on 30 March.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The forestry review group, which held its first meeting on 31 March, will not be taking formal evidence but those bodies or members of the public who wish to make representations may write to the secretary of the group at the following address:

  G S Pearson

  Secretary, Forestry Review Group

  Room 6/61

  New St Andrew's House

  EDINBURGH

  EH1 3TG

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he estimates he will receive a report from the group charged with reviewing aspects of Government forestry policy announced by him on 30 March; and if he will publish that report.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The forestry review group held its first meeting on 31 March. My right hon. Friend and his fellow forestry Ministers expect to receive a report on a timetable consistent with the existing commitment to complete the review of the effectiveness of incentives for forestry investment by the end of this year.

  There are no present plans to publish any of the advice offered by the group to Ministers.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names of and posts held by the members of the group charged with reviewing aspects of Government forestry policy announced by him on 30 March.
  90
  Sir Hector Monro
  The forestry review group, established by forestry Ministers, includes the following officials:

  Mr. H. H. Mills, Secretary, The Scottish Office Environment Department (Chairman);

  Mr. T. R. Cutler, Director General, Forestry Commission;

  Mr. D. S. Grundy, Commissioner, Forestry Commission;

  Mr. M. L. Williams, Head of Industry, Agriculture and Employment Group, HM Treasury;

  Dr. S. Harding, Director of Policy and Resources, Forestry Commission;

  Mr. T. J. Osmond, Head of Land Use and Tenure Division, Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food;

  Mr. D. R. Thomas, Head of Land, Agricultural Subsidies and Grants Division, Welsh Office Agriculture Department;

  Dr. R. Shaw, Head of Rural Development Division, Department of the Environment;

  Mr. T. G. Birley, Head of Rural Affairs Division, The Scottish Office Environment Department;

  Mr. D. Green, Prime Minister's Policy Unit;

  Mr. G. S. Pearson, Rural Policy Coordinator, The Scottish Office Environment Department.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 30 March,Official Report, column 150, to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) on forestry (a) when the group of officials charged with examining forestry first met and on what subsequent dates meetings were held, (b) what dates have been arranged for future meetings, (c) how often it will meet and (d) what is the estimated cost of the meetings and how this is shared between different Government Departments.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The forestry review group met first on 31 March and will meet again on 5 May. No firm dates have been set for further meetings. The group will meet as often as necessary to fulfil its task, consistent with the commitment to complete the review of the effectiveness of incentives for forestry investment by the end of this year. No estimates of the cost of its meetings have been made and any such costs will be met, as appropriate, by the Departments represented on the group.

  Hunting
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of whether all fox hunts that have licences or permits to hunt on Forestry Commission land are fully aware of the terms and conditions; and what arrangements are made to supply copies in writing.

  Sir Hector Monro
  All permits issued to fox hunts by the Forestry Commission clearly set out the terms and conditions on which they are granted. Copies are signed and retained by the commission and the master or secretary of each hunt. The fox hunts are therefore fully aware of the terms and conditions.
  91
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what monitoring and supervision procedures are in place to ensure that the terms and conditions of licences issued to hunt on Forestry Commission land are adhered to.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Forestry Commission staff carry out random checks on hunt days to ensure that the conditions of the licences are being followed.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the terms and conditions of licences or permits given to(a) the New Forest Buckhounds and (b) the Surrey Union hunt to hunt on Forestry Commission land; and to which areas of land the licences or permits apply.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  Copies of the permits issued by the Forestry Commission to the New Forest Buckhounds and the Surrey Union hunt for the 1992–93 season have been placed in the Library of the House. These incorporate maps which show the areas of land covered by the permits.

  Housing
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many properties have been transferred from public sector landlords to landlords approved under section 57(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988;

  (2) how many of the approvals in terms of section 57(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 which have been issued by Scottish Homes have been issued to housing associations registered with Scottish Homes;

  (3) how many approvals in terms of section 57(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 have been issued by Scottish Homes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 April 1993]: Thirteen approvals have been issued by Scottish Homes, including 11 to registered housing associations and co-operatives. Two thousand two hundred and twenty-five properties have been transferred from public sector landlords to approved landlords.

  Home Improvement Grants
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for home improvement grants made before 1984 remain outstanding in(a) Edinburgh, (b) Glasgow, (c) Dundee and (d) Aberdeen; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 April 1993]: Information on the number of outstanding applications for home improvement grants received by local authorities is not held centrally.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to reduce the backlog of applications for home improvement grants in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 April 1993]: The Government make available substantial resources to local authorities to fund improvement grants and other investment in private housing. The non-HRA capital allocations for 1993–94 announced on 29 March total £120·5 million. These include £9·030 million which is earmarked to deal with the backlog of pre-1984 improvement and repairs grant applications in Edinburgh.

  Language Teaching (Primary Schools)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to make any resources available to education authorities in Scotland to promote the teaching of modern languages in primary schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 April 19931: Funds of £1·45 million have been allocated in this financial year, as the first stage of our major initiative to extend the teaching of modern languages into primary schools throughout Scotland; £450,000 of that allocation forms part of the specific grant available to education authorities for the in-service training of teachers in 1993–94. The funding provided will allow training packages to be prepared and substantial numbers of primary teachers to begin the courses that will enable them to teach modern languages in their schools.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.
Lord Poole— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Organic Food Production: Support
The Earl of Clanwilliam The Earl of Clanwilliam asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to redress the adverse balance of payments caused by subsidised organically-grown produce imported from other member states in the European Community.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, a consultation document on environmental schemes was issued on 26th March. Included in that was a proposal for an organic aid scheme. It is hoped that that will contribute to a growth in the area under organic production in England.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. It is good news for organic farmers that at last their names are being recognised by MAFF. Will my noble friend tell the House how much money is being allocated to the ESA programme by MAFF? Also, how much of that will be allocated to organic farmers who presently farm around 35,000 hectares, already fully meeting the rules under the ESA? Will he remind his right honourable friend Mr. Gummer that the Germans, who are largely responsible for this imbalance in trade, are receiving a subsidy of £213 per hectare on arable land and that the German Government are preparing to spend £35 million on organic support alone in 1993?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the current ESA budget is £31 million a year. This package will add a further £12 million a year to the ESA budget, bringing the annual ESA budget to £43 million per annum. There will also be £19 million a year new money by 1995–96 for the other proposed new schemes, of which the organic aid scheme is included.
I understand that the current German scheme is available to producers of certain agricultural produce who undertake to reduce output by at least 20 per cent. That can be achieved either by taking land out of production or introducing less intensive ways of farming, including conversion of the total farm to organic production. Our information suggests that payments vary according to the Länder involved and that the maximum amount payable would be a little less than my noble friend suggests—around £206 per hectare. The German scheme ends this year and will be replaced by one based on the European Community regulation for agriculture and the environment.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Earl referred to organic production in England. Will he be good enough to tell us whether what he says is applicable in Wales and Scotland? Welsh farmers also are interested in his remarks.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the proposals are along similar lines throughout the United Kingdom. However, some schemes may not be relevant in all four territories. For example, there will be no new nitrate measures in Wales since it has no significant nitrate problem. Some scheme details have been adapted to reflect varying environmental circumstances in different parts of the United Kingdom; for example, differences in heather coverage on moorland in England and Scotland.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, are not those figures minuscule compared with the hundreds of millions of pounds being lost by fraud in illegal payments to tobacco growers and non-existent olive growers throughout the Community?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, asks another question. I would point out that there is a Question next week and another the week after that on tobacco and olive oil fraud.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the noble Earl reassure consumers in the United Kingdom that organically-grown produce imported from other member states in the European Community is subject to the same degree of control ensuring that it is organically grown as applies to such produce grown in the United Kingdom?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, we have strict controls on pesticides and other chemicals used in farming and processing. Therefore, it is not generally necessary to buy organic food to ensure a good and healthy diet. Some people prefer food produced in an organic way and their demand should be recognised, not least because a little of what one fancies does one good.

PSBR
2.42 p.m.
Lord Eatwell Lord Eatwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proportions of the projected figures for the PSBR for each of the years 1993–94 to 1997–98 are cyclical, and what proportions are structural.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, it is hard to make precise estimates of the proportion of the Budget deficit which is structural and the proportion which is cyclical. The measures announced in the Budget will improve the structural balance by 1.5 per cent. of GDP by 1995–96. Adherence to the tight public expenditure plans announced in the Autumn Statement will achieve a further improvement in the structural position.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that Answer. I am particularly grateful since

1365
the last time I asked this question he refused to answer it. Given that the PSBR figures announced today show an out-turn for 1992–93 which is already £1.5 billion in excess of that which the Chancellor forecast just one month ago, will the Minister confirm that it remains the Government's policy to balance the budget over the cycle? Will he further confirm that it remains the Government's policy that structural deficits should be met by increased taxation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am delighted to have this opportunity to give the answer to the noble Lord that he sought earlier now that it is relevant to the Question on the Order Paper. I am even more pleased to give him the precise information that he wanted. It is true that over the term we seek to get a balanced budget.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, has my noble friend noted that if the noble Lord opposite would contain himself and his impatience he would see very shortly the cyclical nature of the PSBR? I say that because the other news on the tapes today not used by the noble Lord opposite is that the CBI is expressing optimistic sounds about consumer spending, the building societies are expressing optimistic sounds and indeed the Stock Exchange is responding to those optimistic sounds.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. I am sure that the whole House will welcome some of the encouraging signs that we see in the economy.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that opinions differ widely as to what is cyclical and what is structural? Does he agree that what is really important from the economic standpoint is whether the forecasts are in accordance with what some renowned economists have referred to as rational expectations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in his first question. That is why I said it is very hard to make precise estimates of the proportion of the Budget deficit which is either structural or cyclical. Indeed, Professor Currie has argued that half the deficit is structural and Professor Minford has said that none of it is.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Mr. Christopher Riley, who is the senior Treasury official in charge of medium-term forecasting, told the Commons Treasury and Civil Service Committee that one-third of the deficit is structural? Is he further aware that the answer which he gave to my first question suggests that the Government intend to raise taxes by a further £14 billion in 1995?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's first question, what he says coincides with the view of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister when he said that about two-thirds of the level of the PSBR might be cyclical. But with regard to his second question, this is an imprecise science and the answer is that he takes the wrong interpretation.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that I thought that his initial answer was rather forthcoming but that then he subsequently confused me? If it is his view that one cannot distinguish between the structural and cyclical aspects of the deficit, why did he give a very precise figure in saying that the Budget would reduce the structural deficit by 1.5 per cent.?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord is confused. If I may make myself absolutely clear to him, I said that it was very hard to make precise estimates of the proportion of the Budget deficit which is structural and the proportion which is cyclical.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, when the noble Earl says that my noble friend misinterpreted the second answer, is that a categoric assertion that there will be no increase in taxation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, taxation is a question for the Budget, which is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Youth Training
2.47 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to improve the records for the youth training service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Employment Department keeps under constant review the records required to administer youth training. If practical improvements are identified then they are introduced.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply which I heard with pleasure. Does he recall saying in a number of answers that the information was not available? In the light of those answers, may I ask him what records the Department of Employment possesses on youth training? How are they compiled, and by whom; and what types of information are discoverable from them?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the answer to the noble Earl's first question is yes. The answer to his next question is as follows. We collect a wide range of information on youth training and the characteristics of those in training. In deciding what information should be collected a balance has to be struck between ensuring that we get what is necessary for the management of YT and accountability to Parliament alongside the need to ensure that an unnecessary administrative burden is not placed on employers and training providers.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, did the noble Viscount hear Bill Jordan, of the engineering workers' union, say on the radio yesterday that the slight recovery in manufacturing industry was already being characterised by our running out of skilled labour, a situation which many of us forecast would come about? Does the Minister agree that much greater

1367
attention to skills training at all levels, but particularly for 16 to 18 year-olds, and full information about what is going on become urgently necessary if the recovery is real, as we all hope it is?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said. I did not hear the words of Bill Jordan that she mentioned. What this indicates is the great need for youngsters to apply themselves to youth training. After all, they have the opportunity, if they do not wish to remain at school, to take up youth training. Youth training is now becoming one of the acknowledged forms of entrance to some sectors of the workforce.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what information is collected about young people who are unemployed and for whom a youth training place is not yet available? What steps are taken to ensure that they are properly looked after? What arrangements are made in relation to special hardship allowances to cover the situation where they have no income at all? What information is available on this group of people?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government believe it wrong in principle for school-leavers to be offered benefit-supported unemployment as an option. Therefore, as I said in the first instance, we would encourage all those people to offer themselves for a place on youth training. We have set TECs the target of ensuring that no young person guaranteed a place on YT has to wait more than eight weeks.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister about statistics. I believe that in March 1993 statistics showed that there were 5,500 young people in youth training. Barnardo's has just produced a report called Youth Aid which shows those figures to be grossly wrong. I understand that the real difficulty lies in the fact that there are a certain number of youths who are not eligible to claim benefit. Is my noble friend aware that those are not shown in the statistics?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the figures are these. In March there were fewer than 5,500 young people in England who had been waiting for more than eight weeks for a place on youth training. That figure is considerably lower than the one for February. Only 3,300 young people had not previously had the offer of a place. My noble friend quotes from a report from the organisation Coalition on Young People and Social Security, which I believe to be very confused and misleading. The report is highly selective in the figures it uses. The figures include many who are in full-time education. The figures which I have given to my noble friend are the right ones; those quoted in the report are grossly misleading.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, can the Minister say what is the average, as opposed to the intended, duration of the length of a YT placement? Can he also say how many young people close to the age of 18 years have been refused a place?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, those who are subject to the guarantee—those between the ages of 16 and 18—are guaranteed a place on youth training. That does not mean that when one course finishes one is not entitled to join another. I can understand that people who leave youth training towards their 18th birthday want to put themselves on to the labour market when they have gained a qualification. They may not want to go into further youth training.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, can the Minister say how many young people are on youth training schemes and what percentage of them gain a recognisable qualification at the end of their term?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. At the end of January 1993, around 300,000 were currently in training in Great Britain. Fifty-three per cent. of all those who complete their training gain a qualification. Perhaps I may add that 75 per cent. of those who complete their training either go into jobs, further education or some further training.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, referring to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, does the Minister agree that a necessary part of youth training is apprenticeships, particularly since we are looking for skilled personnel at the end of the training? Can the Minister say how many apprenticeships there are in existence at the moment—for instance, in engineering?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not have that figure. To a certain extent the youth training guarantee has taken the place of apprenticeships, although apprenticeships may still be awarded by some industries and companies. Youth training has taken their place.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister said that the Government collect various forms of information. Can he tell us what those forms of information are? Therefore, when he tells his noble friend Lady Faithfull that her figures are wrong, can he tell the House how he knows?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. The main sources of data on the YT are the following: the certificates issued when young people leave the programme; the YT follow-up survey which is published and a copy placed in the Library; the operating agreement, a copy of which is also in the Library; TEC invoices, which obviously come to our department because they are required for the payment of training delivered; and the careers service monitoring return. Those give us the information that we need.
Earl Russell: My Lords, am I right in hearing a silence and that there is no information on waiting lists for youth training?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords, the noble Earl is wrong. I indicated that the careers service monitoring return indicates information, in agreement with the TECs, that we collect on waiting times.

The Prison Service and Privatisation
2.56 p.m.
Lord Dean of Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider their policy of privatisation of the prison service and related services in the light of recent escapes by prisoners under escort by a private security company.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): No, my Lords. Competition from the private sector is a valuable stimulus to the prison service.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am not surprised at the Minister's answer. The Minister will know that we understand that, as the prison population contains a percentage of dangerous, cunning and clever people, escapes will always take place. However, does he not agree that the present spate of escapes from private sector escorts and prisons makes it seem like a growth industry—perhaps the only one which the Government have at present? Can the Minister tell us the real causes of the escapes? Was it poor or inadequate training, bad equipment or lack of direction from the top? It is said that Mr. Derek Lewis, the new director general of the prison service, has had no training whatever in running a service as complicated as this. If that is the case, will the Minister say that the Government will seek to remove him as quickly as possible?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's anxieties. He is quite correct in saying that escapes occur. That is a fact of life and we regret every one of them. But it would be quite wrong to suggest that that has anything to do with the new director general who has taken over the responsibilities.
As regards court escort, Group 4 has taken over a very large area which before comprised seven counties, 20 prisons, 72 magistrates' courts, 10 Crown Courts, seven police forces and 71 police stations. The responsibility for dealing with all those court cases was divided among a number of organisations and now it is to be under one authority.
The noble Lord asked about prison escapes. Group 4 has been responsible for the Wolds prison for one year, and two people have escaped. I understand that one returned of his own accord. Apparently he wanted to go out for his birthday. He tried to get back unobserved and nearly did. The other one was taken to Hull Royal Infirmary for a knee operation. The hospital would not treat him while he had his handcuffs on and so they were removed. Although he was in for a knee operation he legged it while he was being put in a wheelchair.
As regards escorts, there have been five escapes. Three of those people returned and two were inadvertently released. Of those who were inadvertently released because of the fault of the court, one was on two charges. The first was dismissed and the court instructed the guards to release the gentleman, not realising that there was a second charge pending. The second prisoner was being bailed with the condition of a surety, but he was released before the
1370
surety was entered into. His bail has now been changed to remove the need for a surety. I am afraid that that is a long answer, but the noble Lord asked for the information.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the record of Group 4 in this matter is somewhat damaging to the concept of privatisation which both he and I support? Can he assure the House that for the future, if Group 4 is to continue in business at all, it will be able to keep the people in?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this is a matter which is obviously of considerable concern. The director general of the prison service is seeing Group 4 to try to improve the position. I remind my noble friend that Group 4 has carried well over 1,000 prisoners in each of the two weeks in which it has been involved and that has been a great success. I assure my noble friend that, regrettable though it is, escapes also occurred under escorts conducted by the police service and the prison service.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, leaving aside escort duties, may I ask the Minister to say who decides which prisons shall be privatised? I have read various reports in the press suggesting that the decision rests with the director general of the prison service (if I have got his title right). Can the Minister confirm that any such report would be misleading? Can he explain (perhaps in a little more detail) just how the responsibility for the privatisation of prisons is divided between Ministers and the director general?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's last question is a fairly lengthy one which it would be inappropriate to go into at Question Time. The answer to his first question is that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary decides which prisons should be privatised—which he would like to be contracted out—and asks for tenders to be given by a number of different organisations, including the prison service itself.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, do I have any prospect of getting an answer to the last part of my question?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, yes, but I am bound to say that at the moment I have forgotten what it was.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, it was: How is the responsibility divided between Ministers and the director general?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is entirely responsible for setting the conditions for the prison service when the service is contracted out, for setting the standards by which contracted-out prisons will operate, for receiving tenders and for deciding which organisations to accept. He is also responsible for monitoring. The actual carrying out of work within the prison service when that work is contracted out is performed by the contractor.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, first, whether he saw the report in the

1371
Independent on Sunday which attributed a statement to Mr. Lewis, the chief executive of the prison service agency, that almost every type of prison would now be put out to contract to private firms? Is that true? Secondly, it was said that plans are now based on 20 existing prisons being handed over to the private sector. If that is true, why has Parliament not been told?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I did not see the report in the Independent on Sunday to which the noble Lord refers, but it is perfectly possible in theory for prisons to be contracted out. I can assure the noble Lord, however, that at the moment the Wolds is the only private prison in operation; Blakenhurst will open later this month; the bids are being evaluated for Manchester Strangeways; and Doncaster is the only new prison which is not yet complete. That is the position at the moment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is it not the case that the prison service business plan published this month states an objective of no more than last year's figure of 155 escapes from custody over the course of a whole year? Since Group 4 is responsible for only one-tenth of prisoner movements, is not Group 4 in grave danger of running out of its scope for escapes for the whole year in the course of less than one month? Does that not in turn raise the question of whether the specification for the privatisation of the prison escort service in the Group 4 area was correctly drawn up?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not think so. There were 150 escapes from prison service court escorts over the past year, and 46 escapes in two years from police custody escorts in the area concerned. Group 4 has had five escapes from escorts during the past two weeks. With regard to prisons, there were about 300 escapes during the year from closed prisons. Group 4 has had two escapes from one prison in one year.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I fear that we have a conflict of evidence. My understanding is that the business plan of the prison service applies to the national total and that it was a national total of 155 escapes last year, not a total in the area for which Group 4 is now responsible.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that there may be some misunderstanding. There were 300 escapes from closed prisons in the course of the year. There have been two escapes from the prison for which Group 4 is responsible. There were 150 escapes per year from prison service court escorts—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, nationally?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, nationally. There were also 46 escapes in two years from police custody in the particular area with which we are concerned. In that area, five escapes have taken place from Group 4 custody.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while the practice of taking questions from either side of the House alternately is correct and works well, on this occasion the noble
1372
Lord, Lord Allen, who wanted to pursue his point because of his special experience in this field but was not allowed to do so, should have been allowed at Question Time to pursue his point?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend has asked a question of that nature which does not really require a reply from me.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that the Sunday Times also carried a report similar to that to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred, indicating clearly that a decision has been made that a further 20 prisons will be privatised? Bearing in mind the performance so far of Group 4 within its present area of responsibility, would it not at least make common sense for the Government to postpone any such decision on those further 20 prisons until they are totally satisfied that Group 4 and the other organisations that are putting in tenders can carry out those functions to the satisfaction of the community, which is what this is supposed to be about?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I recognise the noble Lord's anxiety but I assure him that the prisons concerned are not being privatised. It is merely the running of them which is being contracted out. It is quite limited. The noble Lord might just as well be correct as incorrect. Of course, we are concerned to see that any operation that is contracted out is performed successfully. It is not only Group 4 which has responsibilities. There are also other contractors. It will be up to the director general of the prison service to ensure that anyone with a contract carries it out correctly —albeit that periodically, however good the system, there will sometimes be failures.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Earl inform the House what notice has to be given to Group 4 to terminate its contract should it prove inefficient? Is he aware of the trouble being caused to the police—already overtaxed and possibly undermanned—by these escapes?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in the final analysis, the contract can, of course, be rescinded, but it would be a pity to talk about that because what we are trying to do is to get over a teething problem. I cannot tell the noble Lord what the length of notice is. I quite accept that it is inconvenient for the police and everyone else. Nobody wants prisoners to escape, and that is the reason why we are doing our best to ensure that they do not, but mistakes will be made, even by the police.

Business
3.8 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hate to press the Minister—
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have reached the 30th minute and I am afraid that I cannot give way.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Education Bill will be

1373
adjourned at around 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Bill will be taken.

Education Bill
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [General duty of Secretary of State]:
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3A) below,")
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I wish to consider with Amendment No. 1, Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 8 and 342. Members of the Committee who were present on Second Reading will understand the background of the principal amendment to which I wish to speak; namely, Amendment No. 8, the purpose of which is to exclude universities from Clause 1. For those Members of the Committee who were not present on Second Reading perhaps I may recapitulate briefly what has happened.
When the Bill first appeared before the other place it dealt solely with schools and further education and was treated in Committee in the other place along those lines. The reason why Amendment No. 342 is included is that it is an amendment to the Title of the Bill which would put the Bill back into that happy position. It was only on Report in another place that the present Clause 1 was added, so that it was never discussed in Committee. It could have been argued, and, indeed, might have been argued, that it should therefore probably refer only to schools and further education, but in discussion on the Bill in another place the Secretary of State said, in so many words, that the universities and other institutions of higher education were included in the Bill; and so it became necessary to ask why that change had taken place.
It is to the regret of those who have connections in the university world that we have never had any inkling of an explanation as to why that was done and what had happened between the Bill's introduction in the other place and the Report stage that made it suddenly necessary to include that reference. I hope, among other things, that my noble friend the Minister will at last be able to satisfy our curiosity.
When the question as to the desirability of giving further powers to the Secretary of State in relation to higher education was raised on Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister gave, as part of the defence of the Government's action, the fact that the powers of the Secretary of State were circumscribed by Sections 68 and 81 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. Indeed, Ministers and the
1374
department seem rather to pride themselves now on the protection for academic freedom which was given in that Act.
However, I should like to point out to my noble friend the Minister that the Government are not entitled to use that particular defence, for two reasons. First, it is a well-known principle of the interpretation of statutes that a later statute has priority over an earlier statute; therefore, powers which would be granted in the present Bill, if it became an Act, would supersede, in so far as they contradicted them, restrictions on the powers granted in the earlier Act.
The second reason for being unable to accept that defence is that Section 68, the so-called academic freedom section, was not, of course, the work of Her Majesty's Government or the Ministers at the time; it was imposed upon the Government by a vote in this Chamber. Indeed, my noble friend the Minister, who now uses that defence, voted against that proposal. It is therefore rather difficult to see how we can accept fully a defence of academic freedom in April 1993 from someone who voted against it in February 1992, although of course there have been conversions of various kinds to which one could point.
We heard after Second Reading that the department was understanding of the concerns of the universities which had been expressed by a number of speakers in the debate and that it proposed to meet them by an amendment in Committee. So we waited with bated breath to see what that amendment, or those amendments, would turn out to be. Those are the other two amendments in the present grouping.
Well, the amendments duly arrived. Thanks to the activity of my noble friend the Minister some of us saw them before the weekend, some on Monday. What was our conclusion? I can only describe it in the words of the poet:
"Parturient mantes nascetur ridiculus mus".
Since Latin is, alas, lacking in the national curriculum, for a free translation perhaps I may offer:
"The Department for Education has gone into labour and produced a ridiculous mouse of an amendment".
Why it is ridiculous is that it does not meet the concerns of the universities, and that is, I have it, on the best legal advice. I shall leave it to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and possibly later to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to explain why it is that the government amendments still leave the universities vulnerable to interference by the department.
But those are not the only pieces of legal advice to that effect that I have received. The vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge, an eminent lawyer, has made it plain—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, will speak for the university in due course—that in his view the amendments are insufficient.
I have also been able, by a fortunate chance, to take legal advice myself. Members of the Committee who were in the Palace this morning will have witnessed various garishly dressed personages who were the Silks being given their new role by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I was fortunate enough to intercept one of the newly elected Silks as he emerged from the Royal Gallery. It is not every day that one can get a free consultation from a Silk. He

1375
turned out—it is a trifling matter perhaps—to be the vice-chancellor elect of the University of Oxford. He also empowered me to say that in his view these amendments were insufficient to meet the anxieties which he and his colleagues in Oxford felt. So I have, I believe, fairly good grounds for saying that this will not do.
Many Members of the Committee may well say, "Surely Oxford and Cambridge can look after themselves. They survived Henry VIII, Oliver Cromwell, and James II. Surely they can stand up to John Patten". I would, on the whole, be inclined to agree with that. However, we have not two universities but something like 100 universities. I am thinking, for instance, of the newly-promoted—if that is the right word—polytechnics, which now have university status. They are strongly represented in this House by my noble friend Lady Perry, who I am sorry is not in her place —well, not in her usual place—and by two of their chancellors; my noble friends Lady Young and Lady Platt. Perhaps the Committee might wish to congratulate my noble friends on their elevation.
Let us see what has happened to those universities. When Parliament passed the legislation the universities were told they were being emancipated from the thraldom of local government. They put on their new robes and designed their new crests. They emerged into the light of day with great hopes of what they would do in an independent existence. Suddenly they are informed by Clause 1 of the Bill, "Don't make that mistake. You have certainly escaped from the thraldom of local government but, of course, you are subject to the direction of the Secretary of State".
That reminded me of a possible rewriting of the final act of "Fidelio". Members of the Committee will remember that in the nick of time the hero is saved from assassination by the villainous governor of the prison, Don Pizarro, by the arrival of the Minister, Don Fernando, who liberates all the prisoners. It all ends in one of the most famous and moving operatic scenes. But let us suppose that Beethoven had been a different and more pessimistic type of person. Could we suppose that Don Fernando was not so much a Minister of the Crown of Spain but a Minister in the Department for Education and would have said, "Of course, you are all being released from the dungeons of the villainous Pizarro but only to be incarcerated again in my own set of dungeons in a neighbouring castle"? That is roughly the position of the new universities.
Therefore, we must ask Her Majesty's Government for some guarantee that the position which we thought we had attained when we amended the Further and Higher Education Act will now be preserved. I must say, first, that I did not draft the amendment; it was drafted by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. The simplest answer is for the Government to say, "We accept the amendment. It excludes universities from the clause and therefore you have nothing to worry about". I still find it difficult to understand why they did not follow that course but perhaps the mind of my noble friend the Minister is still open. So is mine.
Therefore, I humbly suggest to my noble friend the Minister that we might come to the following agreement. If my noble friend will undertake to withdraw her two amendments and to engage in negotiations with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals in order to find a form of words which satisfies both her and the committee by the time of the next reading of the Bill it will be incumbent upon me not to prejudge that. But nothing other than that will enable me and my colleagues to withdraw the amendment for the following good reason. Our main worry is not only the content of Clause 1 but the fact that not for the first time the Government are legislating on a matter which has not been properly discussed with the people most involved.
After the anxieties which were voiced on Second Reading there was nothing to stop Her Majesty's Ministers from telephoning the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and saying, "Would you depute a couple of vice-chancellors to come to the department to discuss what we can do to allay your anxieties?". Nothing of the kind happened. On the contrary, amendments were brought to birth in a rather peculiar way but wholly within the department.
We do not wish to wait and therefore if the Minister says merely that she will come back with another amendment that will be insufficient. An amendment must be reached in agreement with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals so that the position of the universities is fully understood. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to intervene at this stage. It is an intervention so no one is precluded from speaking after me. I recognise the genuine and sincere anxieties about the issue. I know that they were expressed most strongly on Second Reading. I must express some disappointment at my noble friend's interpretation of my intentions and the way in which I, parliamentary counsel, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and colleagues in my department have gone about addressing the anxieties of Members of the Committee since Second Reading.
While the Clause 1s intended to replace Section 1(1) of the Education Act 1944 it was always the intention to preserve broadly the scope of Section 1 of that Act. That meant making changes to reflect the fact that some schools, as well as colleges of further and higher education, are no longer LEA maintained. Given the statutory basis for funding universities introduced in the Education Reform Act 1988 and now in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 it also seemed right that the Secretary of State's general duty to promote education should now extend also to education in universities.
However, as I explained on Second Reading, nothing in Clause 1—I repeat, nothing—extends the power of the Secretary of State over the universities. His powers in that respect remain those already provided for, and limited by, existing statute; most relevantly the Further and Higher Education Act.
This Chamber debated that Act rigorously and in detail. Members of the Committee were satisfied that the Act would secure the continuing and essential independence of universities; and in particular, that

1377
Section 68 would prevent any Secretary of State from using his powers over funding to influence the universities' own control over academic issues. I reiterate that nothing in Clause 1 changes that. It will continue to be the case that universities are governed by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which is the statute containing the substantive provisions. There is nothing inconsistent about the voting record of this Chamber in that at the end of the day another place accepted its amendment and Parliament endorsed it in giving it Royal Assent.
However, I also acknowledged on Second Reading the strength of feeling on this issue and indicated that I would consider whether anything further could be done to put at rest the minds of Members of the Committee. I find, therefore, that I have reached the same conclusion as my noble friends Lord Beloff and Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and others, and decided that Clause 1 should be amended.
The amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Beloff and Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would disapply universities from the whole of Clause 1. However, I hope that they, and everyone, would agree that it is right and proper that the Secretary of State for Education should have a duty generally to promote the education of all people in England and Wales, and that that must apply to promoting education in universities as much as it does to promoting education provided in other institutions.
On Second Reading I promised to register the concerns of this House about Clause 1 as it relates to higher education. I had thought, until a day or two ago, that the amendments tabled in my name had put beyond doubt that the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) do not extend to institutions in the higher education sector.
From what my noble friend Lord Beloff said today, and indeed from informal contact that we have had in recent days—and I include in that the CVCP—I have reached the conclusion that there are still concerns to be met. I note that there remain some anxieties—in particular, as regards subsection (2) (a), covering the Higher Education Funding Council. It does indeed but only in so far as that is a reflection of the Secretary of State's general duty to promote the education of the people of England and Wales.
I note that concern and will consider the matter further. My officials are already in discussion with those interested parties, including the CVCP. We shall continue those discussions in an effort to meet the remaining concerns. I shall return to the issue on Report. Therefore I am prepared to withdraw my amendments.
However, it would be extremely helpful if the Committee would at least recognise the general duty put upon my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to be concerned generally about promoting education of all people in this country, but in so doing to put it absolutely beyond any doubt on the face of the Bill that this Bill does not apply to and does not cut across the 1992 statute as it relates to further and higher education.
3.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Baroness for that speech. I am sorry if she should have thought that anything that has been said has reflected discredit on her efforts to bring about a settlement because those efforts have been welcomed and respected. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the trouble that she has taken over the weekend to keep me informed of what was going on. I congratulate her on being a good deal more fortunate with the post than my noble kinsman Lord Henley who once sent me three letters to give me information in such a situation and none of them reached me. However, both the letters from the noble Baroness reached me and I am grateful.
I accept entirely what she said that her amendments put beyond doubt Clause 1(2) (b) and Clause 1(3). However, there is an interesting discrepancy between what the noble Baroness said and what the Secretary of State said to the chairman of the CVCP. The Secretary of State said that Clause 1(2) had no reference to the universities. That is a particularly interesting discrepancy since many of our anxieties were concentrated on Clause 1(2) (a) which gives the Secretary of State powers,
"in respect of those bodies in receipt of public funds which … carry responsibility for securing that the required provision for education is made in, or in any area of, England or Wales".
That is a ball which is so slow and so highly flighted that any batsman would be looking for the googly. However, the difficulty in looking for the googly is that by the time it has bounced, it is too late.
It is Clause 1(2) (a) on which our desire for reassurance is concentrated. We are concerned also about the question of the funding councils. At least we have clarified the matter now that the noble Baroness has said that the funding councils are covered. I am not, in ignorance, going to make an adamant and categorical case against the inclusion of the funding councils. However, before the Committee approves any Clause involving the funding councils, I should like to know precisely why it is felt necessary to include them and precisely for what purpose, because all along the main question of doubt has been that we wanted to know why this Clause is in the Bill so that we could pass judgment on it.
The noble Baroness mentioned a general duty. I am prepared to listen further but she did not tell me why a general duty is needed in this particular place at this particular time or for what particular purpose. Before any final agreement is reached, as I hope it will be, it would be helpful if that could be spelt out.
I heard what the noble Baroness said about the 1944 Education Act. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, is now in her place. I hope that she may have something to say about that. A great deal of water has flowed under the bridge since 1944.
I am grateful for all the trouble that has been taken on this. I hope that we may reach agreement, but before we do that we must understand what we are approving. I do not think that we have yet reached that point.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may say at the outset how grateful I am personally to my noble friend

1379
Lady Blatch for the great courtesy that she has accorded and the help that has been given by her department on this particularly difficult problem of construction, because that is what it is. It is a problem of legal construction and inevitably on that I shall make a very dull speech, but somebody has to make it.
Clause 1(1) acknowledges the general duty of the Secretary of State to promote the education of the people; and as I see it, rightly so. The Minister seeks agreement to that but I am also not quite sure why that general duty has to be in this clause of this Bill. Perhaps I may leave that, because if it is needed and is properly defined and limited it could do no harm.
The problem is the implementation clause—Clause 1(2) (a) —because in implementation of that general duty to promote the education of the people he, the Secretary of State, shall,
"exercise … his powers in respect of those bodies in receipt of public funds … for securing that the required provision for education is made".
Therefore, the question immediately arises—it is the old ghost which stalked the previous debate—whether, in the exercise of those powers of implementation, annexation of institutionally specific conditions to the grant to an institution of higher education is excluded; that is the great fear. That is why I was asked by my noble friend to explain. As I see it—and I am glad I am not alone because other lawyers also see it in that way—the universities are vulnerable.
It is no use anyone saying that it is the essence of Clause 1(2) (a) which causes the problem. In parenthesis, perhaps I may say at once that government amendments to Clause 1(2) (b) and 1(3) wholly subsume the spirit of the "Beloff" amendment. As the Committee will know, Clause 1(2) (a) has its origins in the 1944 Act. It has never been called into question and it has never been tested in the courts; but the situation between the universities and the Secretary of State as regards grants to universities has, over the past 50 years, suffered a sea change. It is essential now to ensure academic freedom on the face of the Bill.
I shall not take very much longer over what I have to say. As a matter of construction, it is much to be doubted whether Clause 1(1), as implemented by Clause 1(2) (a), excludes the annexation of those conditions. It was in order to resolve that doubt that the Beloff amendment (for which, together with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I take joint responsibility as regards the DIY draftsmanship) was put in simple, straightforward exclusory terms, which of course would never appeal to any self-respecting parliamentary draftsman. Therefore, it comes as absolutely no surprise to me that it is not acceptable as drafted. But, if it were accepted, it would put an end to the whole problem with which we are concerned. But life is never as simple as that. It is because of that doubt that we drafted the simple exclusion clause (Amendment No. 8) together with its sister amendment to the Title of the Bill (Amendment No. 342).
The gremlin of doubt which infects the construction of Clause 1(2) (a) remains. It may only be resolved either by Amendment No. 8 or by some such amendment as my noble friend the Minister has been
1380
good enough—and I am most grateful to her—to consider producing for the Report stage. It is perhaps important to note that it was proposed on Second Reading at col. 166 of Hansard that that doubt should be removed by a comfort letter addressed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.
On 16th April an assurance was given by another letter that Clause 1 would not extend to higher education. Having dealt with my noble friend the Minister, and more recently with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, I want to say here and now that I wholly accept the sincerity of their intentions and the fact that they believe the assurances that they have given are valid on the matter of construction. However, on the matter of construction, the point is—and I say this with respect—that the advice they have received is incorrect.
There is no precedent for comfort letters or letters from any Minister serving as an aid to the construction of a statute. That is not the traditional or the acceptable manner in which doubts as to construction are resolved either in this Chamber (as a revising Chamber) or by the courts. There is little more to be said, except to repeat my gratitude both to my noble friend the Minister and to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: While we have made some progress—and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—it still remains my conviction that to include universities in the clause, as was done at a late stage in another place, makes it either otiose or dangerous. It seems to me that few things could be more frivolous and foolish than suddenly on Report in another place to bring universities within the framework of the Bill without, as was then the case, any prior consultation and I doubt much prior thought. That would be so in any case, but it becomes doubly so when it is remembered that this is the third general Education Bill applying to universities which we have had in the past five years.
As regards the Secretary of State and subsequent correspondence with the Chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the noble Baroness sought on Second Reading a month ago to justify the lurch—for such it was—by saying that it was necessary to bring the Education Act 1944 up to date. I wish that this Government would learn something from the wise, consensus speaking, calm and constructive statesmanship of the author of that Act. Mr. Butler (or Lord Butler as he became) did not think that the right way to provide a legislative framework for education was to have an Act every other year. He had one Act, introduced after the fullest consultation, which lasted, broadly speaking, for 40 years and which rightly, and unusually, came to bear his name. But now successive Secretaries of State seem to think that the only way to make a reputation in the brief interval between their over-promotion and a reshuffle is to introduce another piece of legislation

1381
—restless legislation. It seems to me—and it is a subject on which I doubtfully venture—to make a mockery of the word "conservative".
It is particularly unfortunate that universities should be constantly at the receiving end of that restlessness with all the measures designed—if they are designed to do anything at all—to introduce, as I understand it, more of the enterprise culture into our university system. That is peculiarly misconceived, for not only are the values of the enterprise culture particularly unsuited to the fostering of academic excellence (anyone who doubts that should read the brilliant polemical passages at the end of the lectures of Cardinal John Henry Newman on The Idea of a University given in Dublin in 1852 where he dealt with that precise point in a most devastating way) but also in this now rather battered, perplexed and disillusioned nation one of the few things which we do outstandingly well is running universities.
Indeed, nearly all the things that we do outstandingly well take the form of public service issues. For example, the Army has come out very well, as has the Civil Service, which is perhaps a little battered by the past 15 years but is nonetheless outstanding. There is also the example of public service as regards broadcasting and television—at any rate until fairly recently. They are things that we do outstandingly well.
However, we do not in fact do the enterprise culture very well, despite the incubus which has been placed upon it. The Italians, for instance, are much better at the enterprise culture than we are; but they are not nearly as good at running universities. Notwithstanding the great traditions of Bolognia and Pavia, at present the University of Rome, with its vast enrolment, its lecture-dominating system and its hundreds of thousands left to sink or swim—a very high proportion of them sinking rather than swimming —is a sad farce compared not only with Oxford and Cambridge but also with many other British universities.
It is certainly the case that in the world league of universities, with Harvard, perhaps on account of its graduate rather than its undergraduate work being accorded the first place, nearly every impartial judge would put two British universities within the next five. How very different that is from our level of achievement in nearly every other sphere. There is no other European university which would get in. It seems to me a peculiar perversity that, confronted with that situation, this so-called Conservative Government, far from leaving well alone, can do nothing but interfere, interfere, interfere. The case really is overwhelming for not subjecting universities for the third time to a piece of ill-thought-out, ill-consulted, legislation such as that before us.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: We are indeed having an academic field day with Bologna, Pavia, Cardinal Newman and "Fidelio". I am hopeful however that the course of debate on this issue will be very different—there is every sign that it will—from the course of debate on the 1992 Further and Higher Education Bill when it was not, I believe, until Third Reading that an
1382
agreeable solution was found by a vote of this Chamber to precisely the problem now being discussed. It was with a sinking heart that every Member of this Chamber read the new clause, the zero clause, that is now Clause 1 which was introduced on Report in the Commons with the implications it clearly carries, or could carry, for the higher education sector.
Let me say at once that it looks as if the course of this debate will be very different. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, speaking to his amendment, made a generous offer which was, I understood, to withdraw his amendment at this stage if he received satisfactory assurances. What is very significant and different from the position last time round, if I may put it that way, is the fact that my noble friend Lady Blatch has already tabled amendments which seek to allay the fears—perhaps they do not entirely succeed in that aim—which all of us in the higher education community have felt on this matter. The noble Baroness has indicated that she is willing to take her own amendment away and modify it in the light of the remarks which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and others have made.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was right to focus on Clause 1(2) (a). I believe it is agreed on all sides of the Chamber that my noble friend Lady Blatch has proposed a satisfactory amendment in relation to Clause 1(2) (b) and to Clause 1(3). That point has already been conceded by my noble friend behind me. Many of us, and certainly the academic community, seek a satisfactory amendment on Clause 1(2) (a). I understood from the words of my noble friend Lady Blatch that she will take her amendment away with the intention of proposing an amendment to Clause 1(2) (a) broadly along the lines of the amendments she has already proposed to Clause 1(2) (b) and to Clause 1(3). That leaves only the matter of Clause 1(1) which states:
"The Secretary of State shall promote the education of the people of England and Wales".
That is a duty, but it does not in itself afford powers. So long as it remains a duty without being followed up with specific powers, I myself see no harm in it. Indeed I believe it would be mildly disappointing if we were to accept the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, which states,
"The provisions of this section shall not apply to any institution of higher education".
It would in a general sense be a disappointment if the Secretary of State did not feel it his duty to promote institutions of higher education as well as those in the primary, secondary and further education sectors. I remind the Committee that this very wording—
Lord Beloff: I wish to point out that we have been referred to the 1944 Act by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. That Act imposes a duty upon the Secretary of State to further education in relation to the people of England and Wales. However, the Act specifically states that education is defined as what goes on in schools and colleges of further education; in other words, the 1944 Act itself deliberately excluded universities. It worries us that that aspect should be included in the 1993 Act.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I do not believe that the noble Lord and I are in disagreement. I was intending—before he intervened—to quote the opening words of the 1944 Act which states:
"It shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister … to promote the education of the people of England and Wales".
It is perfectly clear that it then deals with primary education explicitly, secondary education explicitly and further education explicitly. However, nowhere in my reading of the Act—I must admit I have not spent a long time reading it recently—does it explicitly exclude higher education. Indeed, I do not believe the universities are mentioned in that Act. Happily, I do not believe they will be mentioned in this Bill either if Clause 1(1) remains. The clause states:
"The Secretary of State shall promote the education of the people of England and Wales".
I do not wish to speak any longer. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, was right to say that the solution is that he and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals should meet the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The Minister has offered to produce an amendment. I hope and believe that the amendment which she will produce to Clause 1(2) (a) will meet the requirements outlined by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. There is no doubt still room for considerable debate about Clause 1(1) but to my own way of thinking so long as that indicates a general duty and cannot by any manner of means be construed as conferring additional powers upon the Secretary of State, I believe all will be well. I hope very much that the offers which have been made on both sides can be accepted and that we can proceed now to debate primary, secondary and further education. It is for that reason, I believe, that most of us are here today.
Lord Glenamara: I wish to make clear to the noble Baroness that there is tremendous strength of feeling in the northern universities about this measure. I have received representations from a number of vice-chancellors and also from my own university. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that there are three chancellors of the new universities in this House and not two. The new clause is causing widespread alarm. One vice-chancellor said that,
"we are concerned that in its current, very general form, the Education Bill may extend the Secretary of State's powers over universities in wholly inappropriate ways".
We are all aware that recently a case took place in which it was held that proceedings in Parliament can he taken into account in construing a statute. If that is so, we must take into account the words uttered by the Secretary of State on 2nd March in another place where he made it absolutely clear that the term "educational institutions" includes universities. The clause we are discussing does not mention universities but because of the case I have referred to, it must be held to include universities.
If we consider Clause 1 to include universities, it would give the Secretary of State unprecedented powers over the universities. It would give him power over the number of courses, the type of courses, numbers of students, remuneration of staff and standards. The clause contains the catch-all phrase,
1384
"among other things". That phrase would allow him to interfere in any matter in the universities. It therefore gives him unprecedented powers. The noble Baroness said today—she has said so previously in this Chamber—that the measure does not add to the Secretary of State's powers. I hope that the noble Baroness does not misunderstand me, but that is quite untrue. I know that she believes that it is true, but it is not true. No one else believes that. It gives the Secretary of State unprecedented powers.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I accept the concern that I did not entirely meet the anxieties of the Committee. I said that I would take the matter away and I promised the Committee to put beyond all doubt, by addressing the concerns in respect of Clause 2A, that the Bill applies to schools and such further educational establishments and not to universities. I have said that I shall do that. It would be very helpful if I could be taken on trust now, at least until Report stage when noble Lords will have a legitimate right to return to the matter if I do not meet their concerns. Then we could continue with the rest of the Bill.
Lord Glenamara: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. She has now gone considerably further than she went in her earlier remarks. She has been much more specific. She has now said that she will introduce an amendment which will specifically exclude universities. If that is what she has said that is marvellous. We would accept that.
Perhaps I may say in conclusion that I believe that the most important characteristic of a university is its independence of the state. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, mentioned that greatest of all Victorians, Cardinal Newman. In his book on the concept of a university, the independence of a university from the state is central. That is as true today as it was then. It would be a sad day indeed if education in this country degenerated to the point of government interfering in the running of universities.
I am very pleased that the noble Baroness said what she did.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I know that we want to make progress, but last week I happened to spend two days at the University of Wales and its constituent colleges when we discussed research and its funding. Concern was expressed about this particular clause. I am very glad to hear the advance which the noble Baroness has made this afternoon. Her amendments would have helped a little but, nevertheless, the concern that has been aroused about this matter is of such a character that I believe that she would be well advised to take the matter away and come back with an agreed amendment.
I am not quite sure what better amendment than that of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, can be devised that would entirely remove the suspicion that has been aroused. Although it is not for me but for the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, to decide, in view of the concern that has been aroused I would certainly give the noble

1385
Baroness the room that she wants to discuss the matter further. We can return to the matter at Report stage. I believe that the best way to deal with it now is specifically to exclude the universities by a provision stating that that should be so, even though there can be argument as to whether additional powers are being conferred.
I say that because, as the noble Baroness will know from her own speech at Second Reading—a copy of which was given to me last week in Cardiff—she said herself when she introduced the Bill:
"As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State indicated in another place on introducing the amendment, it covers all the relevant education institutions and bodies, including universities and the higher education funding council".—[Official Report, 23/3/93; col. 311.]
That is an example of the Government shooting themselves in the foot. Every single clause in the Bill is concerned with schools. I looked through the chapters. Chapter I concerns the Funding Agency for Schools, Chapter II covers responsibility for education at school, Chapter VI covers the funding of grant-maintained schools and Chapter IV the establishing of new grant-maintained schools. So it goes on. There is nothing about universities in the Bill. It is beyond my comprehension why on earth the Government had to introduce that particular note and say that it covered universities as well. However, that is water under the bridge and there is no point in pursuing it.
In conclusion, I would prefer to see an amendment with the words of that put down by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, carried, but not necessarily today. That would make the position absolutely clear. However, I see no reason why we should not give the noble Baroness another opportunity to produce something even better if she can.
Lord Peston: I agree entirely with the noble Baroness and hope that we can get a move on. Secondly, I accept entirely her bona fides. There is no problem with that.
What is it that we have agreed? Rather like my noble friend Lord Callaghan, I am intrigued as to what the Government were up to originally, but we do not need to discuss that now.
I do not know what is wrong with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I should like to see two outcomes. First, I should like to have the status quo ante the Bill, because I thought that that was the state of affairs we should have. Secondly, it is my judgment that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and his noble friends achieve that outcome. I accept that the noble Baroness wants to take the matter away. By all means let her do so. However, I hope that she will come back either with amendments identical to those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, which I consider satisfactory, or with amendments which are equally satisfactory. I believe that she accepts that her amendments do not achieve that.
I hope that we can proceed. Speaking from this Front Bench I do not wish to hold up the proceedings, but I know the outcome which I want, which is the one that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, outlined to the Committee.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may make my intentions clear. I hesitate to say that I shall put matters beyond all reasonable doubt because I am decidedly nervous about what will satisfy the Committee at the end of the day. These are my intentions.
My noble friend Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn put the matter very well. In the Education Act 1944 there is a general duty for the Secretary of State to concern himself with the education of people in England and Wales. That duty has been repeated in this Bill. Just as with the 1944 Act, we intend that the 1993 Act should then move on to specific powers which relate to particular sectors of education. It will not be my intention, nor should it be the intention of legislation, to state that "this shall not apply" to certain aspects because it will not apply to all sorts of things. It will be my intention to make sure that the powers of the Secretary of State shall apply only to schools and to such further education institutions. As part of that we shall discuss the matter with interested Members of the Committee and we shall continue to discuss it with the CVCP. I hope that I can return at Report stage with something that is acceptable to the whole House.
Lord Beloff: In the light of the assurances given by my noble friend, it would be churlish to deny her the opportunity of producing an alternative amendment. However, I should make it clear that I remain of the same opinion as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that it would be difficult to improve upon the wording.
Perhaps I may take up again the point that the 1944 Act defined education in a way which referred only to schools. It described the various stages through which a young person's education passes, but it does not go beyond further education. Therefore there is an innovation even in the duty to look after the provision of higher education. It is that innovation which has given rise to the present anxieties.
That having been said, it appears to be the wish in all quarters of the Chamber that my noble friend should withdraw her amendments today and come back at Report stage with an amendment or amendments which achieve what has been the wish of every speaker, namely that no powers of any kind should accrue to the Secretary of State in relation to universities. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 10, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 11 and insert ("have the duty of promoting the education of the people of England and Wales and the progressive development of institutions devoted to that purpose, and of securing the effective execution, under his control and direction, by local education authorities and such other bodies as are established under this Act with functions in relation to schools, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area.")
The noble Lord said: I am afraid that it is all too characteristic of this doctrinaire and ill-prepared Bill that we are compelled to start the Committee stage by debating amendments to a clause which was hastily introduced in the other place at the last moment without proper notice and with no consultation. It is a clause bereft of any positive contribution

1387
whatsoever to the improvement of the education of the people of England and Wales. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, so powerfully said, what a sad contrast it all makes with the wise, characterful statesmanship of Rab Butler in 1944.
Clause 1 is relevant to the heart of our educational system and its spirit. It is also highly relevant to the relationship between our educational system and democracy itself. Do we believe in pluralism or do we not? Do we believe in decentralisation or do we not? Do we believe in subsidiarity or do we not? If we believe in them for Europe, why does that belief stop at Whitehall? Do we believe in community or do we not? If we do believe in community, why are we not ensuring that the educational development of our children is seen as one of the challenging responsibilities of the communities in which they live and that children in their schools grow up with a living sense of being part of a closely interwoven community to which they have clear responsibilities? Is that not all highly relevant to our current anxieties about delinquency, crime and social irresponsibility?
As we have heard, Section 1(1) of the Education Act 1944 put a duty on the Secretary of State to,
"secure the effective execution by local authorities, under his control and direction, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area".
Clause 1 of the Bill sweeps all that away. There is no mention of the role of local education authorities. What has been described as the historic settlement of 1944 embodied a partnership between central government, local government and the Churches in the organisation and governance of education. It is also widely agreed that the post-war decades established a further partnership between those bodies and education professionals in the development and implementation of education policy.
What is now proposed destroys all that. Instead we have sweeping references to choice and diversity with absolutely no tangible evidence as to how those will be related to quality—the application to education of the hollow PR language of this Government's charters as distinct from substance. The new clause refers to the role of the Secretary of State alone. There is not one word in the clause underpinning the role of parents, governors or schools about which Ministers sanctimoniously love to preach. The harsh reality as distinct from the sales talk is that we shall have a future of school against school, rapidly discovering their impotence as they fight for their individual interests against the massively reinforced centralised bureaucracy of the Secretary of State and his non-accountable quangos. That prospect would be sinister enough in more tranquil educational times, but at a time of almost unrivalled anxiety about the competence of political leadership in education, it is frankly bizarre.
The Minister took exception at the Second Reading debate when I quoted the Conservative Education Association as saying,
"We believe that [the Bill] represents a massive and dangerous increase in the power given to central government".
But perhaps the Minister will take more note of Councillor T.H. Macnamara, OBE of the
1388
Conservative Hampshire Education Committee, which is not noted as a wildly romantic left-wing administration. In a letter to me, and I suspect to other noble Lords, he wrote as recently as 14th April last that,
"Conservative county councillors in Hampshire are supported by Liberal Democrat and Labour Councillors and by governors, heads, and teachers in wanting two key matters changed".
With reference to the first of those, he states:
"On the provision, planning and organisation of schools, the Bill's proposals are undemocratic, confusing and cumbersome … In Southern Hampshire, where the age of transfer to secondary school has been 12, the County Council is committed to making it 11 to fit the National Curriculum stages and practice in 95 per cent. of the country. We are also taking the opportunity of removing many hundreds of surplus school places. During the past year members and officers have been engaged in a massive consultation and decision making exercise involving some 700 local meetings. Such planning and consultation can be carried out properly only by a local democratically-elected body supported by high quality staff.
"A national funding agency can distribute money but it should not be expected to plan and consult. If the Bill's proposals in clauses 1 and 10 survive, parents, governors and teachers will not know who is responsible and a great deal of time and money will be wasted in bureaucratic procedures".
My amendment to Clause 1 is frankly designed to maintain the partnership between central government and local democracy for the provision of education and between the local community as a whole and the local schools. It is also designed to reinstate the need for both a varied and comprehensive education service and a national policy for education. That is not to argue that everywhere local democracy has produced equally good education. There have been some disgraceful examples. However, the point about democracy is that accountability gives room for correction. How on earth will the Secretary of State and his impersonal bureaucratic quangos be effectively accountable to all the parents as far apart as Cumbria and Cornwall?
The challenge to us all is surely to make democracy work, not to cut it out. But, as Councillor Macnamara from Hampshire has argued, Clause 1 is intrinsically linked to Clause 10, with which a subsequent number of amendments grouped with Amendment No. 49 deal. Much of the ground covered by this amendment and that group is therefore the same. As the Bill stands, the local education authority will share a duty to provide sufficient school places with the unelected and non-accountable funding authority once 10 per cent. of the pupils in its area are attending maintained schools. Quite apart from the problems of how such a shared responsibility can work, we surely have to consider how the planning of the education service can be kept democratically accountable.
Such accountability is necessary to ensure parental choice. That is why our later amendment will propose leaving the planning role with the LEA so long as it maintains an interest in providing schools. The LEA is clearly the most appropriate body to plan and provide the range of places needed. Yet, as proposed in the Bill, it would have to share the responsibility with another body which would inevitably be more remote from the locality's needs and would be unable to cover more than partial provision. Democratic accountability of the education service must be

1389
ensured by maintaining local education authorities as partners in the provision of that service and by ensuring that they retain the lead role for planning school places in their areas. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 look back to where we once were and take no account of where we are, not to mention where we should be going. It must be clear that, while the framework envisaged by the Education Act 1944 was right for its time, the education world has changed considerably since then, particularly with the growth of the grant-maintained sector. We would be remiss not to recognise that, and to ensure that education legislation reflects this changed world.
Clause 1 preserves the position of the LEA as a key component of our educational infrastructure. But we have to recognise the reality that the local education authority of the future will play a different role in our education system. It will have important functions, as the Bill makes clear and as I shall want to emphasise over the coming weeks as we discuss it. But it will not be the role envisaged for it under the Education Act 1944. Increasingly responsibility for the provision of education will fall to other bodies and to schools and colleges themselves.
I have no wish to denigrate the contribution that LEAs have made, and are making to the provision of education. Given my own involvement in local government in Cambridgeshire, I readily acknowledge the vital role carried out by the local education authorities. But my experience in local government convinced me that not only were there ways to secure high quality education for young people other than through the LEA as monopoly provider, but indeed that there were occasionally better ways.
The thrust of the Government's reforms has been based on the premise that individual institutions respond best to independence; and that the best way to secure higher standards in education is to give responsibility for its delivery to those who have the greatest interest in seeing their institutions succeed—parents, governors, teaching staff and the local community.
We have already put this into practice. Our universities have long enjoyed independence, and we have just had a debate about making sure that that independence is secure. Universities and their students have benefited from it. We have given similar powers—and, I must add, responsibilities—to what were the polytechnics, and they too are responding positively.
The Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which was the subject of extensive debate in this House, also created a new self-governing further education sector which came into effect on 1st April. It gave further education and sixth form colleges new freedoms to respond quickly and flexibly to the needs of their customers, students and local employers, and to play their part in building up the supply of young people and adults with the technical and other skills the country needs.
1390
We have given parents the right to choose to take their schools out of the control of the local education authority, and over 800 schools have already chosen this route. The evidence shows that self-governing state schools are adapting well to their new status. We aim to build on that. I have no doubt that increasing numbers of parents will choose self-governing status for their schools so that they too can reap the advantages to be gained as a result of schools having greater control over their own affairs.
There is an important practical reason why Clause 1 should not make specific mention of the LEA. Clause 1 is designed to stand the test of time and I see no advantage in listing individually all the bodies with educational responsibilities. As I have made clear, already there are no grounds for singling out just one of those bodies. I urge the Committee to reject Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Turning to Amendment No. 7, I have yet to hear arguments pressed for it and if the Committee will forgive me, I wind up on Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 but reserve the right to come back on Amendment No. 7.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I support what was said by the noble Lord on the Labour Front Bench on Amendment No. 2 and wish to refer to Amendments Nos. 3 and 7. There is a difficulty which I hinted at on Second Reading. When we deal with private legislation to do with education and other major areas of domestic policy for England and Wales in this House, we legislate together. In the Bill we are dealing with two Secretaries of State. That seems to be a mystery which is not understood by the educational press in London. There was a huge furore only a week or so ago about the fact that the national curriculum in Wales in regard to the teaching of English appeared somehow to be different from the national curriculum in England.
Let us be clear about the Education Reform Act 1988 with which I was associated as a member of the Standing Committee in another place. There are two national curricula: one for Wales and one for England. Both curricula are administered by separate bodies and we shall deal later in the Bill with the reorganisations of those bodies.
In my remarks on Amendment No. 3, which is grouped with Amendment No. 2, I shall refer to both Secretaries of State since I believe that the principle of partnership between local education authorities and the Secretary of State for Wales, in the case of Wales, and the Secretary of State for Education in the case of England, is an essential part of any future education service. When the noble Baroness says that there must be no reference to local education authorities in the clause because it has to stand the test of time, that adds to my concern about the lack of democracy which may well be at the heart of the clause.
That is further complicated by another issue to which we shall come later in our debates—the projected reorganisation of local government. Wales is again, unfortunately, to be in the lead as the first area of experimentation. We may well see there a major issue concerning the link between local education

1391
authorities as reorganised and the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State in the administration of the education service in Wales.
Partnership with local education authorities has provided the basis for the education service in England and Wales. I believe that in Wales it will continue to do so. There may be a difference of emphasis in the two countries. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness were to remind herself, if she does not have the information immediately to hand, of the numbers of schools which have already opted out of local authority control in Wales, both primary and secondary, and how many have expressed an interest. She may find the figure minuscule compared with the figure which she has just quoted for England. That again indicates the fact that partnership with local education authorities is seen to be the way which is preferred by parents, pupils and teachers within Wales.
For that reason, I believe that reference to local education authorities as the major player—to use that phrase—in the partnership between the Secretaries of State and the deliverers of the local education service should be included in the Bill. I hear the Government's arguments. I am alarmed by the noble Baroness's attitude and the clear intention to relegate local education authorities completely, at least in England.
I come to Amendment No. 7. Here again, I believe that the wording and the spirit of my amendment are very much in line with what the noble Baroness said. If the clause is to stand the test of time and be a statement of educational principle, then to follow the present wording of Clause 1(3) in encouraging diversity of choice with references to the educational needs of local communities under a multicultural society seems to me extremely apt. There are key words here which I believe to be fundamental to the effective delivery of education policy in the local community. The words are "local" and "community" and the notion of a multicultural society. It concerns me very much that the whole issue of a curriculum for a multicultural society, which was a major feature of the educational debate 10 years ago, now appears to have been completely relegated in the Government's thinking. We have seen the attempts of the teaching profession and the educational institutions to continue to provide sensitively for the needs of the whole population in a multi-ethnic society throughout the world, but particularly throughout the United Kingdom and, in the case of the Bill, throughout England and Wales. Despite those attempts, there is little support at the level of public policy and little effective funding for those objectives. One thinks of the years spent in deliberation in the Swann Committee and other fora on the central issues of delivering a curriculum for a multi-ethnic, multicultural society. However, in the whole debate on the national curriculum, all those issues have been relegated.
Diversity and the maintenance of ethnic identity within a harmonious multicultural society are still issues which are central to the future of the nations and communities of the kingdom. I hope that the Government, if unable to include such wording on the
1392
face of the Bill, can at least indicate clearly that, as concerns the curriculum and the ethos of schooling, the emphasis on providing for the needs of local communities within a multicultural society is in line with their thinking.
When we speak of a multicultural society, we mean schools not only in inner city areas but throughout our communities. An awareness of the multifarious nature of our European identities and the levels of identity and ethnicity making up the populations of the whole of Western Europe is now a central issue. The recent re-emergence of racism and racist attacks on mainland Europe and in some parts of the United Kingdom gives cause for deep concern. It was those concerns which motivated the then government of the day, and the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, to set up an inquiry, not just into the policing of inner cities but into the delivery of the education service and the need to ensure that people from all backgrounds and all forms of ethnic identity could relate to the curriculum in schools and benefit from it.
Those anxieties have not gone away. My worry is that by not addressing the issues in times of tension, we shall only exacerbate future social conflicts. For all those reasons, I ask for confirmation from the Government that those issues are still to the fore, if not on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Young: We have listened to the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Elis-Thomas, with interest. However, I say to my noble friend the Minister that it seems to me that if Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 were to be accepted they would be wrecking amendments. I shall turn later to Amendment No. 7, which addresses a completely separate issue. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are an attempt to put the clock back or to maintain the status quo.
Like my noble friend the Minister, I have had long experience in local government. I was a local councillor for 15 years. I served on an education committee. I was a governor of many maintained schools. I follow with great interest all debates on education. So my remarks in no way denigrate local education authorities and what they have done.
However, the great educational debate is about the standards and quality of what our children learn in schools, for which the local education authorities have to bear a large measure of responsibility. We have heard time without number that our children are not doing as well as children in competitor countries in Europe, let alone in countries such as Japan. That problem needs to be addressed. Therefore I think it quite proper that Clause 1 of the Bill should make general statements of intention about where we are going. We have very considerable evidence already to show that grant-maintained schools are succeeding very well in what they are attempting to do. There is some evidence too to indicate that as a result of the other government reforms standards are rising. To put the clock back would be quite wrong; I do not support Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Amendment No. 7 addresses a very different issue. I am sure that we all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, in his general remarks about a multi-ethnic society. One part of the world about

1393
which I know a little is the Caribbean. No one can visit Caribbean schools (as I have done on many occasions) without being struck by the excellence of education there. It is the ambition of every parent to pay for those very good schools. Many of those parents, on coming to this country, were, I believe, very disappointed at what they found in the inner cities. What any child wants, whether that child is white, or comes from the Indian sub-continent, the Caribbean or any other part of the world, is a good education which qualifies him to get a job. If that happened, I believe that many of the problems that we face in inner cities would be reduced. I do not say that they would go away; but they would certainly be diminished. It is very encouraging—I may not be correct on this point, but I believe it to be true—that if one took a census of the sixth forms of maintained schools, one would find children from the Indian sub-continent doing very well indeed. That is welcome and much to be encouraged. I hope that children from the Caribbean will do equally well. What they require, I believe, is the process of the national curriculum, backed by testing, to make sure that every child, whatever the school, gets an equal opportunity. That applies just as much to people from the ethnic minorities. So, although I share the spirit of what the noble Lord said, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. To write such a provision into Clause 1 would be to write in a whole series of other general issues. What is encouraging is that the government reforms are benefiting children from ethnic minorities. That is the important point.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: As Amendment No. 2 stands also in my name I should like to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that it is not intended as a wrecking amendment. Indeed, it specifically acknowledges other bodies. The noble Baroness referred to the success of grant-maintained schools. The issue of maintaining quality in such schools is one that we may need to address later in the course of the Bill. We on these Benches join with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in believing that it would be right to write into the Bill the partnership with local authorities, not as a matter of a knee-jerk defence of local authorities but because the issue of direct democratic accountability to which he referred is one which deserves recognition.
Both the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, with their great experience of membership of education authorities, school governorships, and so on, know the value of talking to parents and of dealing with very small, very precise issues. With the best will in the world, neither the Secretary of State nor the Minister—who could not be more energetic or more assiduous—cannot deal with that level of detail. The Minister may say that that is a matter of detail, not of strategy. But dealing with the detail informs the strategy. A close understanding of the needs of different local communities and an accountability to them cannot be achieved by the responsibility being held in the person of the Secretary of State.
Direct contact is relevant for strategic matters. The Bill provides for a strategic role to remain with the
1394
local education authorities on, to mention just one matter, the question of statementing of children with special educational needs. The Minister said that allowing self-governing status had meant more schools taking it up, leading to an increased number of grant-maintained schools. That may be so. But is it right to send out the message, which I believe is implicit in writing out of legislation the partnership with LEAs, that parents should not trust schools which have not become grant-maintained? I fear that it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy that there will be more grant-maintained schools if the message goes out that only grant-maintained schools are to be trusted. I know that the Government believe in partnership; the Prime Minister says so. I believe that we should allow it to flourish.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I wonder if she can clarify a point on Amendment No. 2. The first part of that amendment seems so like the Bill as it stands that it would include universities. I wonder therefore whether it is not at odds with what the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins and Lord Peston, said.
Baroness Hamwee: I am sorry. There was a sort of "transatlantic feedback" over the last part of what the noble Baroness said. I did not catch her last few words.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not wish to detain the Committee. My point was that the first part of Amendment No. 2 seems to include universities. The second part does not. But the first part at any rate would not exclude universities. Therefore, is it not at odds with what the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins and Lord Peston, said?
Baroness Hamwee: I do not believe that it is, and that was certainly not the intention of the draftsman.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I have two main objections to the wording of Clause 1(1) as it stands. The first, and least important, is an aesthetic one. There was a fine, resounding ring to Section 1 of the 1944 Act which this amendment, with suitable modification, seeks to follow. If, as the Government claim, this Bill is designed to last for a generation, it could at least start with something a little more inspiring than the present pedestrian wording.
The second objection, echoing what has been said by other speakers, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in particular, concerns the role of the local education authorities—written out, as it were, between lunch and tea in the Bill's passage through another place. That is no way to abolish a partnership which has stood the test of time whatever its shortcomings, which the present Government so like to exaggerate; nor to centralise power so exclusively in the hands of the Secretary of State.
The Government deny that this is a centralising Bill. They point to the devolution of power to individual school governors under the grant-maintained provisions. They are right in the sense that schools which do decide to opt out—and, as we have heard, not many of them have done so—will have

1395
more day-to-day freedom to manage their affairs. But the Government cannot deny that the ultimate power over GM schools—for example, to open them, close them, enlarge them and change their governors—will rest with the Secretary of State. Nor can they lightly brush off the vast number of extra powers which the 1988 Act and the present Bill are handing to the holder of that office, a factor which caused deep disquiet five years ago and brought not unreasonable comparisons with totalitarian states in the not-so-distant past. One may say that the English Secretary of State would not use those powers in a high-handed way. What happened to the direct grant schools? If one pictures one's least favourite politician of the opposing party in possession of the proposed new powers, one will get some feel for the undesirability of concentrating so much responsibility at the centre where children's hearts and minds are concerned.
Since 1944 it has been largely a matter of checks and balances in the delivery of an education service. Neither partner in central or local government has had too much power. If the Bill goes through unamended, it will be goodbye to all that. Clause 1 is where it starts.
At Second Reading the Minister said that local authorities would still have important things to do, and she said it again just now. A more accurate view was that of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who said that they would be left with the bits that nobody else wanted. There is a fund of solid, disinterested expertise in the local education service that the nation can ill afford to throw away. Like previous speakers, I was there for years and saw it at first hand. That is particularly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, in the realm of school planning and provision—we shall be coming to that later in Clause 10. With its knowledge of local conditions, housing, industry and transport and its intimate links with social services and planning departments, the LEA is far better placed to take the lead role than the Secretary of State or any of his unelected national bodies—not the only role, but simply the lead role in this instance. Other such instances might be school admissions, special needs, outdoor education, extra-curricular music, nursery and adult education. All are areas where strategic oversight combined with local knowledge are important.
The LEA is not yet dead. It would be a sad and sinister day for the balance of power in our society if it were. Any move to write local democracy out of the equation should be resisted. For that reason above all I support the amendment.
Lord Renton: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 2 and I hope that on reflection the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will take it away and think about it further. I shall have to say a word or two in regard to the drafting, but the amendment also contains several fallacies and gives rise to several problems of interpretation and construction.
First, with regard to the drafting, the amendment replaces the simple proposition stated in Clause 1, which will be the subject of further consideration in the light of our earlier debate. That simple proposition was borrowed from part of Section 1 of the Education Act 1944. If the amendment were accepted it would
1396
give rise to one of the longest sentences that I have seen for a long time in a subsection in even one of our modern Bills.
Coming to the substance of the amendment, it contains one or two fallacies. The first is the idea that the Secretary of State has control and direction of local authorities. What does that mean? I have always understood that education authorities have a high degree of independence limited only by the terms of various Acts of Parliament which, for the most part, do not give the Secretary of State control and direction of education authorities. That is the first fallacy, the first problem of construction. Although there are several, I do not want to take up too much time because the points are clear and persuasive.
The last two lines of the amendment state,
"with functions in relation to schools, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area".
There are a number of comprehensive schools in this country. Do those words mean that the Secretary of State and local authorities must aim at having comprehensive schools? Is that what "comprehensive educational service" means? There is a doubt. There is some confusion with what already happens. It could be said that to speak of,
"a varied and comprehensive educational service",
is in itself a contradiction in terms.
I do not believe that it would be right for the Committee to accept the amendment. With regard to the drafting I would go further and point out that it overlaps and repeats phrases which are included, and will be included after further consideration by my noble friend, in subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1. The net result is that subsection (1) would become a frightful jumble of overlapping ideas. That is not the way for us to legislate.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: Perhaps I may deal first with what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said. I have great respect for him and have enjoyed my relationship with him in this Chamber and in another place for many years. But I am a little surprised that he does not have a better understanding of the Education Act 1944, which has stood us in such good stead for half a century. The quotations he selected are taken directly from that Act and are unashamedly about maintaining the present situation. Indeed, there have been references to "wrecking". The amendment is not about wrecking; it is about conserving what is best in the tradition of education in Britain and building upon it.
I am compelled to ask the Minister if, as she has argued, Clause I indeed changes the local education authority role and is therefore "fundamental", to use her word, why was it not introduced until the Report stage in the other place? I am confused by that.
I am afraid that the other point which has been misunderstood by Members of the Committee is that the amendment specifically deals with anxiety about universities. One need only look at the last sentence on the first page of the Marshalled List to see that the amendment deals with functions in relation to schools, specifically dealing with this point.

1397
I am afraid that, in view of the failure of the first clause —introduced in such haste at the last moment in the other place—to deal with accountability and with the principle of partnership, or to underwrite the role of parents and governors, as opposed to the new, enlarged and gigantic bureaucracy headed by Field Marshal Secretary of State and in view of the failure of the Minister to reassure us in her remarks this afternoon, I have no alternative but to press the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I have not exercised my right to reply on the other amendments and the debate should run its course.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he will clarify a point raised by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. Is it the intention that the references to "promoting the education" and "the progressive development of institutions" shall relate to institutions of higher education?
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps I may make two brief points. I reserve my position with regard to the role of local authorities to Clause 10, particularly Amendment No. 50. Secondly, the words,
"such other bodies as are established under this Act",
are not clear. I am not sure what they mean. Before I saw the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I had drafted another amendment. We must take into account that we must consider the effect on social services, health authorities, voluntary, charitable and private organisations which contribute to the education of children in this country. The amendment as drafted does not answer those questions.
Lord Northbourne: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Judd, or the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, could help me on the question of democratic accountability. It was my understanding that the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament. There seems to be no better form of democratic accountability than that, particularly in view of the fact that education is of such immense national concern at this time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned the extent to which this country is falling behind some of our competitors in Europe. We face the fiercest possible competition in world markets over the next decades. We have at this time 3 million unemployed, many of whom will find it very difficult to get jobs because they lack the education and skills which are required by modern industry and therefore cannot deliver the levels of productivity which are needed to make them attractive in the labour market. Perhaps I may quote to the Committee a discussion which I had recently with an official of Eurotunnel, who told me that there has been a large differential between the productivity of individuals in the French construction teams and in the British construction teams—something like 20 per cent. This was attributed mainly to the poorer educational and training standards of the British workforce and line management.
Local education authorities have been in charge of
1398
education for 50 years. They clearly have not delivered the standard of education which the country needs at this time. Surely it is time to change the bowling.
Baroness Blatch: As I come to wind up the debate perhaps I may say that I do not think that this group of amendments has been the best example of the Committee obeying the procedure. I looked around the whole Chamber when I stood up to speak. As no one else stood I came to reply to the debate but then discovered that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, was to speak to his amendment. In any future groupings, if we are going to behave in that way, we shall take much too long to get through the business.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may intervene at this point to explain to the Minister that I observed what happened from my seat, where I perhaps have a better view of the Chamber than she can have. I was proposing to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and saw that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, was trying to intervene and in fact began to do so before the Chairman had introduced the amendment. There was then a hiatus as noble Lords were waiting to see what others would do. I was a little taken aback by the Minister rising to speak. We all wish to get on but I think that, as a matter of explanation to the Committee, it is worth explaining what happened at that point.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may say to the Committee that I did in fact look around. I waited for someone to speak and the noble Baroness, in the same way as she did just then, could have risen to say that she wished to speak to those amendments. I said at the outset that I was going to be summing up on those amendments.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I wish to confirm the events as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, was rising within my field of vision when I was about to rise. That might explain events. He was obscured behind the Minister's back. I do not want to waste any more time on this matter but I think that sets the record straight.
Baroness Blatch: I spoke inclusively when I said that it was not the best example of the Committee obeying procedure. I was including myself too. If noble Lords want to speak on amendments before I sum up it is important that they make that known. If I do rise to wind up on an amendment it would be helpful if noble Lords would indicate that they would like a chance to speak.
My noble friends Lord Renton and Lady Carnegy pointed out the defects. But apart from the defects there are still good reasons for rejecting Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that I did not ever say that Clause 1 changed the Bill or changed the role of LEAs. I said that it accommodated change within the education sector as the grant-maintained sector grew and that LEAs would be one of the bodies among the other bodies which were mentioned by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, that

1399
I do not think it is pedestrian to charge the Secretary of State with the duty to promote education for all the people of England and Wales. I believe that that is plain English, unequivocal and a laudable duty that he should be charged with.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, had another concern. This clause does replace Section 1 of the 1944 Act but it does not, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, centralise. It excludes the words of Section 1 of the 1944 Act. Amendment No. 2 seeks to restore them,
"securing the effective execution, under his control and direction".
That is pure centralisation. There is no attempt to centralise. We seek to encourage a broader and richer partnership between all the bodies and institutions concerned in education.
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, raises an important point in Amendment No. 7. It may help him if I set out the Government's policy in this area, because I think it will answer all the concerns underlying the amendment. Following publication of the report of the committee of inquiry into the education of children from ethnic minority groups in March 1985, the then Secretary of State, Sir Keith Joseph, defined government policy as being, first, to raise the performance of all pupils and to tackle the obstacles to higher achievement which are common to all; secondly, to give ethnic minority pupils the same opportunity as all others to profit from what the schools can offer them by meeting their particular educational needs—for example, by promoting good practice in the teaching of English; and thirdly, to secure that schools should preserve and transmit our national values in a way which accepts Britain's ethnic diversity and promotes tolerance and racial harmony. This remains our policy and I am convinced that it points the right way forward.
We have taken, and continue to take, action to support this policy, including measures specifically targeted at meeting some of the particular needs that pupils from ethnic minorities may have. I do not have the time to provide a comprehensive run through all these measures but they include, on initial and in-service teacher training, increasing the recruitment of ethnic minority teachers, funding for pilot projects on meeting educational needs in a multi-ethnic society and action on the curriculum and on examinations. These and other targeted measures are important. We shall continue to take specific action as we feel it is necessary, but it is our overall commitment to meeting the needs of all pupils that is vital.
I remind the Committee of Section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988, which requires the school curriculum to promote,
"the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society".
That recognises no difference in the entitlement of any pupil, whatever his or her background, and is supplemented by Section 2 of the Act, which requires all maintained schools to provide the national curriculum to all its pupils. This amendment adds nothing to that which is already guaranteed in statute and confirmed in the Bill. If I read the spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, was saying, he
1400
wished to have confirmation that that is the case. I hope that in the light of what I have said he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Judd: I am sure that the Committee is grateful to the Minister for the way in which she has replied to the points that have been made. I must underline two points. First, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, the great point about democracy in our country and the tradition of democracy is that it is not just a centralised democracy. It is a dispersed democracy. The importance of local government is very rich in our traditions. What has been understood and well understood in the 1944 Act is that education should be in the hands of a partnership between local democracy and central democracy. That was basic to the principle. What the Bill is doing in Clause 1 so hastily and in such an ill-judged way introduced at the last moment—we cannot emphasise that too strongly—is removing that whole tradition and partnership. We do not believe that the case for doing that has been established.
Furthermore, we are fearful for the position of numerous individual schools and their governors up and down the country when, once the euphoria of the first stage is over, they find themselves as isolated schools trying to stand up for their rights against this enhanced bureaucratic, centralised administration. For those and many other reasons, we have no alternative but to press the amendment to a Division.
4.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 107; Not-Contents, 171.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Addington, L.

Galpern, L.

Airedale, L.

Geraint, L.

Alport, L.

Glenamara, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ardwick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Grey, E.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Hampton, L.

Banks, L.

Hamwee, B. [Teller.]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Blackstone, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bottomley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Bramall, L.

Howell, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hughes, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hylton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jay, L.

Carter, L.

Jeger, B.

Carver, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Judd, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Kennet, L.

David, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Eatwell, L.

Listowel, E.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ennals, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Longford, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

1401

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Rochester, L.

McNair, L.

Russell, E.

Mallalieu, B.

Seear, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Mayhew, L.

Serota, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Shackleton, L.

Meston, L.

Stedman, B.

Mishcon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Molloy, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Monkswell, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Ogmore, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Parry, L.

Thurlow, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Peston, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Warnock, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Whaddon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

White, B.

Redesdale, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Richard, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elles, B.

Adrian, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Aldington, L.

Elton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Faithfull, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Ferrers, E.

Annan, L.

Flather, B.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Arran, E.

Gainford, L.

Astor, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Auckland, L.

Geddes, L.

Barber, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Beloff, L.

Goschen, V.

Bessborough, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Blatch, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Blyth, L.

Halsbury, E.

Boardman, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Henley, L.

Brentford, V.

Hertford, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Brightman, L.

Hives, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Holderness, L.

Brookes, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hooper, B.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Hothfield, L.

Cadman, L.

Howe, E.

Caithness, E.

Huntly, M.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Killearn, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Knollys, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Layton, L.

Cawley, L.

Leigh, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Long, V.

Clark of Kempston, L

Lucas, L.

Cockfield, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Colnbrook, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Colwyn, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Cox, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cranborne, V.

Margadale, L.

Crathorne, L.

Marlesford, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mersey, V.

Davidson, V.

Milverton, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Monson, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Morris, L.

Derwent, L.

Mottistone, L.

Donegall, M.

Mountevans, L.

Downshire, M.

Munster, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Nathan, L.

1402

Nelson, E.

Sherfield, L.

Norfolk, D.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Norrie, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Northbourne, L.

Skidelsky, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Onslow, E.

Strafford, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Palmer, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Park of Monmouth, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Swansea, L.

Pender, L.

Swinfen, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Swinton, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Tebbit, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Terrington, L.

Prentice, L.

Teviot, L.

Quinton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Radnor, E.

Trumpington, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Ullswater, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Rennell, L.

Renton, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Renwick, L.

Westbury, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Wilberforce, L.

St. Davids, V.

Windlesham, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Wise, L.

Savile, L.

Wynford, L.

Seccombe, B.

Young, B.

Selborne, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 not moved.]
5.8 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 19, after ("standards") insert ("and, subject to section (whole school behaviour policy) below, including standards in pupils' behaviour")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 92 and 287. At an earlier stage I was expecting also to find in this group Amendment No. 73 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. But this is group three and he felt that he was better placed elsewhere, and rather like the people subject to Group 4 at Question Time, he has made his escape.
The debates which we have had so far have been largely about the organisation, funding and responsibility for the system. It was for my noble friend Lady Young to raise the point that what this Bill is really about is what goes on in the schools. The whole of this Bill will be entirely useless and our time completely wasted if the result is not that what goes on in the schools is what we want to go on in them. We have to ask ourselves what that is.
What we want our schools to be are places where our children and grandchildren can, in security and to their profit, spend the greater part of their childhood and their youth and emerge confident, happy, honest, contributing members of society. That requires both academic rigour, which is something that has for too long been on the back burner, hence the shock when my right honourable friend started talking about standards, and something else that goes beyond it and without which much academic effort will go to waste; that is what we call discipline.
In 1988, just five years ago, when we last had a great upsurge of disorder and violence in classrooms, Kenneth Baker, then the Secretary of State for

1403
Education and Science, asked me to chair an inquiry into discipline in schools. I shall spare your Lordships most of its findings for they were numerous, but some of the things that we found were acutely relevant to what we are discussing today. To begin with, as I reminded your Lordships on Second Reading, we found without question that one can find very good, high achieving schools in depressed inner-city areas suffering every other mark of social deprivation and one can find disorderly, violent, corrupt and otherwise undesirable pupils in schools in wealthy, desirable, high value, leafy suburbs.
What made the difference was what in old-fashioned language we call discipline. But it is not discipline in the sense that we mean it in relation to the Army. It is just as effective and it produces behaviour that is just as suitable for its environment, but the environment is not a fighting regiment; it is the antechamber to adult life. It is possible to run schools in a way that brings out the best in pupils and enables them to shake out the worst from themselves and each other. It produces not only good manners—although, goodness knows, we need those—but the constructive, considerate, creative and honest conduct that a society needs of its members if it is to thrive. It produces them as a natural and habitual feature of their lives. I think that that is sufficiently important to flag it in the first clause of the Bill, which is why I have had the cheek to table the amendment where I have as a marker for the rest of the group.
Bringing order to disorderly classrooms improves academic achievement and—this is acutely important at the moment—makes teaching vastly more enjoyable. It improves job fulfilment and makes teaching a career worth following. In too many schools that is simply not happening, and this golden opportunity to make it happen must not be passed up.
The two amendments which Amendment No. 6 signals are Amendments Nos. 92 and 287. Amendment No. 92 amends Sections 20 and 22 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. If your Lordships will look at Amendment No. 92, you will see that it addresses those sections of that Act in that order, but the logic of the thing is to look at the second section first—that is, at Section 22. The effect of the amendment may be thought to be narrow but it is effective. Turning first to Section 22, the amendment makes good a gaping hole in that section which requires that,
"The articles of government for every county, voluntary … school shall provide
(a) for it to be the duty of the head teacher to determine measures … to be taken with a view to—
(i) promoting, among pupils, self-discipline and proper regard for authority".
My first substantive effect on that section is to insert the essential words "and for others" because lack of respect for others is at the bottom of a great deal of bullying and disorder.
I do not think that it is necessary to spell out in detail how this group of amendments would work, especially as the Committee is anxious to get on, save to say that, first, it ensures that the process of evolving a policy to control—I think that "control" is the right word—the behaviour of all pupils in a school involves
1404
all those in the school, including not only academic staff but non-academic staff, and certainly including the parents. What is the good of inculcating certain standards of behaviour, honesty and diligence in a child if the parents are arguing the contrary every time he goes home? What is the point of inculcating good behaviour and consideration among pupils in class if they are allowed to throw the custard at each other or to call each other filthy names in the dinner break? What is the point of trying to inculcate respect for each other in the classroom and assembly if pupils are allowed to get each other into corners and to bully others either physically or psychologically when they are not in class? All these things hang together. What is the use of instilling into children courtesy, good manners, respect and patience and then having the staff bawling their heads off at them and losing their tempers? There must be mutual respect among all people in a school.
All that sounds rather airy fairy and as if it is a marvellous idea that will not work, but I must advise the Committee that it has worked and is working. I was fortunate enough to be asked to write the foreword to a book from a schools adviser (which I did yesterday) reporting the extremely efficient way in which this approach has turned round schools in difficulty, making them a pleasure to teach in and to attend as pupils. The policy has to be generated by all the people involved. The pupils then regard it as theirs. Instead of wondering how to score a point by writing something naughty with a spray can behind the bicycle sheds, they are out to stop people messing up their beautiful school. That makes a complete difference.
The second object of this group of amendments is to ensure that this information is published along with the other information which Section 20 of the Act requires to be published for the benefit of parents when they want to know how a school is run. The provisions also require all information of that sort to be made available to people who may wish to consider putting their children down as registered pupils at that school because such information is something on which that choice should be based.
My final amendment seeks to introduce that requirement into the later 1992 Act. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Blatch who is assisting me with her notes. This will enable me to give her answer, but I cannot yet see whether it reads "Resist". I sincerely hope not. In fact, it is the 1986 Act. I am most grateful to my noble friend and hope that she will not resist my amendment. I am glad that I have not seen that word there.
I do not say that this is necessarily the right way to achieve this end. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has another way in Amendment No. 73 to which I have to refer because it is an alternative. As time is pressing I shall not go through it line by line, but the difference is that it is very specific in what it requires to be done. I believe that one must leave the detail to the people involved for two reasons. The first is that they must not think that they are operating in a straitjacket, and the other is that they must not think that they can

1405
constantly go to court with a case. I am very much against children and parents becoming involved in unnecessary litigation.
If my amendments commend themselves to the Committee, I hope that your Lordships will say so however briefly. If they commend themselves to the Minister, I shall be absolutely delighted. I shall, of course, speak again briefly, but I must say now that the little subsection which inserts the words "and for others" is directly relevant to bullying and it answers the point of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, much more neatly. Whatever the Minister's view of the rest of my amendments, those words should be inserted into the Bill. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I should like to support my noble friend's amendment and particularly the spirit of Amendment No. 6 very strongly. In the past few weeks we have all suffered from seeing the very frightening events that have involved violence among young people and children in this country. The lesson for us is that academic and practical considerations in our schools are not enough; we must address also the moral, ethical and spiritual aspects. It is right that my noble friend should aim to spell out the fact that the Secretary of State's duties should include that aspect as well as the others which are already in the Bill.
My experience of many hundreds of schools in my day as an HMI has shown me clearly that it can be done, as my noble friend said, even in the most unlikely and most depressing of circumstances. Schools manage to achieve a remarkable degree of personal dignity, commitment and caring among children. It is something which in old-fashioned days we called ethos. I believe that it is still the most important thing that a school provides.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look upon the amendment favourably. I do not recall—she will no doubt know—whether previous legislation has dealt specifically with behaviour, but whether it has or has not, it seems to be an increasingly important element in our schools and it would be helpful if the Bill could deal with it. I am thinking in particular of two aspects: rowdiness, including rowdiness which sometimes intimidates teachers. One matter on which I have a great deal of sympathy with some of the teachers' unions is the way that their members are sometimes treated in schools—the violence used against them; the other is the bullying of other pupils.
There is no doubt that there is a great deal of unpleasant bullying in our schools. Here again, although I do not suggest for a moment that the Bill would eliminate it, an indication that this House and another place were interested in that matter, and an indication to the Secretary of State that he should have in mind the problems to which this gives rise and should do what he can to help, might assist. Therefore
1406
I hope that my noble friend the Minister, who has been so helpful throughout the afternoon, will be helpful over this.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I do not regard all the suggestions contained in the report to which we have referred as airy fairy. I wish that I had been to a school where such codes of practice had been adopted. We on this side of the Committee agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the whole school policy is essential to underpin teacher/pupil relationships. We pay tribute to the noble Lord's report on discipline in schools which recognises how important such a contract is between staff and pupils. We believe that if schools have agreed well-known policies on exclusions and discipline which are applied consistently and fairly, pupils are much less likely to be excluded and the school's atmosphere is much more likely to improve.
It is especially important to have a whole school policy at a time when many feel that some children are suffering from deteriorating home circumstances. There is a benefit to the schools if their rights are properly respected. I do not wish to detain the Committee on this matter for too long as I have tabled my own amendments which will be dealt with later.
Lord Addington: If we are to start publishing information about schools, it is appropriate that we publish information about behavioural standards. As has been pointed out by everyone who has spoken in the debate, the quality of teaching in the classroom probably depends upon whether the children are listening and not throwing things at one another and at the teacher, to put it bluntly. An amendment along these lines is appropriate, and one hopes that the Government will see fit to include it so that we receive a little more information and are not buried under so many bare tables.
Baroness Blatch: This is an important point. I too echo the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that my noble friend's report does not gather dust or find itself under tables not being taken notice of.
Pupil behaviour has long been one of the key measures by which the success of a school is determined. The report of the committee of inquiry which my noble friend chaired considered the issue in depth, has given valuable advice on the subject and continues to be a central work for all concerned. My noble friend is right: where schools have adopted the recommendations contained in that report they appear to have fewer problems than schools which do not adopt those recommendations.
It is because behaviour is so closely associated with the concept of standards that I agree with many of the points that have been made. Clause 1 is meant to be a general clause. Therefore it is not appropriate to pick out one particular aspect of standards to the exclusion of all others, with the consequent implication that that aspect over all others carries more weight. Section 22 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 lays on head teachers the responsibility for maintaining high standards of discipline and behaviour in schools and for regulating the conduct of their pupils. In so doing head teachers must follow any written statement of

1407
general principles provided for them by the governing body or any guidance offered on particular matters and must be regularly inspected on, among other things, that aspect of a child's education.
Having given that responsibility to head teachers, we look to them to exercise it sensibly, taking into account the welfare of pupils, both as a community and as individuals, and the individual and particular circumstances of the school. It may however be appropriate to offer further guidance for head teachers on matters of discipline and behaviour. The need for such guidance is one of the questions raised in the discussion paper on exclusions issued by the Department for Education in November to which more than 200 positive and constructive responses have been received.
There seems to be a consensus that such guidance would be helpful. That is one of the issues that we shall be taking forward, alongside action on education otherwise, upon which we shall be tabling amendments and upon which I have no doubt we shall have a good deal more debate.
As I said, but it is worth re-emphasising, as part of its new duties the school inspectorate will be looking at the quality of the school as a community in a variety of contexts, including behaviour and discipline. An important part of that exercise will entail talking to pupils as well as staff and seeking their views on matters such as, for example, the incidence of bullying and the school's response to it.
A number of Members of the Committee have mentioned bullying, not just in the Chamber but informally before we discussed the Bill. Schools can be under no illusion as to the importance Ministers attached to that issue. Last July we issued practical guidance to all schools in the form of the "Action against Bullying" pack, developed by the Scottish Council for Research in Education. In addition, to impress upon schools the importance we attach to the eradication of bullying, my honourable friend the Under-Secretary wrote to chairmen of governors to emphasise the need for firm action.
Further guidance will be issued to schools when the Department for Education-funded research project currently under way at Sheffield university completes its work. Again, the new inspection teams appointed under the Education (Schools) Act 1992 will also be paying attention to school discipline, including measures taken to combat bullying.
As a matter of detail, Amendment No. 92 refers to Section 20 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, as my noble friend pointed out. That Act has already been repealed by the Education Reform Act, and it would not be appropriate to provide for consultations with parent governors separately from the governing body as a whole, which is, after all, a body with collective responsibility. They have no separate legal status and any such consultation could be divisive. I hope that I have conveyed to the Committee that this debate is important. We are talking about means to ends. We shall attend to all the concerns of my noble friends and of others who have spoken, but we shall do so by means of guidance.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to my noble friend for the concern that she has shown for the issues we have addressed and her recognition of our depth of feeling about what is an important matter.
I apologise to the Committee for amending a non-existent statute. That happens to us all. I suppose that it arises from the speed of legislation through this place. One cannot be watching all the time. That said, I am a little worried—I shall read what my noble friend has said with great care—because it is not clear to me from where the guidelines about which she is speaking come—perhaps she will tell me before I conclude—or what authority they will have. It would be nice to know that. Indeed, my noble friend has promised the department's response to the consultation on exclusions for which I have been asking for some time and which is relevant at this point because she says that the guidance on whole school behaviour policies will be linked to guidance on exclusions. That is of more basis to Amendment No. 73 and the amendments grouped with it.
Before I decide to take the matter away and consider it, perhaps my noble friend would help the Committee by saying what the guidelines will be, who they will be from and what authority they will have.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The guidance will be drawn up by my department but will be on the back of serious research which is now being carried out. I cannot be precise about timing. As my noble friend knows, I have informally said that the information on exclusions will be made available. As regards sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) of Section 22 of the 1986 Act and the insertion after "authority" of "and for others", the point is to have respect for others as well as authority—
Lord Elton: Will my noble friend kindly repeat the reference because I am a little slow?
Baroness Blatch: Of course. It was sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) of Section 22 of the 1986 Act after "authority" insert "and for others". The point is to have respect for others as well as authority. I have some sympathy with the point which my noble friend makes. I ask him to allow me to take the matter away for consideration.
As regards guidance and its status, I have said a number of times in this Chamber that there is a difference between guidelines and guidance. Guidance is the stronger of the two. Local authorities, or those charged with having to have regard to guidance, must also have regard to guidelines in formulating their policies.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to my noble friend. I have only one further question. Since the information about the Government's response to the consultation on exclusions will be given in good time for the discussion, and since that discussion arises at the latest in respect of Clause 73, will we be able to discuss the matter in the dinner hour?
Baroness Blatch: I will discuss anything in the dinner hour. I am not sure that I can be absolutely specific this evening but I shall be as specific as I am able in the light of the knowledge that I have.
Lord Elton: I gather that we shall not have the published response but I am grateful that my noble friend has gone as far as she has. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert:
("() He shall promote the efficiency of education of the people of England and Wales by making appropriate arrangements for the extension of the functions of the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service to cover the audit and overall management functions of all bodies responsible for such education.").
The noble Lord said: The two amendments in the group are tabled in my name. The first, Amendment No. 9, is extremely unfashionable in that it is short, it says what it means and it means what it says. The second, Amendment No. 292, is much more fashionable and therefore might commend itself to the Government. It is far more opaque and refers to at least three Acts of Parliament, which puts it well into the modern style. Whether the Government like the drafting of either amendment is unimportant. I hope, however, that they will accept the spirit of them, in which case I shall gladly withdraw both versions.
Amendment No. 9 seeks to help the Government and to encourage them along the path of self-preservation. In other words, it seeks to make use of the Audit Commission, which has had and continues to have an important and useful role in the affairs of local authorities and in the National Health Service. It is most important that there should be an independent organisation which is capable of monitoring the progress of an important new initiative. It is a controversial and imaginative initiative and one which I welcome. The Government would be extremely well advised to have available to themselves an overall view from an independent source not only of the way in which the money is spent but also of the quality of the produce which comes out at the other end.
The advantages which the Audit Commission could convey would be twofold. It would be able to look at both the cost and the quality and, most importantly, it would be able to take an overall look at the whole scene. It could sum up the experience which resulted from the introduction of grant-aided schools. It could see where performance had come up to expectations and where it had failed. It would be able to make the useful comparisons which, so far as I can see, no other body would be able to make.
I was disappointed that neither the FEFC nor the HEFC have seen fit to consult the Audit Commission, apparently preferring to let schools appoint their own local auditors. That makes me fearful that, in the event, schools could well appoint local auditors who not only would have no knowledge of what was happening elsewhere but in certain circumstances might not measure up to the required standards. We
1410
must all fear that where there is perhaps the most need for probing the inquiry will be less stringent than it should be.
We must recall that a huge sum of money is involved; I am advised that it is some £50 billion of government money. If that is so, surely it is right that there should be available the type of overall comprehensive monitoring system which the Audit Commission could provide. I should expect the Government to welcome the amendment without question. I still have hopes that they will do so. I am no great admirer of the Treasury but that is an eccentricity of my own—
Baroness Faithfull: And of others!
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am glad that my noble friend shares my view. I should have thought that the amendment would have caused the Treasury to leap for joy. I welcome the opportunity of affording it that pleasure.
I am also concerned with the most generous intentions to do well by the accounting officer. I cannot but believe that the accounting officer at the department will sleep much better at night if he were conscious of the fact that, without needing special intervention from him, there is available an overall look at the situation, which the amendments can provide.
The Government's regard for the Audit Commission has been well demonstrated. They have welcomed its intervention in the affairs of local authorities and its work in the National Health Service. In this very Bill the commission's advice as to special need schools has been taken and incorporated in the Bill. For the life of me I cannot see why in those circumstances the Government should not jump at the opportunity of having available just the type of organisation which they need to carry out an effective survey of this very important and expensive new initiative.
I hope that it will be engraved on the minds of my noble friend and her advisers that the aim of the amendment is to secure an overall view of both the spending of money and the quality of the product and to make available the sum of the experience over the country as a whole from which useful comparisons can be made.
It should not be necessary to expand on the need for the amendment. I hope that I have not done so unduly. However, in the light of common sense, I cannot begin to persuade myself that the Government will do other than accept it. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I support the amendment. It would be extremely useful to have an independent view of what is going on in what will be a quite new situation. The Audit Commission has won the respect of many people. Its reports have been extremely valuable. Of course, if there is a link between the Audit Commission, the local authorities and the National Health Service, that will be particularly valuable in relation to any special needs provision. Therefore, I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at this amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am glad that my noble friend Lord Peyton has been converted into being a Treasury enthusiast. As an old Treasury hand, I welcome his conversion, however late in the day it appears to have come.
As regards the amendment, he seems to have put forward a very important idea. Given the enormous expenditure on the education service, efficient auditing is obviously of substantial importance. The development of the grant-aided system, which I welcome, makes it increasingly important that schools' accounts should be audited not by local amateurs but by professionals of high standing.
As I understand the present position, there is no restriction on how the audit is to be carried out. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will tell the Committee either that she accepts the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Peyton or that she has good alternatives to offer.
Lord Dainton: I support the amendment. My mind goes back some 27 years to the time when I was set up—in the best sense of that term —by the CVCP to oppose the intrusion of the then Comptroller and Auditor General into the books of the universities. I did that. I did my job, as it was then; namely, to do what the committee told me to do. However, the Government decided to the contrary.
I am bound to say that my experience as a vice-chancellor reversed my original view. I found the Comptroller and Auditor General's people extremely helpful in the management of the affairs of the particular university for which I was responsible. Its expertise was invaluable to me and to the bursar of that university. I can see every advantage in the involvement of the Audit Commission. Before any report is made, it will always invite the institution to take note of what it can do for itself. I have no fear of what is involved in the amendment. I support it and I hope that it will be considered favourably. If it is thought to be too large a task, because I can see that a large number of institutions would need to be covered, perhaps an alternative but equally effective arrangement could be adopted.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I apologise to the Committee that I was not in my place when this very important amendment was moved by my noble friend. It is an important amendment. I hope that the Minister will take it on board. Apart from that, we have been discussing Clause 1(1). This amendment is in implementation of that. As it stands at present, it is skeletal. There was previous discussion as to how the general duty should be clarified. Here is an important means of clarification.
I ask the Minister to consider whether the general duty under Clause 1(1) should not be the subject matter of a new and separate clause and that Clause 1(2) and Clause 1(3) which we have discussed—that is, regulation of the provision made in schools and educational institutions—should not be the subject matter of a new Clause 2. That would avoid the dilemma of the exclusion clause which we had to
1412
consider previously. That is only an idea that I have had. Apart from that, the essence of the amendment is well founded and I hope that it commends itself to the Committee.
Baroness Brigstocke: What appeals to me is that the amendment offers an opportunity for disinterested, fair and apolitical assessment because the Audit Commission is not political and it has the experience of management which, alas, is not always available to all of our local education authorities and schools. Also, the Audit Commission has established and proven organisational ability to help those LEAs and schools which so badly need it.
Lord Peston: I support the amendment. I hope that we all agree that, in the best sense of the term, there is nothing at all party political in this matter. It is a question of good and efficient government, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, made clear.
Indeed, in many ways the puzzle is that this provision is not already contained in the Bill. What would be more usual would be for the provision to be in the Bill and questions then asked as to why it is in the Bill. I find it extremely strange that it is not in the Bill as it stands.
Perhaps I may emphasise the non-political nature of my contribution. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, I am not very keen on grant-maintained schools. I obviously want them to be a success because I want schools to be successful but it is not an initiative that I have supported or will support. However, in so far as the schools exist and that we may have more of them—and certainly in so far as taxpayers' money is involved—I want them to proceed efficiently and in particular I want them to give value for money. I believe that that is what underlies the amendment.
I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton. When the Audit Commission was founded I had grave doubts about it. Since then I have become an avid reader of its reports which, on the whole, are quite brilliant and which themselves give enormous value for money to the Government and to the institutions at which they look.
Therefore, on this amendment we are discussing the correct use of public sector money and the correct use of resources with the possibility that the outcome will be a rather improved system of education, which is what we all wish to achieve.
I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, seems to remember the initials of the various bodies rather better than I do. However, what I particularly like about the amendment is what he thought others might dislike; namely, that the amendment—and it is almost the first that I have come across today—is extremely straightforward and I can understand every word in it.
I should like to persuade the noble Baroness first to accept the amendment; and, secondly, not to say that she will go away and redraft it. I would much rather have the amendment as it is and allow the Audit Commission to do what is proposed. I conclude simply by saying that the proposal has already

1413
received support from all sides of the Committee and I hope that it is something that the noble Baroness can accept.
Lord Adrian: I am not quite certain how the amendment would be applied and, more particularly, the limits of its application. As has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, it relates to Clause 1(1) which states:
"The Secretary of State shall promote the education of the people of England and Wales".
In its final line, the amendment refers to the,
"management functions of all bodies responsible for such education".
I can perfectly well see that the Audit Commission may have a very useful and proper purpose in dealing with institutions which receive taxpayers' money, but I am not quite certain whether it could be interpreted as extending to other institutions.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: As the mover the amendment, I should point out that its purpose is to look after the innovations—the new initiatives—of grant-aided schools. It is not aimed at anyone else. If my noble friend on the Front Bench has that fear in her mind, then I would be more than happy for her to take the matter away and to put forward something else which would narrow the impact of the Audit Commission to what was intended by me when I moved the amendment.
Lord Adrian: If I may say so, that illustrates the difficulty with the wording of Clause 1(1) which we have already discussed at some length. It seems to me to cast a very wide net and the use of those phrases in the amendment seem to cast the net much wider than appears to be the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
Baroness Blatch: I have absolutely no difficulty either with the spirit of the amendment or the principles that underlie it. I share my noble friend's determination—and indeed that of other Members of the Committee—to make our education system as efficient and effective as possible. I should also like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that I, I think almost alone in local government, welcomed the Audit Commission when it was first established. I saw that it would become the friend of local government and not the enemy. For all the reasons given by the noble Lord, I must say that I too have great admiration for the Commission; and indeed, its reports have borne out the worth of its work.
As its Explanatory and Financial Memorandum points out, the Bill contains a series of measures designed to improve efficiency and effectiveness, not the least important of which are the new arrangements to tackle the difficult issue of surplus places. Our policy of delegating an increasing proportion of resources down to school level, whether under Local Management of Schools or grant-maintained status, will act as a spur to improving efficiency.
Where bodies are in receipt of Exchequer grants—that includes the funding authorities to be established under the Bill—they will be subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office and the
1414
Comptroller and Auditor General, who is of course accountable to Parliament. Grant-maintained schools are required, under the financial memoranda, to open their books to the National Audit Office for inspection or value-for-money studies, and the governing body must secure that the National Audit Office's officials are given reasonable assistance. I therefore cannot see the need to double bank.
However, the governing body can commission a value-for-money study from the Audit Commission if it so wishes, as indeed it can from other suitable professional advisers. It may be of interest to my noble friend to know that the National Audit Office in fact published on 2nd April of this year its first value-for-money report on grant-maintained schools. That is at present before the Public Accounts Committee and I cannot at this stage comment further upon it. As Members of the Committee will know, the procedure is that it has to complete its passage through the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee and all evidence has to be taken before I can say any more. The very point that my noble friend is making is being carried out, but by a different body.
In addition to that, under the terms of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, the Audit Commission is empowered to undertake scrutinies for the Further Education Funding Council. Under the terms of Clause 8 of the Bill, it will be able to undertake studies for the funding authorities. Accountability for economy, efficiency and effectiveness are very important and we are confident that the National Audit Office will fulfil that role.
I should perhaps also make clear one other point regarding the incorporation, under Clause 225 of the Bill, of local authority maintained school governing bodies, which is referred to in my noble friend's new clause. Incorporation of governing bodies of local authority maintained schools does not alter the relationship between the local education authority and the school. In particular, expenditure under the local management schemes will continue to be expenditure of the authority and so fall within the ambit of the Audit Commission.
As regards the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, I believe that he has a point. If any of the proposed amendments were in fact to bite on Clause 1(1), which as we now know is under discussion—but Members of the Committee will know that I am trying to hang on to Clause 1(1) in the Bill—I must point out that Clause 1(1) does in fact subsume higher education and therefore it must be properly clarified. However, I think that I have said enough to all Members of the Committee to assure them that the particular worry that they have is fully covered by the system as it operates at present.
Earl Russell: I am not certain that the noble Baroness has entirely answered the force of the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. He argued that the Audit Commission is capable of judging both the cost and, as he put it, the quality of what comes out the other end. We need opinions on both those issues. The noble Baroness said that it was the purpose of the Bill to increase "efficiency and effectiveness". It is of course possible that some of us

1415
may think that those ambitions might on occasion be in conflict. It is also possible that we may be wrong in saying so, in which case I think that the Audit Commission is the only body which could authoritatively tell us so. That could be useful to the Government.
Baroness Blatch: I do not think that I entirely missed my noble friend's point. Two issues arise out of the noble Earl's intervention. First, the books of every grant-maintained school are audited by a properly approved auditor every year. That is a requirement under the law. Secondly, I said that value-for-money studies—that is, comparing how grant-maintained schools operate, how they fund their provision and indeed whether that is producing value for money and comparability across the grant-maintained sector —is carried out by the National Audit Office. It seems to me that the debate is whether the Committee believes that the National Audit Office or the Audit Commission is the right body and not whether the concerns expressed by noble Lords are covered in principle.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should like very much to thank my noble friend for her response but I do not think that I can do so wholeheartedly; indeed, it would be a very lame form of thanks that came out if one did so at all. I must dispose of the question of drafting. The noble Lord, Lord Adrian, quite fairly raised the point that, because of the drafting of the rest of Clause 1, this particular amendment—or the amendment and the proposed new clause—might have an impact which I did not intend. In that case there would surely be no difficulty because I would be very happy to withdraw the amendment and either produce another one at a later stage or allow the Government to do so. I am sure that they could. It would probably be longer than any of mine and much more difficult to understand, but that would be quite acceptable so long as it achieved the desired end. I hope that that explanation satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Adrian. I am certainly not sticking to that point.
I turn now to my noble friend. She appeared to welcome what she called "the spirit of the amendment". I do not know whether amendments ordinarily have spirits, but nevertheless she welcomed its spirit. She also detected some underlying thought, which was extremely gratifying to me, and that too she found acceptable. After having heard that the spirit of the amendment and the underlying thought were welcomed, agreed to and accepted, had I been at all new to politics, I should have thought that the door was open. However, I waited, as one always has to, for the word "but" to be spoken, and of course it was.
I welcome my noble friend's agreement that the Audit Commission has performed extremely well and that it has been a friend and not an enemy of local government. I welcome her agreement that the Audit Commission has performed well with regard to the health service. However, she then dragged in by the heels the body called the National Audit Office. I am sure that that body is full of worthy people, but is my noble friend absolutely satisfied that it could perform every bit as well as the Audit Commission in surveying
1416
the performance and the expenditure of this new initiative of grant-aided schools? My noble friend must first satisfy herself and then the Committee on that point. I very much doubt whether she can do so.
Is the National Audit Office able to appoint, brief and instruct local auditors? I rather wonder whether it could. As I understand it, the Audit Commission can do so and does do so. I have a little question I wish to ask my noble friend. As she is confident about the performance of the National Audit Office—I am sure she favours competition, as I do—why can the National Audit Office not examine part of the health service, for example, to see whether it performs as well as the Audit Commission? I may be quite wrong and I am accustomed to being wrong from time to time, but I believe that if the idea of placing the responsibility for examining all or any part of the National Health Service on the National Audit Office was once adumbrated, the personnel of the National Audit Office would, if they were well advised, take to their heels and run. They would not wish to compete in any way with the Audit Commission.
I feel very unhappy about what my noble friend has said. She has said that the matters I think should be dealt with by the Audit Commission could be carried out equally well by a different body. That is what I very much doubt. I am not prepared simply to withdraw the amendment until she has satisfied me that she has already considered this matter and has satisfied herself that the National Audit Office could in every respect perform as well and as thoroughly as the Audit Commission. If she has not already been able to satisfy herself beyond doubt on that matter—I mean that —I hope she will undertake to return at a later stage of the Bill and either introduce another amendment of her own or allow me to do the same. If she will not undertake to do that at this stage, I am afraid I shall have no alternative but to take the opinion of the Committee.
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am not sure that I can give all the assurances that my noble friend asked for. We must deal with what is before us today; that is the matter of superimposing something on a system that is already in place. The National Audit Office already covers the areas of concern that my noble friend has; that is, probity and the value for money delivery of services. There are Members of the Committee who know a great deal more about this matter than I do. However, I believe there are departments in Whitehall and other bodies that experience some fear at the thought of being visited by the National Audit Office. That office can invite itself into a department. The value-for-money audit on the grant-maintained sector was not invited by that sector. The National Audit Office decided to examine that sector to establish whether it was producing an efficient and effective service. That report is subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. What we have to decide here is whether those arrangements are adequate or whether the Committee takes the view that they should be replaced by the provisions in the

1417
proposed amendments. I believe that that would constitute double banking which would produce extremely bad value for money.
Lord Peston: I do not wish to prolong this debate. However, if the Minister takes this matter away and seeks advice on it, I believe she will probably convince herself that this is not work for the National Audit Office. We are discussing the auditing of individual schools. Unless I misunderstand what the National Audit Office does, I do not think this is appropriate work for it. We do not need to discuss this matter across the Dispatch Box at this moment, but I believe the Minister should obtain further advice on this matter before rejecting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I do not wish to prolong this discussion. My noble friend is in grave danger of addressing the Committee rather as if we were at school. It is as if she was saying, "You have no alternative but to eat the dinner that is in front of you. You cannot have another one". I am saying that this particular meal is not appropriate.
I do not believe that my noble friend answered my question. I am asking her to say that she will take this matter away and satisfy herself that the National Audit Office is really able to carry out this work as well as or better than the Audit Commission. If she can satisfy herself on that point and then satisfy this Chamber, that is my last word on the matter. However, I do not believe that she will do that. I am strengthened in that view by what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has just said. I hope my noble friend will answer precisely the question that I asked her. Will she please take this matter away and have another look at it? She will not do herself or the Government any harm by doing so. Will she take another look at the matter in case we are right and the Audit Commission is the right body to carry out this work?
Baroness Blatch: I cannot give my noble friend that assurance. The National Audit Office has produced its very first report on value for money in grant-maintained schools. That report is presently before the Public Accounts Committee and is subject to the full scrutiny of Parliament. Until that exercise is fully completed I am not in a position to make any judgment about the effectiveness of that system. Therefore it is not for me at this moment to make a judgment about the effectiveness of the National Audit Office which is a reputable body and to my knowledge works well across Whitehall. It is not for me to compare bodies and make a judgment. I must ask the Committee to remember that if these amendments are accepted, they will constitute a double banking system on the grant-maintained sector. I believe that that would not be the most efficient use of resources.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I have heard what my noble friend said. I do not wish to prolong the proceedings. After a great many years in politics the thing that annoys me the most is the refusal of any government to entertain the possibility that someone else knows
1418
better than they do. On that basis and for that reason among others I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
6.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 107; Not-Contents, 136.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Lawrence, L.

Addington, L.

Listowel, E.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Aylestone, L.

Lockwood, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Longford, E.

Blackstone, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brigstocke, B.

McNair, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Brookes, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mayhew, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Meston, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Mishcon, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Molloy, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Monkswell, L.

David, B.

Mulley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Northbourne, L.

Eatwell, L.

Northfield, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Ennals, L.

Palmer, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Faithfull, B.

Parry, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Peston, L.

Galpern, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L. [Teller.]

Geraint, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Glenamara, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gregson, L.

Redesdale, L.

Grey, E.

Richard, L.

Hampton, L.

Rochester, L.

Hamwee, B.

Russell, E.

Hanworth, V.

Seear, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Healey, L.

Serota, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hertford, M.

Shannon, E.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stedman, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hughes, L.

Strafford, E.

Huntly, M.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Judd, L.

Warnock, B.

Kennet, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Kilbracken, L.

White, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kirkwood, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Belstead, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bessborough, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Blatch, B.

Blyth, L.

Arran, E.

Boardman, L.

Astor, V.

Bolton, L.

Auckland, L.

Borthwick, L.

Barber, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Beloff, L.

Bridgeman, V.

1419

Butterfield, L.

Margadale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cadman, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Morris, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Munster, E.

Clark of Kempston, L

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Nelson, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cox, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Craigavon, V.

Orkney, E.

Cranborne, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Crathorne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

De L'Isle, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Prentice, L.

Derwent, L.

Quinton, L.

Donegall, M.

Radnor, E.

Downshire, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Elles, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Reay, L.

Elton, L.

Rees, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Flather, B.

Rennell, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Renton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renwick, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Goschen, V.

St. Davids, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hardwicke, E.

Savile, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Seccombe, B.

Harrowby, E.

Selborne, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hives, L.

Stewartby, L.

Holderness, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hooper, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hothfield, L.

Howe, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Jeffreys, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swansea, L.

Leigh, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lindsay, E.

Swinton, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Teviot, L.

Liverpool, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Long, V.

Trumpington, B.

Lucas, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Windlesham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Wynford, L.

Young, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Butterfield Lord Butterfield moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert:
("() In fulfilling his duty under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State may by order establish a General Teaching Council for the registration and regulation of the teaching profession.").
The noble Lord said: I am about to ask the Committee to launch itself in a different direction from those we have pursued so far this afternoon. I am aware that it is not the done thing to put down an amendment if one has not attended the Second Reading. I was not present at the Second Reading of
1420
the Bill because I was abroad helping to select young people to come to work in our universities. However, I have read the Second Reading proceedings with great care, and I note that the purpose of the Bill is to build on the Education Act 1944 and that it aims to achieve a broader vision and a better future.
My starting point is that the Bill does not make any reference to the troops. This afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Elton, made a point about behaviour and we heard about people throwing things at each other in the classroom. It is important to me that the teachers recognise that we acknowledge that we place an immense burden on them to make our Education Acts work.
I considered the speeches made at Second Reading. I found that a clutch of speakers from various parts of the Chamber had referred to the lack of reference in the Bill to the establishment of a general teaching council. The noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Ritchie, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford and the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, all made passing reference to that point. I move the amendment in the hope that it will strengthen the Bill and widen its vision and its ability to encourage the teachers in our schools.
One might ask why we do not already have a council for teachers. Doctors, dentists and various other professions have such councils. I have looked briefly into the matter. I shall not produce a learned history, but it seems that teachers were registered from 1899 and that in 1912 there was a Teachers' Registration Council which in 1929 became the Royal Society of Teachers. For reasons which I have not been able to discover but which are no doubt perfectly valid, that voluntary society was not included in the Education Act 1944. It seems that the idea of a council covering the profession of teaching through which teachers could govern themselves lay fallow until 1968 when the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara—whom I am pleased to see in his place—did his best to relaunch the idea. Sir Toby Weaver presently came up with the idea of two councils. But I am not enough of a social or educational historian to know why those councils faltered, but they did.
I understand that about 10 years ago in 1983 the larger teaching associations approached the University Council for the Education of Teachers. They were anxious that the teaching profession was not in a position to control itself as a profession should. By 1988 no less than 17 associations concerned with teaching had subscribed to the idea of the establishment of a general teaching council. By 1991 the number had risen to 30; it is now 35. I shall not weary the Committee by reading out the list of associations and bodies that have joined the membership of what is a limited company, the General Teaching Council. However, I shall place a copy of the list in the Library for anyone who may wish to read it.
I pay an important tribute to Professor Alec Ross of the University of Lancashire. He was much concerned with the University Council for the Education of Teachers. He played an important role in bringing the whole idea together. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is not in his place because I

1421
wished to say to him how much I appreciated his introducing a debate on education on 1st May 1991. In that debate I stated that I believed that most noble Lords would feel that they owed something to their teachers in schools and/or universities, but that surely the time must be approaching when teaching deserves the status of a profession. As a result of my remarks, Professor Tomlinson of the University of Warwick Institute of Education, who is the chairman of the General Teaching Council Limited, and John Sayer, the secretary, contacted me. They have been in touch with me since 1991.
I have made the point—I hope that it will not fall on deaf ears—that I shall be surprised if many noble Lords in this Chamber are not immensely grateful to the people who taught them. I reiterate what I said in 1991: that the least that we can do for those people is to show our appreciation by putting them on a par with the fast growing numbers of professionals in our society.
I made an investigation by telephone last Friday. I hope that the result will please noble Lords. My secretary said, "You will be lucky to find anyone in an office in London on Friday"; but, on the contrary, the councils seemed to be manning their telephones and offices despite the rail strike. I cite the figures. Over 1 million people consider themselves as professionals. That figure represents about 2 per cent. of the professions that I shall name. I was astonished by the number with regard to the General Medical Council. It has over 189,000 members. The General Dental Council has just over 27,000 members. The Law Society has 60,000 members. In addition there are 7,000 barristers. The accountants have no less than 90,000 members associated with their institution. If one totals those figures, the number is 450,000. In addition, the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visitors has 640,000 paid up members, if I may so call those important people. If one adds that number to the 450,000 the Committee will understand how I reach the figure of over 1 million.
I have been in close association with the nursing profession during my medical professional life. Perhaps I may follow through the way in which the nurses developed the United Kingdom central council. An Act legitimised the concept in 1979. The council was established and began work in 1982. It was reviewed by new legislation in 1992. There are certain points to be made here. First, it set standards for the training of doctors. It established ethical standards. I was reassured by the registrar over the telephone on Friday that if nurses are struck off the list, in the same way that doctors may be struck off their list, they cannot work inside the framework of the health service or for the private health service. By 1992 the United Kingdom central council was financially self-sufficient. The subscriptions from the members more than met the cost of running the council. Mr. Warwick, the administrator of the United Kingdom central council, emphasised that it was important to make one point clear to the Committee. There was anxiety about what would happen when the 60 people
1422
on the main council were brought together in 1982. Forty members are now elected from the nursing profession and 20 are appointed through the Privy Council but when those members have the full responsibility of sitting on the council they put the public interest ahead of petty, personal or political interests. That is an important point.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, has been leading his inquiry about medical ethics. He cannot be with us at present. However, he has empowered me to say that that is the position with regard to the General Medical Council. People may be extraordinarily rabid radicals of all kinds and shades but when considering the agenda for the General Medical Council they put the public interest above their personal interest. I shall return to that issue in a moment; it is important. The General Teaching Council has set out its objectives in a document which it published some years ago. I have considered it as, I am sure, have other noble Lords. I am happy to subscribe to those objectives.
Members of the Committee will note that the amendment in my name states:
"In fulfilling his duty under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State may by order establish a General Teaching Council".
When I returned from my overseas duties in selecting the people to come to our universities, I discovered that there had been a move towards the provision that the Secretary of State "will" establish. I wish to explain why I propose that the Secretary of State "may" establish. The word "may" implies that there will be an interregnum. During that interregnum much good may be achieved in establishing the reputation of teachers as a learned profession.
On 1st May 1991 I stated that my sister-in-law—she is the prime teacher in my family unit—subscribed to the idea of the GTC. I proudly sent her a copy of Hansard. She telephoned and invited me to lunch. She said, "Yes, I support the GTC idea generally but not as strongly as might be concluded from your words". My sister-in-law expressed the general anxiety that the teaching unions and the more revolutionary, rabid, radical members of the profession may get onto the General Teaching Council and make it a difficult body to deal with.
I went to see the Secretary of State for Education, John Patten, to take up the matter with him. He said, "I think you should know that my officials and I were a little worried. We see many new organisations coming forward in teaching and it may be more difficult for me to deal with a general teaching council than with more academic bodies". I can see that, and that the Secretary of State for Health would probably find it fairly easy to deal with the Royal College of Physicians and all the other bodies rather than perhaps a belligerent General Medical Council.
It has been my experience with belligerent students at the University of Nottingham—and the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, is here and I hope he will agree—that when students went on to the senate, which was about 100 strong at the University of Nottingham, they quickly dropped their radical approaches. At first they suggested, "the University must pay our rents", and this, that and the other. They used to come to my

1423
office to see me and say, "We can't find where the power lies in this university". I used to say, "It lies everywhere. You have to convey your ideas and win your points in the senate by the power of your arguments". I told my sister-in-law that I believed that if there were worries about the National Union of Teachers or other bodies taking control, the same thing would happen because they will face a council of 70 people.
To wind up, I personally believe and hope to woo the Committee over to the idea that our teachers deserve early professional status. The absence of that from the Bill is a deficiency. I moved the idea that the Secretary of State "may" propose one so that it is not born of confrontation. It seems to me that I should do so in deference to people like Tomlinson and Sayer who have spent so much time on the council, nurturing it over the years and to the approximately 30 organisations which have subscribed to supporting it and to the teachers in the 23,000 schools. I understand that there are about 360,000 teachers. Bearing in mind the success of the developments with the nursing profession, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will feel that she can agree to take the amendment away and think about it.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not know the extent to which the changing situation in schools in England and Wales will affect the issue. I am not close enough to it to be able to picture whether the desirability of a general teaching council is growing. I suspect it may because of the changing situation. I do not know what the attitude is to it of my noble friend on the Front Benches.
As the Committee may know, there has been a General Teaching Council for Scotland since 1965. All school teachers have to belong by definition, they have to be members of the council. Further education teachers in Scotland may belong, but do not have to, it is optional. The General Teaching Council for Scotland approves the teaching qualifications of school teachers. It can withdraw the teaching certificate of teachers in Scotland. I understand that it also approves any of the top-up requirements that there now have to be when teachers from other parts of the European Community move to Scotland to teach. I am not sure whether that also applies to teachers from England. I know that the Scottish attitude to English teachers has had to change because of the European Community. That is one of the useful things that have happened as a result of the Community.
In Scotland, the General Teaching Council means that teachers have a sense of controlling their own profession. To control one's profession is a definition of the profession. It is the sense of control that, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, said, makes doctors, accountants, and lawyers have a strong sense of belonging to a profession. The council does that.
I do not know the extent to which teachers in Scotland feel more professional than those in England. I am not in a position to make that comparison. But it is an idea which is worthy of
1424
consideration, particularly because of the changing situation in schools with which the whole Bill is concerned. I hope that the Committee and the Minister will not totally disregard the idea.
Lord Dainton: In her summing up of the Second Reading debate the Minister said that we must return to the subject of a general teaching council. Amendment No. 10, to which the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, has just spoken, does just that. The purpose of the amendment standing in his name, mine and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, takes the form of an additional sentence at the end of Clause 1(3). It is to enable, not to instruct, the Secretary of State for Education to establish, at his discretion and when he sees fit,
"a General Teaching Council for the registration and regulation of the teaching profession".
The case for a general teaching council has already been made eloquently by my noble friend Lord Butterfield but I wish to go back to two simple truths. First, it is clearly the duty of the Secretary of State for Education of the elected Government to,
"promote the education of the people".
As we have heard many times today, those are the very words in the opening sentence of the Bill. The Government can do much towards setting the scene for a good school education; as for example, in laying down the elements of a national curriculum in schools, in monitoring the way in which that curriculum is delivered and is matched to the needs of individual pupils, and also, of course, in monitoring the outcome through pupil assessment. There are many other kindred matters.
However—and this is important—governments and Secretaries of State do not teach and never will. They are not in the classroom, the playing field, the dramatic society or whatever. Teaching can only be done by teachers. Collectively, they are the only instrument for the implementation of policy. Therefore, their full and enthusiastic commitment to this highly professional task is absolutely necessary if the highest possible quality of school education is to be achieved. Whatever the government of the day, their policies can be implemented.
In the Second Reading debate I was much heartened by the endorsement given by many Peers —from all parties and none —of the views I expressed about the vocational nature of teaching and the enormous influence for good which well trained teachers of high morale can have if they are allowed some measure of autonomy and discretion in their teaching and are encouraged to act as active rather than passive partners with the Government in this singularly important task of achieving and maintaining high quality education for the children of the country. As many Members of the Committee will remember, it is a partnership of which the Prime Minister has spoken and which he stressed with approval.
I firmly believe that the best way to provide high professional standards and thereby achieve a high quality of school education is to establish a body which will guard jealously the standards of entry to the profession, and to register—as we have heard

1425
many other professional bodies do—those judged fit to teach; to refuse to accept unsuitable applicants and if necessary de-register those considered unfit; and advise government and employers about professional developments, retraining, supply of teachers, and so on. Membership of such a teaching council would comprise all those with legitimate interests in education in schools who had contributions to make and who would further the objectives for which the council was set up—by which I do not mean exclusively teachers but those drawn from government, school governors, parents, employers and so on, so that it would be a broad-based body. It would be absolutely essential—I cannot stress this point too much —that the council should be prohibited from any involvement in matters such as pay and conditions of service, curriculum content (except in an oblique way), assessment or funding of institutions, which are properly the province of other bodies set up for the purpose and with which we are all familiar. The concept of a general teaching council which I have outlined has been given flesh in the 44-page report to which the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, referred. The noble Lord said that it is not a new notion; indeed, he pointed out that it goes back to the 19th century. Nor is it an untried idea. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, told us that it works well in Scotland and has done so for a quarter of a century. Only a fortnight ago I happened to be in Hong Kong and discovered that it was two years ago that that country established such a council. I did not raise the subject; it was drawn to my attention how well the council was working.
There are many, including teachers, who are concerned with the state of schools in England and Wales and who are firmly convinced of the value of such a general teaching council for England and the principality and of the possibility that such a council would offer to build a new partnership between government and those who teach. Therefore, although it would seem that in the mind of the Government the idea has not yet arrived in its timeliness, I feel confident that the value of such a council and its manifold benefits are such that the date of its coming into being cannot be long delayed. I believe therefore that it would be prudent to provide for that possibility in this wide-ranging and important Bill, which we are told is a landmark Bill for the schools. I am also certain that to do so would send a clear and very encouraging signal to the profession. It would have a revivifying effect on the morale of teachers, would enhance their commitment to their professional duties, so elevating their performance in their daily task, and would contribute to healing the relationship between the teaching profession and government, without which I believe further progress will be difficult.
In recent years the Government have been active in the updating and creation of other professional bodies, as we have heard. Reference has been made to the central council on nursing. No precedent will be created by doing the same for teaching in England and Wales. Indeed, I cannot think of any single decision
1426
which would cost so little and achieve so much in this area of school teaching. I commend this enabling amendment—it is nothing more than that—to the Committee without reservation. I hope especially that those sitting on the Government Benches will treat the matter with the great seriousness which I believe it deserves and give it some consideration. I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has made a powerful case—
Noble Lords: The Bishop!
6.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My name is attached to the amendment, and in speaking to it I should like briefly to endorse what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Butterfield and Lord Dainton. I approach it from a slightly different angle. I sense that many parents, and the public generally, long for some breakthrough which will bring together the teaching profession and those responsible for the management and administration of the education system.
From time to time there has been posturing, politicising, suspicion and antagonism. To build a reliable education system, we need a teaching profession of self-respect and goodwill. As the new pattern of education gives more autonomy to schools —and rightly so—so, I suggest, it should give more autonomy to teachers. Many people ask for a new spirit of working together for the common good of our young people. A general teaching council could be just the start that we need. It could be the new forum for self-respect, responsibility and co-operation.
The education of our young people needs the goodwill, professionalism and dedication of teachers. They are crucial to the realisation of our hopes for the future. As the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, said, we all remember our teachers, either because they were imaginative, or because they were inspirational; but more often because they were eccentric. Usually we remember them because we detected their sense of dedication or vocation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, so properly referred. Teachers remain in our adult mind long after we have forgotten what they taught us. If we are to secure the goodwill of teachers we have to give them the opportunity for a degree of self-governance and self-responsibility. I believe that setting up a general teaching council could transform the present atmosphere.
For some time I was hesitant about a general teaching council. I thought there was a risk that it would be too political or that it might be simply a trade union in capital letters. But the proposals from the "shadow" general teaching council now in front of us are carefully honed and have consensus behind them. I even suggest that what has been put before us by that group of people is a modest olive branch, a carefully pruned olive branch rather than one plucked at random from a wild trade union tree. It has to be said that a general teaching council will not of itself solve all the problems that relate to the teaching profession. We must not have unrealistic expectations

1427
as to what it can achieve. Nonetheless, I am bound to say that I think it could be the basis for a breakthrough. I believe that all we need now is the goodwill of the Government. I hope very much that the amendment will be accepted.
Lord Glenamara: I warmly support this idea, not only on my own behalf but, I believe, on behalf of a great many of my colleagues. It has long been a goal of the teaching profession that it should have a fair amount of autonomy in professional matters; for example, on ingress to the profession and egress from it. When I was Secretary of State 25 years ago, I found myself taking decisions as to whether or not teachers who had misbehaved should be turned out of the profession. I always felt very much that that should have been a matter for the teachers themselves, not for the Secretary of State. It is a very old idea. The College of Preceptors started it at the beginning of the last century and, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, said, between the wars there was a body called the Royal Society of Teachers that was entirely voluntary. When the Second World War came, that body ceased recruiting. It had a fair amount of funds, and when I was at the DES I tried hard to track down those funds. I never succeeded; they are there somewhere, washing about Whitehall. So if the Treasury objects to this proposal, as it most certainly will, the noble Baroness could do a bit of detective work, find the funds of the old Royal Society of Teachers and use them for a pump-priming process.
Twenty-five years ago I set up a committee to plan the General Teaching Council—the Weaver Committee. All the teachers' bodies were represented and it produced a report. It was not a good report because it met considerable opposition from DES officials and they saw to it that it would not be an effective body. When the teachers' representatives reported back to their unions, one of the major unions rejected it. So that was the end of that.
My Scottish colleague, Willie Ross, Lord Ross as he became, was much wiser than I. He simply obtained the permission of the Cabinet to establish a General Teaching Council for Scotland. He went ahead and did it and it has operated satisfactorily ever since. Since then there has been a tremendous coming together of teachers' organisations and they have produced a plan for a General Teaching Council which I believe I am right in saying is now embodied in a non-profit-making company. That plan is therefore ready-made.
The proposal would give an enormous boost to a profession whose morale is at an all-time low—I doubt that anybody can deny that. The mass of legislation over the past few years has taken away from our teachers an enormous degree of professional freedom. They cannot decide what to teach; they can hardly decide how to teach. They are constantly being told how to teach. The Government's reforms have imposed that situation upon them and made their work extremely difficult. Can we not now be generous and restore something of their pride in their profession by giving them a fair amount of autonomy in
1428
professional matters? I implore the Minister to look seriously at the proposal to see whether she can accept it.
Lord Renton: The right reverend Prelate and all the Members of the Committee who have spoken have made out a strong case in favour of doing something along the lines of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, following my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, was right to remind us that there has been a General Teaching Council for Scotland for over 45 years. I see no reason why there should not be one for England. I find it rather paradoxical that the teaching profession is the only learned profession in England and Wales which does not have to be registered and regulated.
As has been pointed out by no less a personage than the Regius Professor of Medicine, we have the General Medical Council in England and it works extremely efficiently. It is not a trade union. We have the British Medical Association, which is quite a different matter. If we had something along the lines of the General Medical Council for teachers in England and Wales, I am sure that it would not become a trade union. After all, teachers have the National Union of Teachers and various other bodies to act as pressure groups. Therefore my noble friend Lady Blatch need not fear that.
One could say a good deal more in support of what has already been said, but I wish to he brief. Although I agree with the purpose of the amendment, I cannot agree with the method proposed. First, it is a purely technical point. I do not believe that it is right to make this important separate matter a mere subsection of Clause 1. That is something which can easily he attended to. But we need to consider more than that. Parliament needs to lay down the qualifications that should be required for registration. For example, I should have thought that there should be required a university degree or whatever qualification is produced from the teacher training courses. There may be one or two other achievements which could be considered as qualifications. That should be mentioned in the Bill.
Another point arises. If we are to have regulation, which implies the body becoming a disciplinary body like the General Medical Council, Parliament should lay down the sanctions required for making it so. Merely to give the Secretary of State power to do that by making an order for registration and regulation of the teaching profession is not enough. I agree that it should be an enabling power. But it would need a lot of thought and a lot of working out. As for it becoming a Clause in the Bill, we need more than the amendment contains.
Having said that, I hope that my noble friend will not simply turn down the concept. I expect her to say that the amendment cannot be accepted for the reasons I have given. But I hope that she will keep an open mind as to the merits of its purpose.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: If my noble friend the Minister finds the amendment acceptable, I ask—taking on board, curiously enough, the point to which my noble friend Lord Renton referred—that

1429
consideration be given to its incorporation in a new Clause 1, to include only Clause 1(1) as it stands, the marginal note for reference being,
"The general duty of the Secretary of State to promote education".
That and any other duties could be included in the new Clause 1. The new Clause 2 should merely include Clause 1(2) and (3) as amended under the marginal note,
"Regulation of schools and institutions of further education".
The separation of the two concepts appears to be growing more and more apparent as we debate certain aspects of the Bill.
Baroness Young: I was interested to hear what the noble Lords, Lord Butterfield and Lord Dainton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford had to say. When I was Minister for Education I was interested in the whole question of a general teaching council. Most people who have taken an interest in educational matters have taken that view. I can therefore understand why they have decided to table the amendment. However, I should have thought that, generally speaking, it was outside the actual purposes of the Bill which are somewhat narrower.
I recognise all the other points raised by my noble friend Lord Renton. However, we must live in the real world and I detect a somewhat over-optimistic feeling that somehow all the difficulties could be resolved if we had one general teaching council in which all the matters currently affecting the teaching profession could be thrashed out. I should like to believe that. But I believe that the great issues of testing, which are fundamental to the Government's reforms and which I believe above all must be made to work, are hardly likely to be advanced in the present climate.
I accept entirely what was said by the right reverend Prelate regarding teachers, how much they influence people and their dedicated lives. One matter we need to address is the question of accountability. That is something that has been missing from the argument all the way through. I am not absolutely clear how that would work out in a general teaching council.
As for determining the standards and qualifications of teachers, one of the great worries—I regret that it is a worry—is the qualifications for teaching. I do not know whether it was the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, but certainly my husband, when he taught, found that quite a number of his pupils who read chemistry refused to take up teaching because they would be obliged to do a PGCE course which they regarded as a complete waste of a year. One can laugh but it is not very funny. It is very serious. I suspect that that still goes on.
There are a lot of serious issues to be addressed. I would not feel able to support this general amendment today as it stands, although, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, generally speaking I have some sympathy with it. It would need a great deal more explanation and detail given to it if it was to be acceptable to the Committee. I do not know what my
1430
noble friend will say in reply but I believe that it is an enormously large subject in itself and is not suitable to be put in the Bill as it stands.
7 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: I strongly support the amendment. It is an enabling amendment. It may well be thought that it is an unfortunate time to bring it forward when there is a fundamental conflict between the teachers and the Government which I certainly do not want to suggest is a minor matter than can be overcome easily. I can see that the present situation may be such that the Government are particularly unwilling to take on trust the professionalism, the good will and the knowledge of the teachers.
When I delivered the Dimbleby Lecture in 1985 I linked the idea of the introduction of a general teaching council to the idea of a great deal more in-school teacher training. That is something to which the Government are committed at the moment, and in my view absolutely rightly. The two concepts hang together. If teachers become more responsible for training the new members of the profession it seems only right that they should also have responsibility for the ethical standards and the commitment of members of the profession. If in the future the new system of training teachers is thoroughly accepted and is shown, as I am sure it will be, to have very important effects, that may well be the time when the Government may think it right to consider again the introduction of a general teaching council. Although the thought of a council may be somewhat peripheral to the Bill, nevertheless it is a chance to put in this enabling amendment so that in the future things may develop from there.
We should not think of the general teaching council as an expression of gratitude, forgiveness or anything else. We should regard it as the way to make teachers take responsibility and be accountable in the way that doctors take responsibility and are accountable because they have within their profession the standards that society expects. I believe that that is the way that we should go forward with the teachers, although I think that it would be very unlikely in the present circumstances for it to happen tomorrow.
Lord Elton: I do not apologise for detaining the Committee a moment longer because this is the principal point at which it is possible in the Committee stage to talk about teachers. It befits us to remember that we are legislating about the people who do the work. We are concerned about our children but we entrust them to the teachers. They are responsible for the future well-being of the entire nation and merely to brush them aside with a quick reference to the possibility of a general teaching council is perhaps discourteous.
I recall that when I told my father that I was going to start teaching he said that he could tell me just two things; the first was that it is the most exhausting profession in the world and the second was that you cannot teach people you do not like. It was a great spiritual exercise to try to increase the number of people I could teach. It is perfectly true that you can

1431
instruct people you do not like; you can drill people you do not like; you can inform people you do not like; but you can only teach people you like. We are talking about a profession which has to care in the real sense of the word. It is a demanding, whole time, exacting, draining job.
As to how its status should be enhanced, that is a difficult and important question. The profession has gone through a very difficult time in the past dozen or so years. At one stage it began to behave less like a profession and more like a trade. I am not apportioning blame in that because it was a complicated issue. The fact is that that experience tarnished the reputation of teachers, particularly with the parents of children who suffered the reduction of their life chances as a result. That ground has to be recovered.
People entrusted by Parliament with such a vital function deserve to be treated like a profession and must be encouraged to behave like one, which is why the idea of a General Teaching Council is an attractive one. I am not at all sure that this is the way to set about it. I agree with my noble friend Lady Young that we are here approaching a very large, sensitive and intricate subject. It is important that we should get it right. It should be approached on its own rather than be embedded in the Bill, attractive though the proposal of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is. That would give it distinction but it might not give it the correct form.
I should like to put it on record from someone who was in the ranks of teaching for just 10 years and then left, admiring those I left behind, that they are doing a heroic job. There is a lot that has gone wrong. There is a great deal that will be put right by the legislation now going through the House. But the fact is that we owe them a great debt and they deserve the courtesy of careful consideration of the proposal, although, as I say, I think it should be approached in a different way.
Lord Howie of Troon: I wish to mention one brief point. We are talking here about the proposed organisation of what ought to be a profession. The point I want to take up is the one which I think was made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He suggested that the registration, qualifications and so on of the teaching profession should be governed by statute. As it happens, I have some sympathy with that view but it is not a necessary condition for the organisation of a profession. The noble Lord must know, as we all know, that the great majority of professions are not regulated by statute. Some are, but most are not.
I recall that in 1980 the committee of inquiry of Sir Monty Finniston into engineering suggested that the engineering profession should be governed by statute. The government were adamant that it should not and that the profession should be self-regulating. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, will agree, it is only a week or two ago that the Government announced that they intended to abandon the statutory registration of architects. Whether or not statutory registration is desirable—I happen to lean
1432
towards that view—it is not a necessary condition. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, should think again—if I have understood properly what he said.
Earl Russell: We on these Benches wholeheartedly support the amendment.
Baroness Cox: I have listened to the very persuasive arguments. I agree that there are many good, dedicated teachers but I also recognise that we live in the real world and not in an ideal world. I have two concerns about the amendment. First, the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, drew a parallel with the UKCC for nursing, midwifery and health visiting. I am of that profession. I am proud to be of a profession which puts patients and clients first. The largest professional body, the Royal College of Nursing, adopted a no-strike policy because it would never undertake any political action which would hurt those whom it was professionally destined to serve. Very sadly, over recent years the teaching profession has not adopted that approach. I suffered with my children and friends with children suffered when teachers went on strike over two years. We are dealing in a slightly different politicised context.
In the terms of concept of accountability, my noble friend Lady Young made reference to the fact that at present teachers are in the process of adopting policies of boycotting tests which may severely damage children's educational progress. Therefore I am afraid that we are dealing in a world of realpolitik. One question which must be asked is whether the establishment of another body which would have authority and would speak for the profession might not be of the same kind of leadership. I agree that the principles of professionalism, accountability, self-regulation and peer review are all absolutely crucial aspects of professionalism. Should the teaching profession establish its own general teaching council and were that to prove itself—as I would hope passionately that it would, because there are so many good teachers—to be a truly professional body, then that could achieve recognition. There would be an onus on the profession to show that it can behave professionally along the lines of, say, the nursing profession, treating the interests of children as the primary criterion. Then it might seek statutory recognition, rather than at this stage asking the Government to accept the amendment although it would obviously put great pressure on the Government to move forward in a direction which might be harmful to the interests of children.
Lord Judd: The Committee has to decide whether this is a strategic Bill taking us into the 21st century, or whether it is not. If it is a strategic Bill, it seems inconceivable that we can seriously endorse legislation which totally ignores the valiant contribution being made by the teachers themselves. Everybody who has read this Bill is amazed at the paucity of reference to the teaching profession, what it is contributing and how it can contribute. For that reason, and because we are totally convinced that a strong future must be

1433
built on a responsible partnership with the profession, we on these Benches strongly applaud this amendment and support it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I wonder whether I may cast a further word of doubt on the wisdom of this amendment. I must confess that I have not had the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, with students who join the senate and immediately become more politically balanced, less aggressive and more helpful to the institution concerned. I have however spent some 10 years on the Council for National Academic Awards, where I have seen academics—I admit, higher education academics, not teachers—very much fighting their own corners in that forum and not at all really supporting the general aim of the council.
I appreciate that this is an enabling amendment. Before giving the amendment a fairer wind, one would have to press the question as to what qualifications really would be required for licensing by the new council. There, I am very sorry to say, I have to have the temerity to take issue with my noble friend Lord Renton—something I thought I would never be able, or indeed ever have, to do—who suggested that the present qualification of a teacher education degree would be a step in the right direction towards such registration.
I have been fairly close to the world of teacher education for 10 years. I am absolutely sure that it is one of the areas which is least helpful to our system of education as it exists today. So, finally, before deciding on the merits of this proposal—
Lord Renton: Will my noble friend allow me? I ask him to bear in mind that, although I mentioned a university degree and a qualification from the teaching training college, I did add that there might be other qualifications. For example, I have in mind the teachers who are specialising in teaching those who are mentally handicapped. They have a special training course of their own. I was not trying to close other people's minds.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am justly rebuked by my noble friend and I appreciate what he says. But the area which I should particularly like to exclude is the modern teacher education degree from our modern teacher education departments in the universities and in what used to be called the polytechnics, and in the colleges where they exist.
As far as I am concerned, before finally deciding on the merit of this proposal, I would have to put a question to the proposers. They have obviously looked into the matter in much greater depth than many of us have been able to do. What percentage of existing teachers would the proposers expect the new teaching council to license ab initio? That would give one some idea of whether this is going to be a rigorous system for giving due credit to the best teachers in our land, whom we all respect, and doing its bit to weed out the worst, who do cause some problems.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I certainly do recognise and share the underlying anxiety to concern ourselves with the professionalism of teachers. Indeed, the Government recognised the professionalism of teachers when they set up the School Teacher Review Body. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that I can tell him now, right at the outset of this Bill, that, in discussing the 200 or so clauses of this Bill, we are not ignoring the commitment, professionalism and dedication of teachers. I have said many times, and I will say it once more, that as politicians we can pass legislation until we are blue in the face, but we are entirely dependent on the commitment, professionalism, dedication and hard work of the teachers. I would want to go on recognising that as often as I can.
The Government have no wish to deny teachers the right to regard themselves and to be regarded as professionals, or to organise themselves into a professional body. Indeed, the Secretary of State has recently commented that he is attracted to the notion of a Royal College of Teachers, or even several royal colleges as found in the health service, and mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield. We did in fact have, as has been said, a Royal Society of Teachers for a period of about 20 years until just after the Second World War. We should be quite content to see established a professional body of such a kind which would promote the status and professionalism of teachers and which we could talk to about matters of professional concern—a body whose primary focus would be issues other than pay and conditions. Such a relationship could function very well without being encumbered by a formal statutory role as proposed for a teaching council. But, I must stress that this is something for teachers to take forward themselves. It would not be appropriate for the Government to set up such a professional body.
I refer again to the mention made by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, of the royal colleges. It is worth noting that there are a number of royal colleges in the health service; from large bodies like the Royal College of Nursing, referred to by my noble friend Lady Cox, which has nearly 300,000 members, to the Royal College of Pathologists, which has 5,000 members. None of these has a statutory function but each acts as a professional body to promote members' interests. Several see themselves as trade unions as well. Mostly, they represent a single occupational grouping. Some —for example, the Royal College of Physicians in Edinburgh —only represent that group locally. Royal colleges are still being set up. The Royal College of Anaesthetists was created in 1992.
The colleges represent considerable expertise in the fields in which they operate and are closely involved in education and training. Many have links with similar bodies in other countries. Being able to use the title "Member" or "Fellow" of a royal college is generally held in high esteem. Indeed, I noted the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, that I have followed in his tracks and done a bit of detective work to find out where the funds are. I too have drawn a blank. They are not sloshing around in Whitehall. The

1435
Royal Society of Teachers, not being a government sponsored nor a statutory body, was therefore a private body set up between and among professionals. It would be very helpful to find out what happened, because, so far as we know, we believe that it probably exists legally in a trust form.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Renton said that he was less concerned about trade union involvement in such a body. However, I must say to him that as regards the Professor Tomlinson organisation which has been set up, all the trade unions are subscribing as unions, not as individual professional teachers. As I have said, we believe that it must be for teachers themselves to address the benefit of a non-statutory professional body concerned with the status of the profession and matters of professional conduct. That would be somewhat different from what the noble Lords, Lord Butterfield and Lord Dainton, propose in their amendment to empower the Government to establish a general teaching council at some future date should they so wish.
The difference between us, therefore, is the distinction between a non-statutory professional body as opposed to a statutory professional body. That a body should be established to enhance the status and professionalism of teachers is not in question and is not a point of difference between us.
Given what I have said already and the fact that we have said that we stick by the advice and evidence that we gave to the Select Committee—it was Ministers who gave that advice, as well as officials—it would be dishonest of me to take a statutory power in this Bill which we have no intention of using. Therefore, I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Butterfield: I thank the Minister for her remarks. I am absolutely convinced in my own mind (and I believe that many Members of the Committee are in agreement with the idea) that somewhere along the line we must somehow find a body or bodies—statutory or non-statutory—to which the teaching profession, or fragments of it, can turn and of which they can be proud to be members or fellows.
I was impressed by the fact that the Secretary of State looked in on us to see whether we were behaving ourselves and not spending any money. When I saw him previously, it was made quite clear to me that action by the profession itself was his preferred solution. I should like to pay a tribute to him and to the noble Baroness for saying that they would like to have a debate about that on the Floor of this House without further ado. That is really the opportunity of which the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford and I took advantage. I hope that somewhere along the lines, when the dust has settled, we shall be able to return to this point. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, may bring back this issue towards the end of Committee stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Campbell of Croy: I rise to speak briefly on a matter which is different from those raised earlier in relation to the amendments. Clause 1 sets out clearly important responsibilities for the Secretary of State for Education in England and Wales. In 11 lines, Clause 1 mentions England and Wales four times. I am glad that that is stated because the Bill applies only to England and Wales. However, I have to tell the Committee that that is not widely enough known outside Parliament. Since the Bill was introduced I have been inundated with papers containing views and representations from organisations and members of the public who are under the impression that the Bill also applies to Scotland. At times my desk at home in Scotland has been covered with correspondence, much of it originating from within Scotland. In reply, I have been indicating, to the best of my ability, that their schools and their children in Scotland are not involved with this Bill.
I hope that my intervention now will help to clarify the situation. As the media have not tumbled to the separation of systems and functions, organisations and the public can be excused their misunderstandings. A principal cause of the confusion is the term "national curriculum" which has no application in Scotland. Perhaps it would have been clearer if that had been called the "curriculum for England and Wales" instead of using the word "national". In Scotland there is a Scottish curriculum. I feel obliged to point that out because, in all modesty, 20 years ago I, as Secretary of State for Scotland, made the first moves which led to the present Scottish curriculum.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way to me. I am trying to be helpful to him and not to confuse him by reminding him that there is a separate national curriculum in Wales, which only confuses the matter even further.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that point. The Bill covers Wales and some clauses deal specifically with Wales. I am dealing only with the misunderstandings that exist outside the House and I think that this is the moment for me to point them out to the Government.
Another source of confusion is that there are different teachers' unions in Scotland. That point arose in relation to the amendment that we have just discussed. The main such union is the Educational Institute of Scotland, the EIS. There is no argument going on in Scotland at present between the Government and teachers about testing pupils. None at all. However, the public in Scotland seeing the television news in the evenings can be forgiven for not knowing that. My home is in Scotland and people there are continually asking me about the Bill although it does not apply to them. May I ask the Government to do what they can to enlighten and elucidate especially the media? The Secretary of State for Education has no responsibilities for schools in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland and a whole department at the Scottish Office, the Scottish Office Education Department, have had the relevant functions for many years.

1437
A few weeks ago the Government issued a White Paper on Scotland and the Union, much of which was occupied with setting out the departments of the Scottish Office and their functions. The aims of that White Paper will not be fully achieved unless opportunities are taken to draw attention to the separate systems and functions where they exist. I fully approve of Clause 1 in that respect and urge the Government to do more outside Parliament to help the media and the public to register and remember the fact that nothing in this Bill applies to Scotland and that neither the national curriculum nor the present disputes about the testing of pupils apply to Scotland.
Baroness Blatch: This intervention has taken me somewhat by surprise. There has been absolutely no pressure from the Scottish Office, my Scottish ministerial colleagues, Scottish Members of this House or members of the public about Scottish matters, but I am more than pleased to take any opportunity that is afforded to me to make the distinction between what is contained in the Bill as it applies to England and Wales and the provisions relating to Scotland. I should like to make the point that neither the Bill nor the present discussions and negotiations between the Government and English and Welsh teachers have any impact on the Scottish system. I do not think, however, that this is a matter for a clause stand part debate and I ask the House to accept that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply. My argument is helped by the fact that all parliamentarians understand this point, but the media do not because not enough trouble is taken to explain it. I produced examples relating to the national curriculum for the national press last week and for a Sunday national newspaper which showed that the media thought that the Bill applied to the whole country, but I shall not do so again now. As I have said, I think that more should be done and I hope that the Government will take my points on board when dealing with the media and disseminating information.
Baroness Blatch: All that I can say as an immediate retort to that is, "Oh, that I or my department had that kind of influence over the press".
Clause 1 agreed to.
Viscount Astor: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that the Committee stage begins again at 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Protection of Animals (Scotland) Bill
7.28 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Private Member's Bill comes to your Lordships' House from another place where it was
1438
successfully sponsored by my own Member of Parliament, the honourable Member for Tayside, North, Mr. Bill Walker. In the House of Commons, my honourable friend had all-party support for the Bill, as well as the support of the Government.
The Bill is a simple two-clause measure. By means of amending the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912, it increases the maximum fine which Scottish courts can impose on people convicted of cruelty to domestic or captive animals in Scotland. If the Bill becomes law, the maximum penalty for such cruelty—and I stress that it will be the maximum penalty—would be a fine at level 5 on the standard scale, which is currently £5,000 or six months' imprisonment, or both. The present maximum is set at level 4, currently £2,500 or six months' imprisonment, or both.
The Bill would bring the maximum fine up to the level applying to equivalent offences south of the Border, a move advocated strongly by the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
I should make it clear that the Bill applies to domestic and captive animals only. Domestic animals are defined for this purpose in Section 13 of the 1912 Act. They include farm animals, horses, fowls, dogs and cats or any species which is tame or has been sufficiently tamed to serve some purpose for man.
Captive animals are defined to include any species of animal, bird, fish or reptile which is in captivity or confinement. The Bill does not apply to wild animals. As your Lordships will be aware, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 protects certain species of wildlife including endangered species of mammals. Badgers are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992.
The offences of cruelty to domestic and captive animals to which the Bill applies are divided into five groups under Section 1 of the 1912 Act. They cover ill treatment such as beating or kicking; torturing or causing unnecessary suffering; unnecessary suffering during transportation; fighting and baiting; the administration of poison and drugs; and subjecting an animal to an operation without due care or humanity.
A further offence of abandoning an animal in certain circumstances was created more recently under the Abandonment of Animals Act 1960. Since the penalty for that offence is expressed in that Bill as the same as the penalties in the 1912 Act, the Bill we are now discussing increases in Scotland the maximum penalty for abandoning an animal, along with the other offences.
Your Lordships will appreciate that the Bill deals only with the maximum penalty that can be imposed for such cruelty. It is of course for the courts to determine the appropriate fine or length of prison sentence, or both, for a particular offender in the light of his or her circumstances and of the particular offence.
The new maximum created by the Bill is a heavy penalty indeed, but the wide variety of circumstances and the types of cruelty that are possible mean that there must be a wide variety of possible penalties from a small fine upwards. A maximum fine of £5,000 or a prison sentence of up to six months, or both, should

1439
surely be available to the courts where the person is found guilty of, for example, the organisation of dog fighting or dog baiting; the deliberate cruelty to a large number of dogs kept in commercial kennels; cruelty by starvation of, say, 200 cattle on a farm; or a crime such as the mutilation of horses which has caused such dreadful suffering recently in the South of England. Such a maximum penalty might apply also to cruelty within a zoo, although I understand that the regular inspection of zoos in Scotland under the zoo licensing system successfully ensures high standards of protection for animals there.
It is interesting to note that, although the availability of maximum penalties is clearly important, in recent years most offences have attracted comparatively small fines. According to Scottish Office figures, in 1991 a total of 43 people were fined, of whom 18 had to pay £100 or less, and the average fine overall was £227. In 1990, 69 people were fined, the average amount being £250, and 32 people paid £100 and less. So the majority of fines are at the lower end of the scale. In 1990, one person only was fined anything approaching the maximum; in 1991, no one was fined the maximum. As for imprisonment, six people in Scotland were sent to prison in 1991 for offences mainly under the 1912 Act and of those, three sentences were of three months, two of four months and one of six months. In 1990 there were four prison sentences, two of four months and one of six months—the maximum.
I turn to the Bill. Clause 1 amends the 1912 Act in the way that I have described. Clause 2 limits the Bill to Scotland and provides that the Bill will come into force two months after receiving Royal Assent. I shall be glad to attempt to reply to any questions noble Lords may ask. I hope, nevertheless, that your Lordships will feel that this is a wise and necessary measure for Scotland and will give it a smooth passage towards the statute book. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Carnegy of Lour.)
7.36 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank my noble neighbour, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for giving a full explanation of the possible results of the Bill and the type of cruelty that it is designed to combat. In the agricultural community there is a feeling that cruelty to animals is not understood by a number of people. For example, I saw an article the other day in which the author said he saw an animal being chivvied with a stick around the ring at a market and he considered that to be cruel. No attendant in a market will ever hit an animal with a stick because that damages the animal. He merely taps it with a stick to make it move around.
Will the Minister confirm that the proposed large fines will be confined to, or are intended for, the gross neglect of animals on the part perhaps of farmers and transporters and deliberate acts of cruelty such as dog baiting and dog fighting? No one can object to the upgrading of the penalties for any form of cruelty to animals, which is something we all deplore.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing the Bill. There is no question but that we on this side of the House support the Bill. I am sure that the noble Baroness read the proceedings in another place and saw that a point was raised by the honourable Member for Perth and Kinross. There is always a feeling with Scottish Bills that it is not good enough just to copy English Bills; they should be considered on their merits.
The honourable Member for Perth and Kinross views himself as a guardian of Scottish law. He does not like the homogenisation of the penalties or the law. That is fair because we have our own way of life in Scotland. It has been shown throughout history, and it is becoming more obvious in many areas, especially that of criminal law, that south of the Border tends to copy many aspects of our law. With this Bill, I do not feel that we are seriously compromising Scottish law, and even the honourable Member for Perth and Kinross did not attempt to oppose it.
There is only one point on which I seek assistance from the noble Baroness or perhaps from the honourable and learned Member on the Front Bench—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, he is not honourable; he is noble.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I mean the noble and learned Lord, but I think that he is honourable too most of the time. An issue which hit the public's attention was that of residential kennels for dogs. Someone sending their pet to kennels for a fortnight may feel uneasy and I seek clarification. We support the noble Baroness in her efforts to pass the Bill through this House and we shall support her as much as possible.
7.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend for sponsoring in this House an important measure which, as she indicated, enjoys the support of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. My single purpose is to confirm that my noble friend's Bill also enjoys the full support of the Government.
As my noble friend fully and lucidly explained the Bill's content and the context within which the Bill is set, nothing would be added to your Lordships' understanding if I were to repeat what she said. I confirm that it brings Scotland into line with the maximum fine which applies in England and Wales. That was set at level 5 by the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1987. That Act was also the result of a Private Member's measure. The Government considered in 1987 whether the measure could be extended to Scotland but it was concluded that such an extension would have required change to the Long Title of that Bill, which would have seriously delayed its passage.

1441
I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that nothing in the substantive nature of the offences to be found in the 1912 Act is altered by the Bill. The maximum penalty is extended. There is accordingly no particular reason why those who look after animals sensibly and properly within the agricultural community have anything to fear from the Bill. However, if any individual grossly mistreats or acts cruelly towards farm animals and is convicted, the court might in what I would consider to be exceptional circumstances go to the top limit. However, the maximum fine might be expected in the circumstances which my noble friend outlined.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that there have been cases of dogs being badly treated in kennels. In certain cases prosecutions have been brought over the way in which animals have been looked after or neglected. Whether such a case attracts anything like the maximum penalty depends on the facts and circumstances. As the noble Lord with his long experience will appreciate, it is for the court to determine whether the maximum fine or anything approaching it should be imposed.
The Government abhor cruelty to animals for whatever reason. In recent years we have thus promoted or supported measures which permit the courts to disqualify a person from keeping animals on first being convicted of an offence involving cruelty and which make it an offence to attend or to advertise an animal fight. We are now glad to support this measure. That level of maximum fine is a most worthwhile addition to the existing powers of the Scottish courts, which may already impose a custodial sentence of up to six months imprisonment and disqualify the convicted person from future ownership of an animal.
I wish to commend the work of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which is vital for the protection of animals. That is particularly so in the present context where often the evidence of the society's inspectors is crucial in securing the conviction of those involved in offences of cruelty. I am glad to confirm that the Bill is wholly supported by the Government.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. I am glad that they believe that it is right to raise the issue in this way. My noble and learned friend has replied to the questions which were asked. However, perhaps I may say to my noble neighbour Lord Mackie of Benshie that in such matters one must trust the courts to understand what happens in a cattle mart and that one cannot control many cattle without a few gentle taps with a stick. There is a high penalty because sometimes offences of great cruelty are committed. However, the existence of the penalty does not mean that it is considered by a court when a minor crime is committed. I believe that most courts understand how a mart works; we all understand the anxieties of farmers in that respect.
I turn to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord
1442
Carmichael. I believe that my honourable and learned friend Sir Nicholas Fairbairn is right to ensure that we do not simply harmonise Scots law with English law. Our needs are different. Often we need to alter the penalties or put the issues slightly differently. For one reason or another we have in respect of this matter lagged behind, but it now seems to me time for the maximum penalty to be the same.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and also my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench for his support and for the help I have received from his department in seeking examples of offences which might attract the maximum fine. I am grateful to the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It knows how the penalties are working across the country and it has a great deal of information which is helpful to us. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.47 to 8.30 p.m.]

Education Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 2 [Funding Agency for Schools]:
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert ("and
(c) persons who hold and appear to him to have shown capacity in any position carrying responsibility for the provision of education in voluntary schools or endowed grant-maintained schools.").
The right reverend Prelate said: In speaking to Amendment No. 13, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 24 —that amendment should stand in my name on the Marshalled List—and 26. Although I shall not speak to them directly, Amendments Nos. 14 and 25 are also grouped with Amendment No. 13.
My amendments seek to secure that people with experience of the voluntary sector should be members of the Funding Agency for Schools. They seek also to secure formal consultation with the Churches before such an appointment is made. The Churches provide some 30 per cent. of the schools in the voluntary sector, although there are other voluntary schools which are not Church schools.
With regard to the funding agency, the White Paper stated that:
"it will be important that some members should have experience of maintained, including voluntary, schools".
We agree with that and my amendment goes some way towards ensuring it.
The Church of England's view is that Churches should have direct representation on the funding agency. The present position is that the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church have a

1443
statutory place on all local education committees. As and when those committees disappear, the Churches will lose their place in the strategic planning structures. The Government have recognised the value and contribution of the voluntary sector and in particular of Church schools. Therefore, in line with the White Paper, the least that we expected was that we should retain an acknowledged place in the formal structures.
However, my amendments are more modest than our original hopes. The amendments lay on the Secretary of State an obligation to consult the Churches before making an appointment of anybody representing the voluntary sector.
I must say in connection with that that there is a slightly technical point. Amendment No. 15 makes explicit reference to the Board of Education of the General Synod of the Church of England but does not make explicit reference to any corresponding body of the Roman Catholic Church. I had expected to see a further amendment in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, to effect a reference to the Catholic Education Service. I am aware that in the past there has been sensitivity about explicit reference in primary legislation to Roman Catholic bishops and Roman Catholic authorities. For our part we are entirely happy with any such reference. I say that having consulted the most reverend Primates the Archbishops of York and Canterbury.
This matter will arise again on Amendment No. 72 but I believe it should be mentioned at this stage. I am anxious that the position of the Church of England should not fall because of a technical or constitutional anxiety about any public formal reference in primary legislation to the Roman Catholic Church. I do not know what is the Government's view on that but I understand that there have been discussions and it may be that we are now able to move forward in that connection.
One of the amendments in this group is in effect a definition of endowed grant-maintained schools. I recognise that the amendment should probably be placed elsewhere in the Bill but I thought that if I did not include it here it would make it cumbersome and difficult to speak to such an amendment. We need a means of referring to those schools which were voluntary schools before they became grant maintained. Always to have to refer to them in such a clumsy way seems to be awkward. Therefore, it is better to have a definition which enables us to refer to them with a clear phrase. That is the purpose of one of the amendments in this group.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 26 seek to achieve for Wales the equivalent consultation with the Churches which we are proposing in the context of England. There are others better qualified than I to speak on behalf of the Principality but we move the amendment after consultation with our Anglican colleagues of the Church in Wales because we feel that what is done in this regard for the Churches in England should be effected equally for Churches in Wales. Therefore, I hope that my brief explanation indicates the reasons
1444
for the amendments, which I hope that the Government will be able to accept, at least in principle. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I shall speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 14 and 25, which stand in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady David, and which form part of the group. We seek to ensure that those with experience of special educational needs are represented on the Funding Agency for Schools and the Schools Funding Council for Wales, although I hesitate to speak for Wales in the present company.
The funding authorities will have responsibilities for planning provision, funding schools and liaising with relevant LEAs. Those are all very important in relation to children with special educational needs in grant-maintained schools. Let us take the distribution of grants. I give just two examples. The funding authority will need to take account of the way in which formulae for the distribution of maintenance grant recognise the additional work that schools undertake for children who present challenges, including children with special educational needs and the need for capital expenditure—for example, to make buildings accessible for those with physical disabilities and to install a loop for hearing impaired children.
It is estimated that 20 per cent. or more of children in our schools have special educational needs. Surely there should be at least one member of each funding authority with special needs experience and expertise. The Special Educational Consortium believes that the amendment is necessary because within the sector, which has been established specifically to help greater autonomy, it will be particularly important to have an understanding of the multi-agency and co-operative approaches which may be needed to meet effectively the special educational needs of children. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to say something encouraging about special needs expertise being represented on each funding authority.
Baroness David: I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy. The funding authority will have to deal with many local problems in planning school places. It is necessary to make sure that there will be people with the requisite expertise. The authority will have to be responsible for providing enough school places and the place and the way in which those are provided will have a significant impact on children with special educational needs.
It is recognised that many of those children will be in grant-maintained schools. They may not be among the 2 per cent. but they may be among the 20 per cent. The authorities will need to liaise with the LEAs in respect of work with children in grant-maintained schools who are at the pre-statutory school-based stage of assessment, who are undergoing full assessment or for whom additional provision is to be made as specified in a statement. While it is clearly anticipated that the day-to-day liaison on those issues will be dealt with among the school, the LEA and other voluntary and statutory agencies, there will need to be an understanding of the level of the agency and

1445
how additional provision and inter-agency cooperation can best be established for the benefit of children with special educational needs.
I believe that the noble Baroness mentioned the figure of 20 per cent. in respect of special needs. That is quite a large percentage of the population which will be affected. If they are to be more grant-maintained schools, the funding agency will have a real responsibility. In this case, I think that it is especially important that there should be someone on the funding agency who has special knowledge and experience of what is needed and that there should also be a connection with the many agencies which have to provide that expertise.
The Duke of Norfolk: I shall speak only to Amendment No. 15. I should like first to thank the right reverend Prelate for the way he said that sometimes in these happy ecumenical days we can say the word "Catholic" meaning Roman Catholics without having always to specify the word "Roman". It is a very happy occasion for us not to have to hide our light under a bushel and to know that we can be recognised as the Catholic Church with the word "Roman" being understood, though not actually mentioned. The right reverend Prelate was most generous in his remarks.
The right reverend Prelate also spoke to Amendment No. 15. We very much feel that the Churches should be consulted on the Funding Agency for Schools. On Report, I shall move an amendment which will insert after the words in the amendment,
"the Board of Education of the General Synod of the Church of England",
the words "the Catholic Education Service" which is our equivalent. That will probably appear at line 13 on page 2 of the Bill. I am sure we all agree that the Churches should obviously be consulted on this particular matter.
Lord Parry: I must apologise first for the quality of my voice. Knowing my interest, Members of the Committee would expect me enthusiastically to support the amendments standing in the names of my noble friend Lady David and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). There is a particular and most precise reason for that: it is because integration is now taking place. This Chamber generally favours integration of the special needs group with the general school population. Indeed, it is most important that the people who represent them on the body should understand the special needs of those with special social, physical and mental handicaps.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: This Chamber has, I believe, a deservedly high reputation for considering the interests of those with special educational needs. I am very much aware that that reputation is much to be laid to the credit of many noble Lords who have consistently, and rightly, emphasised the importance of that concern. However, I have to say that there is a general principle which worries me. I refer to the constitution of administrative or funding bodies
1446
whose numbers are inevitably limited. In this case we are talking about the Funding Agency for Schools with a membership of 10 to 15. As the Bill stands, it draws attention to two broad categories: the first is the category of educational experience and the second is the category of administrative and business experience.
The issue is very much open to doubt. Indeed, we have faced it in other recent discussions; for example, we faced it in respect of the higher education funding councils and in relation to a whole series of issues in recent Bills. It is very much open to doubt as to whether it is a good idea to have individual persons representing a whole range of interests filling up those 10 or 15 places. In no time at all we could find ourselves with representatives or delegates whose job it is to speak out for one particular interest group. I believe that the amendments are not well conceived, in that they add to persons who fall into one category persons who fall into another.
I believe that it would be much more appropriate to produce an amendment that would require the Secretary of state when appointing those 10 to 15 persons to have regard to the need for certain forms of experience and certain qualities to be represented. That would certainly be logical. If the Secretary of State was required to have regard to the interests of individuals with special educational needs and to have regard to the interests of those from the Church of England or the Catholic Church—or, indeed, other denominations such as are indicated here—that would make very good sense. But, if we are to load the funding councils and such bodies with this, that and the other named interest, we shall have a kind of sectarian division such as we have seen in certain comparable groups in the past.
For that reason I am very uneasy about the form of the amendments. They seem to suggest that we should simply add on a person for a particular cause of importance which interests us. I should be much happier if the amendment was phrased in a form that would cover the fact that there are issues and aspects here to which attention should be given by the Secretary of State in building up his composition of 10 or 15 persons, rather than singling out one person who will have regard to this issue while another person will have regard to another. For that reason, I have grave reservations about this group of amendments.
Lord Northbourne: I should like to correct the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and make the point that the proposal of the amendments in relation to the Churches relates to the very special relationship which has, I think, existed since 1944. Under it, the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church have worked in partnership with the Government and the local authorities to provide education for about 30 per cent. of the pupils in this country. The Government have said that they wish that partnership to continue. It seems to me to be logical that, if the Churches are to work together with the Government to provide a coherent service, there must be representation on the funding council or, failing that—and it is the lesser suggestion which is being made here—at least

1447
consultation as to membership of the council. For that reason, I should like to express my support for the amendments of the right reverend Prelate.
Baroness David: Perhaps I may be allowed to speak now. I should like to respond to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. He made the speech I expected to hear either from him or from the Minister, so it did not surprise me. However, I should like to draw his attention to the wording of Amendment No. 14. It speaks of,
"persons who appear to him"—
that is, the Secretary of State—
"to have experience of".
I do not think that that is so very different from the words "have regard to"; indeed, I do not think that the issue is much wider than that. I ask him to consider that point. I also ask the noble Lord to bear in mind the fact that people who have experience of special educational needs probably also have a good deal of experience of other forms of education.
Lord Elton: The composition of committees is familiar ground in this Chamber; indeed, scarcely an Act or a Bill passes through our hands without there being a committee involved. It seems extraordinary to me that this group of amendments is so small. Normally, five people table amendments a fortnight before the Committee stage, three other people think, "What a frightfully good idea, we ought to have gardening and aeroplaning in there" and, by the time the Committee stage is reached, there are 23 suggestions. But, on this occasion, the process has been exactly the reverse and we have actually lost local education authorities and equal opportunities for reasons of which I am unaware and which may not be entirely connected with the merits of the case. Consequently, we are perhaps freer than under other circumstances to look at this matter favourably.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that we have to remind ourselves that the state has been an enormous benefactor in its inheritance from the Churches. What is going into the GMS system now is what came into the maintained system after the war with the 1944 Act, which was an enormous endowment from the Churches. For the Churches suddenly to lose their voice in the affairs of this sector simply because of the change of administration would be a great pity. I hope my noble friend will not irreversibly close the door on this amendment at this stage.
Lord Addington: I wish briefly to support the amendment in the name of the two noble Baronesses. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that when we talk about people with special educational needs we are talking about dozens of different types of special educational needs. There is a vast difference between someone who has dyslexia and someone who is in a wheelchair. Totally different problems are presented by those different disabilities. I suggest we need to appoint someone who has experience of at least one set of problems and possibly two or three.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I rise to support the amendments broadly along the lines that have already
1448
been argued. In response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, I should say that we are talking, in the case of the Church of England, of the provision of education for about 30 per cent. of pupils in schools in England. That is a huge sum and I believe it presents a strong argument for special representation on the FAS. In my view that leads on naturally to include the duty to consult properly with the Church of England on these matters.
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, pupils with special educational needs comprise pupils with dozens of different types of problems. It seems extremely appropriate to appoint people who are aware of some of those problems and who will no doubt be aware of other educational matters. Two specific cases are being suggested here; it is not a question of blanket sectional interests. There is not going to be a divided delegate system as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, seemed to imply. The provisions seek to ensure that two particular interest groups are represented on the funding agency.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I, too, wish to support strongly the amendments tabled by the right reverend Prelate. The historic partnership between the Church and the state in education seems to me to have been something of immense value to the children within those schools and to all of us within society at large. Since 1944 the Church has had an historic right to be represented on local education authorities, as the right reverend Prelate said.
To deny the Churches that right to continue to have representation within the funding agency would seem to me to be a great deterrent to those many Church schools that may be considering choosing grant-maintained status. Many Church schools, particularly in north London and now in south London, have already opted out and become grant-maintained. Many more are considering doing so. I believe there is an enormous opportunity for the Church to recreate its influence in education with its schools in the grant-maintained sector. I hope the Minister will seriously consider conceding at least the principle of Amendment No. 15 and also perhaps of Amendment No. 13.
Lady Kinloss: I support my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) in her amendment. I hope that when the Minister replies she will give us some hope that there will be an understanding of the requirements of children with special educational needs. As the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Ponsonby, have already said, there are many different forms of disability which need understanding. I also support Amendments Nos. 13, 15 and 16 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford.
Lord Sefton of Garston: I hesitate to jump into the welcome that has been extended to the principle of Amendment No. 15. Nevertheless, I feel I must do so because it is a bad thing to create agencies when we do not even know who will form the membership of those agencies. I should point out that we have a situation that may result in an atheist becoming the Secretary of State responsible for this matter. I do not welcome

1449
that position but that is the way things are run. The Church seems to be quite willing to accept that the person responsible for major affairs of state, including in some cases the destiny of the Church, may be an atheist who has been chosen by popular vote through our electoral system.
We are about to be subjected to a debate on the ordination of women. I shall be able to vote and speak on that subject although I am an atheist. Some Members of the Committee know I am an atheist. I shall not detain the Committee long as everyone knows the viewpoint of an atheist on this matter. I do not believe the education of our children should be in the hands of any religious body. I do not believe any religious body should have anything to do with the education of our children. Nothing in history suggests that it is advantageous for the education system—I am not talking about 1600 but about 1993—to be in the hands of religious bodies.
The Seventh Day Adventists have been mentioned recently in the newspapers. It appears that members of that sect would be perfectly entitled to claim that they should be represented on the agency we are discussing. I do not know whether anyone subscribes to the point of view that the man who has just been responsible for burning alive a large number of people in America is divorced from the Seventh Day Adventists. I could refer to many examples that I believe show that religion is responsible for many of the ills that affect the population today. I mention this matter to inform the Committee that there is by no means a unanimous welcome to the introduction of religion into our education system or into its maintenance. I believe our education system should be a secular system. If someone wishes to teach children stupid myths, they should pay the costs of maintaining a school.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): Perhaps this is the moment for me to respond to some of the points that have been made. These amendments tackle the issue of representation on the funding agency for schools and on the schools' funding council for Wales. I begin by setting out our thoughts on this issue. Echoing my noble friend Lord Elton, I should also like to say how grateful I am that a large number of associated amendments seems to have miraculously fallen off in a manner that is slightly unusual to what normally happens in this Chamber.
Clauses 2 and 3 together with Schedule 1 set out the detail of the funding agency for schools and the schools funding council for Wales. The members of both will each be appointed by the Secretary of State for their individual skills, talents and expertise. We shall not be reserving places for particular interest groups. Individuals from all aspects of education will bring with them expertise on the system as a whole as well as knowledge and experience of the reality in our schools. This definition is all-embracing. It precludes no one, even, in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, atheists.
Individuals from commerce and industry will bring with them management skills and financial acumen and they will ensure that the funding authorities
1450
operate as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible. I repeat that what we are doing with this clause is not ruling anybody out. Individual appointments made by the Secretary of State will ensure that the best possible combination of people with the most appropriate experience and knowledge are appointed. The provisions as presently drafted give the Secretary of State the necessary scope to appoint members in all the pertinent areas and to appoint a group of individuals who will be able to take on this important task with vigour, enthusiasm and the relevant experience and knowledge.
Perhaps I may deal with the two basic subjects, the Church and SEN, in reverse order. I turn first to the specific amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, and the noble Baroness, Lady David—Amendments Nos. 14 and 25. Those amendments address the issue of special educational needs representation on the funding authorities. Again I must stress that we are not interested in any form of what might be called tokenism. We want the best individuals for the job.
I should also say that, by making explicit in subsection (3) (a) of both Clauses 2 and 3 that regard will be given to the desirability of including people with capacity in or experience of the provision of primary or secondary education, we already include special needs education. Children with special needs are encompassed by either primary or secondary education. Those two amendments are therefore not necessary and I hope that the noble Baronesses will not wish to pursue them. However, I note the concerns expressed by both noble Baronesses when speaking to the amendments and also those expressed by all others who spoke during the debate. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will at least bear in mind their anxieties when he makes his appointments.
I turn now to the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. As I believe the right reverend Prelate will know, my noble friend Lady Blatch and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State have considered carefully his amendments relating to the Funding Agency for Schools. They have had numerous useful discussions with representatives of both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church about consulting on representation on the funding authority and on the representation itself.
We made it very clear in the White Paper that we saw the role of the voluntary sector as very important and that ex-voluntary grant-maintained schools would have a vital role to play in the grant-maintained sector. Approximately 26 per cent. of operating and approved grant-maintained schools are ex-voluntary schools. They continue to enjoy useful relationships with the Churches. The Churches have a special place in the provision of education in England and I am keen to illustrate in no uncertain terms that this Government are serious about a long and fruitful relationship between Church and state. I should like to accept in principle Amendment No. 13 in the name of the right reverend Prelate, which would require the

1451
Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of including on the funding authority a person or persons with experience of the voluntary sector.
I should make it clear that by accepting in principle the spirit of the amendment we are not accepting the notion that the funding authority is in any way a representative body, as my noble friend Lord Renfrew stated. This does not amount to a right on the part of the voluntary sector in general to nominate to a place on the funding authority.
Turning to consultation, in February this year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State agreed that he would make it a statutory duty for the holder of his office to consult both the Church of England and, I am happy to say —and I do not share the fears of the right reverend Prelate—the Roman Catholic Church on the membership of the funding authority. I hope therefore that my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk will not therefore feel it necessary to move the amendment which he spoke of moving at Report stage. I am happy to confirm that point and have it in the official record.
That is in part the spirit behind the right reverend Prelate's amendment, Amendment No. 15. However, we want to make the provision on the face of the Bill in a slightly different way from that suggested by the right reverend Prelate. We intend to bring forward at Report stage a government amendment which makes clear that in appointing members of the Funding Agency for Schools the Secretary of State will consult such bodies as appear to him to represent those appointing the foundation governors of voluntary schools and foundation governors of grant-maintained schools. That will, of course, include both the Church of England General Synod Board of Education and the Roman Catholic Education Service. However, by using that form of drafting we have maximum flexibility, leaving us room to consult and take into account the views of other denominational interests.
I should like to turn briefly to Amendments Nos. 24 and 26, in the name of the right reverend Prelate, which relate to the position in Wales, where the situation is slightly different. As most Members of the Committee will know, the voluntary sector is less prominent in Wales than it is in England. We therefore do not consider it appropriate to put on the face of the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to consider the desirability of appointing someone to the Schools Funding Council for Wales with experience of the voluntary sector. Voluntary-aided schools comprise only 8 per cent. of the total in both the primary and secondary sector in Wales, whereas in England the figures are approximately 34 per cent. and 16 per cent. respectively. Neither, therefore, do we consider it appropriate to put a right to consultation on the face of the Bill. That said, I am happy to give a commitment that such interests as appropriate will be consulted at the appropriate time.
Finally, perhaps I may say a little about the right reverend Prelate's Amendment No. 16 concerning the notion of endowed grant-maintained schools. We are very sympathetic to the concerns of both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church that
1452
Church schools which become grant-maintained should continue to have a separate identity. Church schools have made a distinct and vital contribution to education. They have led by example. Their distinctiveness is reflected in the legislative provisions of the Education Reform Act, carried forward in this Bill, whereby the majority of their governors are foundation governors nominated by the foundation of the school. Indeed, there is nothing to prevent those schools concerned even now from describing themselves as Catholic grant-maintained schools or Church of England grant-maintained schools.
In addition, the Government propose in future in circulars and other letters of guidance to refer generally to such schools as foundation self-governing schools. That will distinguish them from those grant-maintained schools or self-governing schools which have first rather than foundation governors and will maintain the distinction which existed in the 1944 Act between county and voluntary schools, carrying it forward into the new world of self-governing schools. I therefore feel that the right reverend Prelate's amendment, Amendment No. 16, is unnecessary.
I conclude by repeating that in principle we are prepared to accept the ideas behind Amendments Nos. 13 and 15. As I stated earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, we do not believe that her amendments—Amendments Nos. 14 and 25—are appropriate, but we shall certainly bear in mind her particular concerns and the anxieties expressed so ably by many other Members of the Committee. With those remarks I hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that response. It is very encouraging and I am extremely grateful for the consideration that has been given to our anxieties.
I am happy to withdraw the amendment in my name. However, before doing so, perhaps I may clarify that the position is slightly different in relation to some amendments. I shall happily beg leave to withdraw Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 because the Minister has indicated that the Government will be bringing forward their own amendments to effect the same aim that was in my mind in drafting the amendments.
Similarly I shall beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 16 although I wish to see in more detail the distinction that I understand is to be secured for voluntary schools which become grant maintained as opposed to other grant-maintained schools. If that distinction can conveniently be achieved by other wording, then I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment. I shall withdraw the amendment, but I should like to understand that distinction before stating that I shall not bring another amendment forward at a later stage.
As to the Church in Wales, I shall consider the position and the possibility of returning with a different amendment in the light of what has been said. It is difficult to say that I shall withdraw the amendment because I have not had the opportunity of consulting with my opposite numbers in Wales. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 13.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert:
("(c) persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, provision to meet special educational needs.").
The noble Baroness said: Does the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), wish to speak first?
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): No.
Baroness David: The right reverend Prelate had a good response. If I had had such a good response, I should have been pleased. However, I did not. I have considered again the wording of Clause 2(3). No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has studied and marked it. It states:
"In appointing the members of the agency the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of including".
The noble Lord's phrase "the desirability of including", has already been taken up. It is on the face of the Bill.
Clause 2(3) (b) states,
"persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, industrial, commercial or financial matters or the practice of any profession".
The provision does not include what I particularly wish—special educational needs. To refer in particular to industrial, commercial or financial matters but not to more educational matters is a great pity.
I do not feel inclined to withdraw the amendment; I wish to press it to a Division. I do not believe that we received nearly as good a response as the right reverend Prelate was lucky enough to achieve.
Lord Henley: I am sorry that the noble Baroness does not believe that she received as good a response as the right reverend Prelate. I suspect that whatever I say she will not feel that she has had as good a response. I suspect that the noble Baroness has sniffed blood and wishes to press the amendment to a Division.
I was seeking to say, first, that Amendments Nos. 14 and 25 are not necessary and therefore there is no need to put the provisions on the face of the Bill. Secondly, I noted the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady David, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, and others expressed about the particular case of those with special educational needs. I stated categorically that I was sure that my right honourable friend would bear those concerns in mind when he made his appointments. But I did not believe that the amendments were necessary on the face of the Bill. I hoped that the noble Baroness might feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness David: Certain matters are on the face of the Bill. Educational matters are not among them.
Lord Judd: Will the Government give an assurance that they will change the Bill? Or will they not give such an assurance?
Lord Henley: If the noble Lord had listened to what I said, I stated that I was not accepting those amendments, that I had no intention of accepting
1454
them but that my right honourable friend would bear in mind those concerns. We have given assurances in relation to earlier amendments.
Lord Judd: Why do the Government specify some people whom, I think it would not be too cynical to say, many people believe to be friends and do not specify others who have a deep commitment to children in need?
Lord Henley: If the noble Lord will listen to me—I say it for the third time because the noble Lord obviously does not listen —these amendments are unnecessary in that it is quite explicit in Clause 2(3) (a) and Clause 3(3) (a) that regard will be given to the,
"desirability of including persons who appear … to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of primary or secondary education".
That obviously includes provision of education for those with special educational needs.
Baroness David: I said that I wished to divide the Committee and I have not changed my mind.
9.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 122; Not-Contents, 88.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Addington, L.

Halsbury, E.

Adrian, L.

Hampton, L.

Archer of Sand well, L.

Hamwee, B.

Ardwick, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Healey, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hollick, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hooson, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Bottomley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Brimelow, L.

Hughes, L.

Butterfield, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jay, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Judd, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Kagan, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Kennet, L.

David, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Desai, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lawrence, L.

Donoughue, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dundonald, E.

Longford, E.

Elis-Thomas, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Ennals, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ezra, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Faithfull, B.

McNair, L.

Falkender, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Falkland, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Foot, L.

Mayhew, L.

Gallacher, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Galpern, L.

Milverton, L.

Geraint, L.

Mishcon, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Molloy, L.

Glenamara, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Mulley, L.

Gregson, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Grey, E.

Northbourne, L.

1455

Northfield, L.

Serota, B.

Ogmore, L.

Shackleton, L.

Parry, L.

Shepherd, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Stallard, L.

Peston, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Tordoff, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Varley, L.

Rea, L.

Warnock, B.

Redesdale, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Richard, L.

White, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Wigoder, L.

Rochester, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Seear, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Long, V.

Lucas, L.

Arran, E.

Lyell, L.

Astor, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Barber, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Belstead, L.

Blatch, B.

Marlesford, L.

Blyth, L.

Mersey, V.

Boardman, L.

Norfolk, D.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Butterworth, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Cadman, L.

Prentice, L.

Caithness, E.

Quinton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Carnock, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Cox, B.

Rennell, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Cranborne, V.

St. Davids, V.

Crathorne, L.

Seccombe, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Sharples, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Sherfleld, L.

Downshire, M.

Skidelsky, L.

Elles, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Stewartby, L.

Elton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strange, B.

Flather, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E [Teller.]

Goschen, V.

Hacking, L.

Swinton, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Teviot, L.

Harvington, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Hives, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hooper, B.

Howe, E.

Wynford, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Young, B.

Jellicoe, E.

[*The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 88 names. The Clerks recorded 87 names.]
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.23 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 15 to 17 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Schools Funding Council for Wales]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert:
("(c) persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, provision to meet special educational needs.").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 14. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Elis-Thomas: This Question gives us a brief opportunity to talk about the funding council for Wales and its structure and date of operation. The issue here is when and whether the Welsh Office will establish a schools funding council in view of the fact that so few schools in Wales have indicated an interest in becoming part of the grant-maintained sector. I am particularly anxious for the Minister to tell us whether it is the intention of the Welsh Office to pursue the strategy of establishing a funding council in the teeth of the clearly expressed view of Welsh parents and teachers that they prefer to operate within the local education authority structure. It is for those reasons that I propose that the clause should not stand part of the Bill.
Viscount St. Davids: The noble Lord has raised a number of points in speaking against the inclusion of Clause 3 in the Bill to which I should like to respond. Clause 3 provides for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales to be able to establish a schools funding council for Wales. The council would have the same functions in respect of Wales as the funding agency for schools will have in England.
It is important that I draw to the Committee's attention a difference in the drafting of the respective clauses in the Bill. Clause 2 provides that:
"There shall be established a body corporate to be known as the Funding Agency for Schools".
Here there is no doubt about the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education, who had made it clear that there are sufficient grant-maintained schools in England already to warrant the creation of a separate funding agency. Clause 3, however, provides that:
"The Secretary of State may by order make provision for the establishment of a body corporate to be known as The Schools Funding Council for Wales".
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has equally made it clear that he will not establish the schools funding council for Wales unless the grant-maintained sector in Wales has developed sufficiently to justify the establishment of a separate body.
My right honourable friend takes nothing for granted. He is content to let parents in Wales decide on the size of the grant-maintained sector in Wales. Members on the Benches opposite will say that there

1457
is little interest in grant-maintained status among schools in Wales. We on this side say that there is already interest and that it will grow. There are currently seven grant-maintained schools in operation in Wales (six secondary and one primary). My right honourable friend accepts that at this stage the establishment of a separate schools funding council would not be justified. But he currently has four applications for grant-maintained status before him and is aware of proposals to seek a ballot of parents in some six others. Furthermore, the Welsh Office has received inquiries from some 100 schools about various aspects of grant-maintained status. Of course, it is not possible to say how many of those expressions of interest will convert into actual applications, but my right honourable friend is confident that many will do so. There is unlikely to be agreement on that issue, but the Government are happy to leave the question of the size of the grant-maintained status in Wales to the wishes of parents.
Let us look briefly at the functions of a schools funding council for Wales were it to be established. Its initial purpose would be to take over from the Welsh Office the fairly straightforward function of paying grants to grant-maintained schools. In areas where a significant proportion of pupils attend grant-maintained schools, it would share with LEAs the responsibility to secure sufficient school places.
Let us now look at the alternative scenarios. If noble Lords opposite are right and the grant-maintained sector in Wales does not grow, then we shall have lost nothing by the inclusion of this clause in the Bill. But if the grant-maintained sector in Wales grows significantly, surely the Committee will agree that it is necessary to have in place arrangements for the effective administration of the grant-maintained sector to ensure that the grant-maintained sector plays its full part in the provision of sufficient and appropriate school places.
Without the ability to establish a separate schools funding council for Wales there would be no option but for the Secretary of State for Wales, through the Welsh Office, to continue to undertake the executive task of paying over grant to grant-maintained schools. Such an increasing executive task is not appropriate for a government department.
But what is more worrying is the situation that would develop in respect of securing sufficient school places. It would certainly not be appropriate for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to take on board the duty to secure sufficient school places in respect of the grant-maintained sector, not least because of his statutory position in respect of deciding local proposals. We would therefore be faced with a situation whereby LEAs which had lost control over a large number of their schools would be trying to cope with the duty to secure sufficient school places without involving the grant-maintained sector.
Is it better for LEAs to have to try to cope on their own in such a situation and to have to deal with a number of, in effect, free floating grant-maintained schools over which they have no control than to have
1458
in place a mechanism for the coherent administration of the grant-maintained sector in the form of the schools funding council?
Whether or not schools become grant-maintained, and therefore the size of the grant-maintained sector in Wales, will be decided by parents in Wales. What Clause 3 seeks to do in the event that parents do decide that there should be a significant grant-maintained sector in Wales is to enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales to put in place arrangements for the effective and efficient administration of that grant-maintained sector to ensure that it complements the LEA maintained sector in the provision of quality education throughout Wales in the interests of pupils.
I have spoken at some length about Clause 3. It may also be appropriate for me briefly at this point to say that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has tabled a group of amendments—Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 45, 46 and 327—which are consequential to his opposition to Clause 3. I trust that, if the Committee agrees to the inclusion of Clause 3, as I am sure it will, the noble Lord will withdraw the amendments. I commend the clause to the Committee.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Before the noble Viscount sits down, for the record can he say how many schools in Wales are eligible for grant-maintained status? He said in the course of his speech that the fact that seven have opted out is an indication of the interest. To get a really true perspective, will he say how many are eligible?
Viscount St. Davids: I say to the noble Lord that all schools are eligible.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I presume that the Committee does not know the number of schools in Wales that are eligible. We simply do not know. If we are to have the correct perspective, we should know. It looks as though we may be getting the information now. Perhaps the noble Viscount can tell us.
Viscount St. Davids: The number is some 2,000.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am glad that the Minister has now given the Committee the complete picture. Half a dozen schools have shown an interest in opting out, but there are 2,000 schools in Wales. Perhaps the Committee will permit me to say, without making a Second Reading speech, that the Bill is very much against the grain of the tradition of Welsh education and, I believe, of Welsh public opinion. I know of no pressure from Wales for the Bill.
I accept that as we approach a new century there may well have been a case for a review of the legislative framework of the Welsh education system which emerged from the great Act of 1889. The opinion which will be heard in Wales is that that review should have been conducted or undertaken by a commission of the standing of the Aberdare Commission in the last century. So we deeply regret that the Government and the Welsh Office decided to go ahead with this reform without the benefit of such a commission.

1459
However, given the realities of the position, we have to concentrate on this Bill and seek certain assurances from the Minister, particularly as local government in Wales will be restructured by April 1995. I should like the Minister to go further than he has and give me assurances that the schools funding council for Wales will not be set up until the 21 new authorities will have been established on 1st April 1995. In addition, I hope that he can give me an assurance that it will not be set up until the new authorities have consulted and drawn up their Section 38 schemes for delegation and control over the spending of the school budget. It is extremely important that the terms of the schemes should be known to the head teachers and the governors of the schools because it is basic, vital information in determining whether or not they will apply to be a grant-maintained school. Can the Minister go further and give me those two assurances?
Viscount St. Davids: I am a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has brought up these questions when he did not care earlier to move the amendment to which they would have pertained. I shall do my best to give him what he requires. To begin with, he comments that there is no call for the provisions of this Bill within the Principality. I know that there is a very different relationship between LEAs, parents and schools within Wales and that the educational culture within the Principality is different from that in England. But I believe that the manner in which I have described the schools funding council for Wales as coming into operation as and when and if it is necessary recognises this difference in the educational culture of Wales.
The noble Lord must understand that there is no pressure being placed on the educational system in Wales to become grant maintained. There seems to be a total misunderstanding among the Welsh that this Bill is some extraordinary draconian method whereby schools are being moved from the public to the private sector. I do not understand where this total lack of understanding comes from. All this Bill does is to give parents, if they so wish, the ability to seek that their schools become grant maintained.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has apprehensions that the schools funding council for Wales could be set up at a period when there is a certain to-ing and fro-ing due to the introduction of the unitary authorities. But the noble Lord can rest assured in this matter because the Secretary of State for Wales has responsibility at present for the grant maintained sector and will continue to do so until such time as the funding council comes into operation, which may or may not be during this period when, as I say, we move towards the unitary authorities.
We do not feel that there is any cause for concern that the change to the unitary authorities will bring about anything detrimental to the educational system in Wales. The various LEA and LMS schemes which are being prepared will continue to operate in exactly the same way as they have done hitherto. I hope I can satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Elis-Thomas: In view of the Minister's response, I shall not be pressing my Motion. However, I am sure that we shall return to this subject at a later stage in our consideration of the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for taking the opportunity to indicate the relative autonomy of the Welsh educational system.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The funding authorities]:
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 166, line 39, leave out ("second") and insert ("next following")
The noble Baroness said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 166, line 40, leave out ("following that date")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Meaning of the "funding authority" in the Education Acts]:
[Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Grants to funding authorities]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 2, line 42, after ("State") insert ("and any local education authority")
The noble Lord said: This amendment and the one that follows it look forward to a time when there are many grant-maintained schools and they are a generally accepted part of the educational scene. The history of this Government's educational changes has been that they are opposed when they first come in and a few years later everyone agrees what a wonderful thing they are. So I do not think that it is that inappropriate now to look a few years forward.
They propose a continuing role for local authorities in funding education in their areas; and the reasons why I feel that this is appropriate are threefold: first, for reasons of history. Many local authorities are proud to provide additional sums for education in their areas. Many local authorities have a strong tradition of supporting the education of their children and regard it as an extremely important part of their duties.
The second is for reasons of local interest. Education is an extremely personal and local matter. Anyone who has served on an education authority will know how deeply individuals feel about even small changes proposed to the way in which a school is run and how deeply parents feel about the education of their children. It is necessary to have a local focus in the control and influence on education, and whatever happens to the structure of education, it will always remain a key local issue.
The third is for reasons of local strategy. The quality of education in an area is a key part of attracting employers to the area. If someone is looking to locate a factory in a part of the country which they do not know well, among the first questions they ask are: "How well trained are my potential employees? What educational traditions do they have in the area? How well looked after will the children of the

1461
employees that I wish to move up there be? Will it be somewhere that they are keen to go or will they be clamouring to keep their children in the schools that they are now in because they can find nothing satisfactory in the new location?"
Education has a key role to play in dealing with local social problems. Many of the problems which local authorities face and which they have statutory duties to deal with have their roots in the school days of the people concerned. It is necessary for local authorities to be able to influence the way in which local children are educated as this may be part of the problem they have to deal with as those children grow to maturity.
I do not believe that it would be appropriate for local authorities to fund individual grant-maintained schools. That would be interfering too directly with what is intended to be an independent institution. It would produce obvious and continual conflicts between the local authority and the funding authority. I believe that funding could be directed from a local authority to the funding authority for the use by the funding authority for the schools of the local authority concerned. Funding should thus be subject to the particular local authority's wishes and to the approval and control of the funding authority concerned. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend was kind enough to give me some notice of his concerns in the amendments. From speaking to the amendments and talking to me before the debate I know that he has concerns in a number of areas. My noble friend has explained to me his intentions, and I believe them to be entirely honourable. He is concerned about the relationship between key partners and how the reforms will work out in practice. I too envisage a situation in which GM schools and LEAs co-operate in the best interests of the community at large. Many LEAs already co-operate fully with GM schools in their area, recognising that their primary raison d'être is to provide the best possible education for the pupils in the area; and while some LEAs appear to believe that the existence of GM schools is a threat to the LEA, those are few, and I am happy to say growing fewer, as experience with GM schools demonstrates that both schools and LEA share a common aim.
It would be inappropriate to legislate to provide for the laudable aim behind the amendment, which is to allow LEAs to give a financial boost to local GM schools should they choose to do so. As I have made clear previously, the funding authorities will have funding responsibility for grant-maintained schools only. They will calculate and distribute grant to those GM schools in accordance with a formula provided by the Secretary of State.
In order to avoid any possibility of wasteful duplication of tasks, we have ensured that the funding authorities will not in any circumstances be in a position to make grants to LEA-maintained schools, which will continue to be funded by their LEA, and so it is very difficult to conceive of a situation in which an
1462
LEA should make grants to a funding authority as such moneys would not be used to make grants to LEA-maintained schools and those schools should not be deprived of funds to which they are entitled.
LEAs can make available to their own LEA-maintained schools "extra" injections of cash by means of an in-year budget change. To maintain a level playing field, GM schools in the LEA area would receive an extra sum calculated by replication.
I hope that my noble friend will consider that argument and accept that, while there are many ways in which LEAs and the GM sector will be able to co-operate for the good of all, the amendment would be inappropriate.
There are many other aspects of that relationship; for example, each year the funding authorities will estimate the amount of money they need for that year. If Parliament approves more money than, for whatever reason, turns out to be needed, then in accordance with normal practice the Government will take a view on where across the range of their programmes the money might best be used.
The financial memorandum for the funding authorities will set out a framework within which the funding agency will have to work. That will make provision for dealing with surpluses. In practice, of course, much will depend upon how large any surplus is. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State would, in practice, have to look also at what additional needs had occurred in other respective programmes of work of the funding agency and DFE. But of course there are a number of reasons why surpluses should not be a major issue. For the running costs of the funding agency itself we shall agree annual estimates. For the grant provision to be made to schools by the funding agency the position will need to be looked at according to each type of grant; for example, by far the biggest grant, the annual maintenance grant, should not be an issue as the costs of that are recovered from LEAs. If AMG is different from the initial estimates that will be covered by a balancing adjustment by the Department for Education with the relevant LEAs.
The sums paid to grant-maintained schools in other types of grants are not recovered from LEAs. But those grants should not present major issues either. Transitional and most special purpose grants are paid on pupil number related formulae. If pupil number estimates are out of line with real growth, that will be seen fairly early and action can be taken to divert funds to other programmes. As to capital grants, the majority of funds are allocated to schools which are grant maintained at the beginning of the financial year. Some funds are allocated on a pupil number related formula to schools as they join the sector but, as with special grants, any change in estimates compared with real growth will be monitored carefully and appropriate action taken. In the course of such a review of needs, the Secretary of State will obviously look closely at whether he has unmet needs in any of his programmes.
Grants to the funding authorities will be subject to terms and conditions. Those are terms and conditions which the funding agency must meet, not terms and

1463
conditions about the levels of grant to grant-maintained schools. Matters to do with grants to schools are best dealt with in debate on Chapter VI of Part II.
The funding agency will be a corporate body which will carry out the functions given to it by the Bill. It will be a NDPB which will operate in accordance with guidance and directions issued by the Secretary of State as to the exercise of those functions. The terms and conditions to be attached to payment of grant by the DFE to the funding agency will be set out in the financial memorandum.
The functions to be conferred on the funding agency are principally executive and operational. They will be concerned initially with the calculation and payment of grants and, increasingly over time, with the provision of school places. As a corporate body the funding agency can only exercise functions for which it has statutory cover. The funding agency's actions will thus be closely prescribed and monitored. We shall ensure that the funding agency has sound financial management arrangements and that it achieves its objectives efficiently and effectively within available resources.
Initially, the agency's main function will be the calculation and payment of grant to grant-maintained schools in accordance with regulations and guidance from the Secretary of State. We shall later have the opportunity to debate the provisions of the Bill relating to the regulations.
The funding agency will be accountable to the Secretary of State. Like any other member of the Government he is accountable to Parliament. The Secretary of State will be accountable for his actions in this area as in all others. It will be open to all Members of the Committee to table questions and to use all Parliament's procedures and opportunities, as I am sure they will, to hold the Secretary of State accountable through myself and others.
Perhaps we may begin with the relative funding of grant-maintained and LEA schools. There has been some confusion here. It has been suggested that it would be fair for a grant-maintained school to have extra responsibilities compared to LEA schools yet have no share of the money LEAs spend on meeting those responsibilities for their own schools. I think that the schools in question would soon get out of breath running up the side of that particular level playing field.
Grant-maintained schools receive their main running costs in the form of annual maintenance grant, which is a definite level playing field. That is calculated primarily on the basis of LEA budget information and local management schemes. The total is then recovered from the relevant LEA, a point to which I shall return. The precise arrangements for calculating AMG are reviewed each year.
Those arrangements each year have retained a clear link with local authority funding decisions. Some have criticised the fact that one element of that link is the percentage addition that grant-maintained schools receive over and above LMS. That point is frequently made to us in the department. Perhaps I may put all minds at rest on that.
1464
Those additional moneys are based on the levels of central spending by LEAs themselves. All we are doing for grant-maintained schools through the percentage addition is giving them a cash sum in place of what LEAs spend centrally on their own schools. The moneys pay for a wide variety of items ranging from structural repairs to payroll services.
The calculations are fair and objective. They are made under regulations laid before the House each year by the Secretary of State. This will continue to be the case under Clause 76 in future. Parliament will be able to scrutinise what the Secretary of State has put in the regulations. The funding agency will administer the legal provisions; it will not decide them. By the time this Bill has Royal Assent we will have a working model of the common funding formula. Our intention is that it will be introduced in the first areas as needed in April 1994.
Another recurring theme has been the effects of the grant-maintained funding arrangements on certain LEA services. One example was home-to-school transport. Section 55 of the Education Act 1944, as amended by Section 100 of the Education Reform Act 1988, makes it quite clear that LEAs have the same responsibility towards funding provision for pupils at grant-maintained schools as though those schools were still LEA maintained. The calculation of AMG for grant-maintained schools is therefore made net of the money that LEAs spend on home-to-school transport.
Exactly the same point applies to a range of other services provided by LEAs. The educational psychology service is one example. Provision for statemented pupils is another. The money and the duty both reside with the LEA now and this will continue to be the case.
I recognise, of course, that not all pupils with, for example, emotional and behavioural difficulties, will be statemented; but many will be. Our own funding arrangements for those who are not will retain a basis in how LEAs make provision for such children. The great majority of funding for such pupils is delegated on a per pupil basis. Under current arrangements we replicate that pound for pound. Many LEAs also use proxy measures of educational need to channel additional funds to schools. We shall consider what it would be right to include in the CFF at the appropriate time.
I turn now to the anxiety that some Members of another place and Members of this Committee seem to have about the fact that the costs of AMG are recovered from local funds. Again, let me reassure them. The current SSA arrangements are such that LEAs continue to receive grant in respect of pupils in grant-maintained schools. There are some good technical reasons for that, though naturally it is something to be kept under review where the growth in numbers of grant-maintained schools is most pronounced.
In terms of fairness, this system is certainly fair to LEAs. They are in effect paying back money that they do not need, as they no longer have the responsibility for schools in their area which have become grant-maintained. If we were to spend new Exchequer

1465
funds on AMG then LEAs would receive a windfall; their grant income would remain as before but their spending on schools would be enabled to fall.
I shall now leave aside AMG, at least until we reach Clause 76, and turn to other grants received by grant-maintained schools. There is a variety of those to reflect their particular circumstances; for example, special grants which mirror the grants for education support and training paid to LEAs, and special grants which reimburse grant-maintained schools for their new additional VAT liability. There is also transition grant which assists LEA schools that are going grant-maintained to prepare themselves for grant-maintained status.
The Government are determined to ensure that grant-maintained schools are established on a sound basis and the Prime Minister made it clear in a letter released to the press last summer that we do look favourably at grant-maintained schools in allocating grants to capital expenditure. But this is by no means at the expense of schools remaining in the LEA sector. Ministers take decisions about the allocation of public spending, looking at competing priorities across all public services. They allocate separately to LEA and GM schools, and therefore less for GM schools would not necessarily mean more for LEA schools.
I have dealt with the matter at length because it is complicated. It is important to get it on the record because there is a great deal of interest both outside and inside this Committee. I thank my noble friend for being so helpful in warning me of the particular points which he wished to make in the debate. If he is happy with my reassurances, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I shall be brief because the Minister gave an extremely full reply to the amendments. I believe that on this side of the Committee we share a sense of bewilderment that there will be no lead planning role for either the FAS or the local education authorities.
Our problem with the proposals as put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is that, under his amendments, possibly even greater powers could be given to the Secretary of State. We would really prefer amendments along the lines of Amendment No. 49, and the corresponding raft of amendments. That would be our preferred approach to the problem.
10 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I believe that the noble Lord is speaking to a later amendment which is also tabled in my name. The amendment under discussion does not concern the relationship between LEAs and funding authorities in terms of allocation of responsibilities; it merely empowers local authorities to provide funding authorities with money. I gain the impression from the noble Lord's remarks that he is concerned with Amendment No. 57.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I am sorry if I have confused the noble Lord. I thought that I was speaking to Amendments Nos. 34 and 35.
Lord Lucas: I hoped that the noble Lord was in fact speaking to those amendments, but I gained the impression that his remarks were not directed to them.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I understand.
Lord Lucas: I thank my noble friend the Minister for the very full reply that she gave to my questions. I gained the sense earlier that she did not agree with my amendments and, indeed, she confirmed that fact at the end of her remarks. However, she said a great deal which I should like to take away and consider. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Provision of information]:
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Supervision of funding authorities by the Secretary of State]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 3, line 18, at end insert:
("() Subsection (1) does not apply to the exercise by a funding authority of their powers to make proposals for the establishment, alteration or discontinuance of schools, but in exercising those powers they shall instead have regard to any guidance published by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection as to the considerations to which funding authorities should have regard in the exercise of those powers.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall deal briefly with the amendment. But, before I begin, I wonder whether I may first check the position as regards the wording in line 1 of Clause 7. I believe that the first word "Incising" is incorrect and that is should in fact be two words; namely, "In exercising". I hope that the Minister can confirm that that is a typographical error.
The amendment relates to Clause 7, which provides the Secretary of State with an unfettered power of direction which includes the power to overrule any decisions of the funding authority. Despite what may have been said earlier today, let us hope that some of those decisions will have been taken co-operatively with the LEAs. The effect of the amendment is intended to increase the Secretary of State's accountability by requiring him to publish guidance rather than unpublished directions, and by permitting the authority to have regard to his guidance and then form its own view rather than simply following the guidance blindly. I do not suggest that members of an authority would follow the guidance blindly but they should not be required to follow it without the opportunity to form an independent view.
Given that the matters which the authority will have to consider are major matters such as closure and reorganisation, they deserve public debate. We have talked about the centralisation of power and decision-making in the hands of the Secretary of State. We are keen that, whatever is written on the face of the Bill, there should be efficient and productive

1467
relationships with LEAs. All of us who have been involved in any form of government know that the more open and pluralistic the machinery, the better the decision that is taken. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: At an earlier stage my noble friend the Minister gave an interesting disquisition on the relative force of guidance and guidelines. It seems to me that it would be helpful if she could refresh my memory at least on that disquisition because what is proposed in this amendment is that the provisions of Clause 7(1) shall be disapplied to authorities at a particular and sensitive stage. What is disapplied is the power of making a direction. The authorities are no longer to be subject to direction. They are to be subject instead to,
"any guidance published by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection".
It would be helpful if the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, could tell us by what procedure those orders would be published. Is this to be a parliamentary procedure such as would fall within the purview of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, or will it be an informal matter, in which case will it have the force of law? If the authority disregards the guidance, will it be possible to take it to court, or will it face no penalty if it disobeys the guidance? I know that later on my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway will discuss appellate procedures of this nature. It would be helpful if we could know what it is that is going to be appealed against, and if my noble friend the Minister could tell us what force that would have.
Lord Skidelsky: I have considerable sympathy with the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as her amendment tries to loosen the bonds of the Secretary of State on the funding authority. I believe that on the whole that is a good thing. I believe that the Bill tends towards over-centralisation. I would like to see that loosened and more discretion given to the funding authority, particularly in the management of supply. I have only one question to ask at this point. Is it not the case that what the noble Baroness is proposing is in contradiction to Clause 48, which seems to give the Secretary of State the power to insert himself at will into the process of approving the implementation of decisions to open and close schools? That also would need to be addressed.
Lord Judd: This might be an appropriate moment to remember the old adage that rules are there for the guidance of wise men and observance by fools. Obviously if there is to be real responsibility in the development of education on the part of governing bodies, parents and others, there must be room for flexibility. There are real fears at present about an over rigid dirigiste approach. In this context, therefore, we should welcome the amendment.
Earl Russell: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for saying what he did. The point of a council is that one ought to take advice from it. Advice ought to partake of the nature of a dialogue. We are not at all points convinced that that is how the measure will work. The amendment could help it to
1468
work in that way and bring it into line with centuries of tradition concerning how one ought to take counsel.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: As I understand it, Amendment No. 40 would disapply Clause 7(1) relating to the power of the Secretary of State to give directions as to the exercise by the funding authorities of their functions so that the Secretary of State could not direct the funding authority in matters connected with its functions of reorganisation, such as the establishment, alteration and discontinuance of schools.
The amendment of the noble Baroness would weaken the powers of the Secretary of State to supervise the actions of the funding authority. It would take away from the Secretary of State the ability to direct the authority to bring forward proposals where he deems them necessary to resolve a difficulty over the supply of places. Of course, we shall be giving the funding authorities some guidance on how they should approach their responsibilities, as my noble friend Lord Elton said. But we need to be able to back that up with a direction where necessary.
This is a complicated subject. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that it was just a matter of rules and questioned whether they were that important. I believe that this is such a complex and important part of the Bill that I should like to give the Committee some background information.
Members of the Committee have properly raised questions about our proposals for the future organisation and planning of school provision. I know that many Members of the Committee in particular are keen to explore how matters will work in practice between the 10 per cent. and 75 per cent. points when both the LEAs and the funding authority will have separate duties to act to ensure that there are sufficient school places in the area of a particular LEA. It is in that context that the noble Baroness raised her point.
I appreciate that the questions and, in some cases, even doubts are generated by genuine concern that we can always guarantee a proper and suitable education for each and every child in our nation. I can assure the Committee that much more thought has been given to ensuring that the system we envisage will work effectively and to the benefit of schools and pupils. I have confidence in the proposals and the way in which they will work.
We shall, of course, have the opportunity to discuss the details of what is proposed when we come to later clauses. However, in advance of those important discussions the Committee may find it helpful if I set out the principles which will govern the way the shared duty will work.
First, we propose that the LEA should remain responsible for its own maintained schools and that the funding authority should assume certain responsibilities in respect of grant-maintained schools. The powers of both bodies to bring forward statutory proposals affecting schools will be limited to those schools for which they are both responsible. The funding authority and the LEA should not simply ignore what is happening in the other sector.

1469
Therefore, we propose that when considering the needs of their particular sector both bodies should have to take account of the provision that already exists in the other sector.
Members of the Committee have asked how the new system will respond to increased demand for school places in an area, perhaps as a result of growth in the local school age population. Where there is a need for more places we would expect much of the response to come from the grant-maintained schools themselves. We believe that they will be eager to meet increased demand for places from parents. There will also be the opportunity for those in the voluntary sector to put forward proposals for new self-governing schools. The Churches will, of course, have a key role to play here, but we should also be very happy to see proposals from other faith communities and from business and industry.
All proposals for a new grant-maintained school or for the significant enlargement of an existing self-governing school will be decided by the Secretary of State. In other words, they will be treated similarly to proposals from the governing body of a voluntary school. That process will be familiar to a number of Members of the Committee.
The type of proposals I have described so far essentially respond to parental choice. I believe that giving schools the freedom to respond to demand will go a very long way to ensuring that that demand is met.
However, there will clearly be the need for a more strategic planning responsibility to be placed on local authorities in partnership with the funding authority if we are to guarantee sufficient school places. Both the local authorities and the funding authority will therefore need to have information about the needs of the area and the provision already made in the other sector. That is why Clause 5 of the Bill places a duty on LEAs to provide the funding authority with such information as it requires in order to fulfil its functions. Similarly the funding authority will be required to give information to the LEA to enable it to fulfil its functions. The type of information that will be required by the funding authority will include projected numbers of pupils in each age group requiring places in maintained and grant-maintained schools; and the amount of provision that already exists in county and voluntary schools.
Gathering and supplying such information should not place significant new burdens on local authorities. As indeed the noble Baroness knows, local authorities already need for their own purposes most of the information likely to be required. Members of the Committee may find it helpful to have some concrete examples. Local authorities should already know, for example, actual and projected birth figures obtained from the county's planning department; the relationship between birth and actual attendances; the number of pupils going to independent or special schools; the level of migration in and out of the area; the number of pupils receiving education other than at school; and the number of dwellings built in each area in the past year and projected future building derived
1470
from figures supplied by the planning department or the district council. Members of the Committee may consider that to be a long and complicated list, but it is all information that efficient authorities already collate. Certainly when I was a member of it, my local authority did that as a second nature activity. The only difference will be that the local authority may increasingly need to obtain information about grant-maintained schools in its area. But even that is not completely new. Local authorities which have grant-maintained schools in their area are already engaged in taking on board such information. The establishment of the funding authority should help and not hinder them in this task. I am confident that in practice the exchange of information between the LEA and the funding authority will be conducted on an informal and workmanlike basis.
That said, we have thought it right to set out on the face of the Bill the framework for the provision and exchange of information between those bodies. That way we can guarantee that each body will have access to the information that it needs. The results of the exchange of information between the LEA and funding authority should mean that both are clear what demands there will be for additional places in the area of the LEA. Our hope is that there will also be an exchange of views about the best way of meeting those demands. Until now there has been no real provision for co-ordinated action across the LEA, and grant-maintained sectors and the provisions of the Bill should make that possible.
Members of the Committee come from many walks of life, as we all know, but the Committee will also recognise how often a clear and thorough analysis of an issue reveals an obvious solution to a question or problem. So I hope it will often be in the planning of school places. But I am confident also that in most instances a common view will emerge about the types of additional provision that will best meet the needs of the particular locality. That is not dissimilar from the judgment that LEAs currently have to make when deciding whether to encourage the expansion of a voluntary school or propose the extension of a county school.
I know that these are all complicated and vexed issues and I realise that agreement may not always be reached. Even with genuine good will on all sides, consensus is not always possible. Where it is not, both the local authority and the funding authority would be free to bring forward statutory proposals—in relation, of course, to their own sectors only. It would then fall to the Secretary of State to decide what would be the most appropriate. I can say that there are some parents around the country who would heave a great sigh of relief if at least there were a choice between some forms of amalgamation and closure.
For his part the Secretary of State would make his decision having taken account of the views of parents and other interested parties. It will be vital that any proposals are well informed and reflect accurately likely demand for school places in an area. When considering bringing forward its own proposals, the funding authority will have the information from the LEA about the need for places. In some instances it

1471
may also wish to purchase other professional advice from consultants or from the Office for Standards in Education; and it would be free to do so.
I know that questions have been asked about the scope for the funding authority to establish a new school or to make significant changes to the character of existing schools. Changes to existing schools have rightly been identified as a matter which needs to be handled sensitively. Where the funding authority decides that it should itself propose changes to schools, or the establishment of a new school, it will be required to consult those who have an interest. The way it does so will no doubt vary according to the type of proposal. It is not for me to tie the hands of the chief executive, but there are a number of ways in which that consultation can properly be carried out. The funding authority might, for example, use consultants or its own staff to hold public meetings in order to gauge local opinion.
Once the consultation process has been carried out, the funding authority will need to publish proposals in the local paper and display notices in the relevant area. This requirement mirrors the format in which local authorities currently publish such proposals.
No doubt the funding authority will ask the relevant schools to display the notices at their school gates, just as local authorities do now. Proposals made by the funding authority will require the approval of the Secretary of State, if he gives notice to that effect, or if objections have been made. If the proposals do not attract any objections and the Secretary of State decides not to exercise his powers to call in the proposals so that he makes the decision about whether they should be approved, then they will be decided by the funding authority. The responsibility for the implementation of the proposals will rest with the governing body either of the existing grant-maintained school (Clause 91 of the Bill) or the funding authority in relation to a prospective grant-maintained school (Clause 9 of the Bill). The funding authority will be responsible for making the necessary grants to enable the premises called for by the proposals to be provided.
It will not have escaped the Committee's notice that from the 10 per cent. limit voluntary bodies will also be able to propose the establishment of new grant-maintained schools. From this point promoters, either voluntary bodies or perhaps business and industry groups, will be able to put forward proposals for new self-governing grant-maintained schools. The procedures for making such proposals would be similar to those that exist now whereby voluntary bodies may put forward proposals for new voluntary schools.
The funding authority would have to be consulted before such proposals were published and the funding authority, along with other interested parties specified in Schedule 3 Part II would also have the right to submit objections to the proposal.
I know that there is concern that giving the funding authority a part to play in the planning of school places will lead to duplication and unnecessary bureaucracy. I know that again that view has been expressed by members of the noble Baroness's party.
1472
I have already explained how we see the shared planning function working in practice and I hope that that explanation has offered some reassurance. But I need to explain why the funding authority needs to have some responsibilities for planning school places. Without the involvement of the funding authority, there can be no sensible planning framework for the grant-maintained sector. The local authority has no power to plan the grant-maintained sector, nor would it be right for local authorities to have such powers. Grant-maintained schools have voted to leave local authority control. Clause 10 and Schedule 2 of the Bill clearly leave the overall Section 8 responsibility for securing sufficient places with the local authority between the 10 and 75 per cent. points. Only when there are not sufficient places does the funding authority have a duty to bring forward proposals to increase the supply of places. Of course, this does not rule out the funding authority bringing forward proposals at any other time, if it judges that to do so would be in the interests of pupils or the efficient use of resources.
I am not against a little healthy competition and I see no evil in the existence of competing proposals: one set from the local authority and one from the funding authority for a new school or an enlargement to an existing school. In such circumstances, of course, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will have the responsibility for deciding which should go ahead. He, of course, will consult all those with an interest before he takes his decision.
The fact that the funding authority is based centrally will not stop it being able to obtain information about local concerns. It will be able to gather much of what it needs from discussions with existing grant-maintained schools and consultation with the local authority. But where the funding authority needed information that schools and local authorities cannot yield, it would be free to use its powers under Clause 18 to commission research for that purpose.
The funding authority will have a considerable amount of information available to it. Each proposal by a school for grant-maintained status is supported by detailed information. Of course, this information will need to be updated, but here again, there are existing mechanisms to provide for that. First, the regular four-yearly reports by OFSTED will give accurate and up-to-date pictures of each school. Secondly, the annual census data and information provided on examination results will yield information about the school's performance, year on year. In addition, the funding authority has the power under the Bill to request information from the appropriate local authority where that is necessary in order to enable the funding authority to fulfil its functions. If all that is not enough, Clause 18 gives the funding authority the power to carry out research in order to obtain any necessary information.
The practicality of the funding authority making all arrangements involved in establishing new schools is one that is now well-established in the minds of Members of the Committee. Pertinent and probing questions have been asked about how the funding

1473
authority can undertake such a long-term planning role. There is a long lead-in time from the point when it is decided that a new school will be needed until the school can open its doors. There is a need to identify several years in advance population increases or changes that will lead to the need for a new school. That will not be new to the noble Baroness, and it is certainly not new to me as a former member of a local authority. But that long lead-in time will give the funding authority the opportunity to investigate what the local needs are and to plan provision of a new school where that is considered necessary. The process that we envisage the funding authority following would be similar to that employed by local authorities. That would involve being aware of the likely demand for places in the area. As I have already explained, local authorities already have to collect detailed information about potential growth in the population of an area and about plans for housing development. Local authorities will continue to need to collect such information and will be required to share it with the funding authority.
Having recognised that there is a potential need for additional places in an area, the funding authority will need to consider whether that can best be met in the grant-maintained sector and, if so, by what means. The Committee will realise that we have specifically provided in Schedule 2 of the Bill for the funding authority to be under no duty to bring forward proposals at stage two where to do so would not be a cost-effective option. If the funding authority considers that the need for school places should be met in the grant-maintained sector, it can propose a significant enlargement of one or more existing grant-maintained school or the establishment of a brand new GM school.
Let us suppose that the funding authority has reached the conclusion that a new GM school is the best way to provide additional school places that will be needed for a few years hence. The funding authority will then need to purchase a site for its school. We shall bring forward amendments to enable the funding authority compulsorily to purchase a site either for a school it proposes or on behalf of promoters. The funding authority will then need to consult the local population and publish statutory proposals.
At the time the proposals are published the funding authority should also be able to give an indication of the temporary governing body and the proposals will fall to be decided by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It is in that context that Amendment No. 40 exists. Because we are at the very start of the Bill it is important to be clear about the context because I believe that this will form the backdrop not just for Amendment No. 40 but for many of the other amendments that will come in the course of the Bill.
We need to be clear that the funding authority will only ever make proposals about the organisation of grant-maintained schools: schools that have already chosen to leave the control of the local education authority. The funding authority will not make
1474
decisions about LEA-maintained schools. Even then, controversial proposals that attract statutory objections will only be able to be decided by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. That means that where proposals arouse strong feelings in the community, local people will have the opportunity to make sure that the proposals are decided by the Secretary of State. That is the role he already has in relation to county and voluntary schools and there is no reason to suggest that it should not equally satisfactorily extend to grant-maintained schools.
The decisions about the organisation of grant-maintained schools are, however, not solely in the hands of the funding authority. It is open to the governors of existing grant-maintained schools or promoters to bring forward their own proposals. I have every expectation that that will often be the way that fresh demand is met. One has to recognise, however, that there will be occasions, as there are with county and voluntary schools, where it is easier for someone who is removed from the day-to-day running of the school to see that need for change. That is particularly the case where there is a need to rationalise provision. In such cases there is no reason why the funding authority, after appropriate local consultation, should not bring forward statutory proposals. The local authority does not lose responsibility under Section 8 of the 1944 Act for ensuring that there are sufficient cases until at least 75 per cent. of pupils are in grant-maintained schools. That will not happen unless parents in the area are firmly behind the grant-maintained option.
I know that this has been a long answer but it does set in context the specific amendment and other amendments.
Lord Elton: Before my noble friend sits down perhaps she will make her full answer complete by answering my question. What would be the force in law of the guidance proposed in the amendment? How would that differ from the force in law of the direction in the Bill as drafted?
Baroness Blatch: The particular status of guidance is precisely the answer I gave earlier; that is, that local authorities and key agents would absolutely, positively, have to have regard to it. Therefore, in coming to any decision and taking any action the local authorities would have to prove and be open to challenge that they did have regard to the guidance in coming to a view about policy.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may further delay the noble Baroness in sitting down and ask her a question arising from the first part of her speech about the Secretary of State's power to give directives. Can she tell me any occasion when the Secretary of State has changed his policy because of advice originating from a funding council?
Baroness Blatch: That is an impossible question to answer because we do not have a funding council at the moment. Does the noble Earl mean a funding council as it relates to higher or further education?
Earl Russell: Any funding council.
Baroness Blatch: I do not know. It is not a laughing matter for the noble Earl. I deal with much of the day-to-day matters and my colleague in another place, Mr. Tim Boswell, deals with further and higher education. I know that any information that comes to us from such agencies is taken extremely seriously and we are entirely scrupulous about taking that advice into account. After all, they are key agents in the process.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister yields to no one in her ability to speed read aloud. I thank her for an extremely full answer which covered a great deal more than the amendment and which will, I know, bear considerable reading and re-reading for further material.
I will not yield to the temptation of responding in detail to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, put his finger on it. The amendment is not about getting the correct procedures drafted at Committee stage. It raises the issue of the relationship between the authority and the Secretary of State; in other words, whether or not the authority, in "having regard to", is taking into account and considering but then perhaps forming its own view, having taken account of the Secretary of State's guidance or guidelines. Like the noble Lord, I recall the debate we had on those terms but not in sufficient detail, I regret, to remember the outcome. The distinction is between taking a matter into account and actually complying with a direction.
The noble Baroness spoke at some length about the strategic role of the local authority; she spoke too about weakening the powers of the Secretary of State to supervise the authority. The members of the authority and its chief executive are appointed by the Secretary of State. In other words—and without intending to be insulting—they would be his "creature".
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She is quite wrong when she says that they will be his "creature". If the local authorities wish to exercise that responsibility, that is entirely a matter for them. It is only when they fail to exercise that responsibility, and the funding agency also, that there is a role for the Secretary of State. So local authorities have it in their own hands to make sure that they do not place the Secretary of State in that position.
Baroness Hamwee: Amendment No. 40 is directed to the exercise of specific powers by the funding authority. I take the point that there might not be the scenario in which one reaches that stage; nevertheless the amendment is directed to the narrower point of the funding authority taking its own view rather than complying precisely with the direction by the Secretary of State. I appreciate that, whether or not the term "the Secretary of State's creature" was insulting, it was not perhaps the most tactful approach. But having appointed the members of the authority and the chief executive, it is surely appropriate for the Secretary of State then to allow the authority to exercise its discretion. After all, he must
1476
have had confidence in them in the first place. The amendment is directed to allowing the authority a degree of freedom from the Secretary of State's directions if those directions are very rigid.
Having had such a lengthy answer from the Minister, the appropriate and courteous course would be to read it carefully, which I shall do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 3, line 19, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A) below")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment and Amendments Nos. 44 and 254 concern small schools, particularly but not exclusively village schools. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there should be a consultation process when the closure of a school, particularly a village school, is under consideration or, alternatively, if it is considered that in any area there are more schools than can meet the number of pupils and that therefore one school has to close. It is suggested that there should be consultation with parents, teachers and the community and that this should take place in the formative stage. The purpose of suggested closure should be known to those considering it. The representation should be conscientiously taken into account when a final decision is made.
The amendment applies to the funding authority after 10 per cent. of local authority schools become the responsibility of funding agencies. Amendment No. 44 applies also to local authority schools and grant-maintained schools. Under Amendment No. 254, if there is disagreement between those who have been consulted and the funding authority or the local authority the case should go to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Hooper): This is intended to be a paving amendment for Amendment No. 44.
Baroness Blatch: I was given notice that the amendment was grouped with Amendments Nos. 41, 42, 43 and 44. Unless it is spoken to I am in some difficulty because I have treated them as a whole group.
Baroness Faithfull: I apologise to my noble friend because Amendments Nos. 41 and 43 are exactly the same as Amendments Nos. 42 and 44. Unfortunately, a duplication was made in the printing of the amendments.
Baroness Blatch: But they are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Is the noble Lord withdrawing them?
Lord Judd: Not moved.
Baroness Blatch: What is the noble Lord not moving?
Lord Judd: Those in my name.
Baroness Blatch: Would the noble Lord like to name the amendments that he is not moving?
Lord Judd: I am not moving those amendments in my name—Amendments Nos. 41 to 44.
Noble Lords: Amendments Nos. 41 to 43!
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord clearly does not know the amendments he has down on the Marshalled List. They are Amendment No. 41, I think, and Amendment No. 43. As I was given warning and had it confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, this morning, I shall speak to the group of amendments because they are all on the same theme.
I understand that the thought behind the amendments and the intention is to prevent the Secretary of State directing the funding agency to bring forward proposals in respect of a particular named school.
I am able to assure the Committee that the clause, as presently drafted, prevents the Secretary of State from doing just that. We have cast this particular net so widely that the Secretary of State can only direct the funding agency in respect of a group or class of grant-maintained schools or all grant-maintained schools. Therefore, it is not possible for him to single out a particular school. There is no question of him directing the funding agency to bring forward proposals for reorganisation in respect of a named school.
I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that the provisions of Clause 7 are such that there can be no question of favouritism for or prejudice against a particular school. I should also like to use this opportunity to draw to the attention of the Committee
1478
Clause 219 of the Bill, which concerns the Secretary of State's powers to direct either the local authority maintained sector or the grant-maintained sector, to bring forward proposals to remedy surplus places. Subsection (4) of that clause makes clear that a direction cannot relate to a named school. My noble friend's Amendment No. 40 would weaken the powers of the Secretary of State to supervise the actions of the funding authority. It would take away from him the ability to direct the authority to bring forward proposals, where he deems them necessary, to resolve a difficulty over the supply of places. I am sure that that is not what is intended by my noble friend.
We shall be giving the funding authorities some guidance on how they should approach their responsibilities in these areas, but we need to be able to back that up with a direction where necessary. I believe that much of my response to Amendment No. 40 is pertinent in these cases. I do not know which amendments are now under consideration, but I hope that they will all be withdrawn.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 42.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Extension of functions of Audit Commission]:
[Amendments Nos. 45 to 47 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Warnock Baroness Warnock moved Amendment No. 48:
Before Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Nursery education
(".—(1) Section 24 of the Education Act 1980 (Nursery Education: England and Wales) shall be repealed.
(2) It shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure that that there shall be available for their area sufficient nursery schools or places, and to maintain such schools or places established by them or a former authority, to provide full-time or part-time nursery education suitable to the requirements of any junior pupils who have attained the age of three years but have not attained the age of 5 years, and whose parents or guardians indicate that they desire such education to be provided.
(3) The Secretary of State shall satisfy himself in respect of each financial year in which this section has effect that the resources available to local education authorities are adequate to enable them to fulfil the requirements of this section.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall be comparatively brief because it is a very simple amendment. Its aim is to return to the vision of the Education Act 1944 which laid down in Section 8(2) (b) that it should be the duty of the local education authority to provide nursery education for those children whose parents or guardians want it for them. The first subsection of this amendment requires that Section 24 of the Education Act 1980, which overturned that part of the 1944 Act, be repealed. That is contained also in Amendment No. 338.
Subsection (2) of the amendment places the responsibility for the provision of nursery places on the LEAs. Subsection (3) seeks to ensure that there is sufficient funding for the LEAs to enable that duty to be carried out. I want to return to finance in a moment.
I suppose that we would all agree that the overriding aim of the Bill now before us is to improve educational standards. I do not suppose that anyone would deny the need to do that and to do it for all children and not just for a few. Yet it is increasingly evident that the surest way to achieve this end is to provide children with an early start to all aspects of their education.
In 1978, in the report on children with special educational needs, the committee advocated strongly the general provision of nursery education for all children as a statutory duty of local education authorities—that is, for all children whose parents wanted it. We did this because, concentrating as we were on special needs, we held —rightly, I think—that, when children are between the ages of three and five, it is easy to pick up those of them who have special educational needs or who will have them in the future, needs which often manifest themselves when the children begin school.
It is still true that identification of future needs is very easy at nursery school. But in the argument for the statutory provision of nursery education I would now rely on a different and, I think, far more compelling argument. I would argue that there are numbers of children whose needs can be met and whose future development can be assured at nursery school and not thereafter - or only with great difficulty and enormous expense. We are, after all, increasingly
1480
aware now of the deprivation, the lack of care, the lack of suitable stimulus, and the lack of conversation as well as the positive neglect or abuse which form the background of an increasing number of children. There are large numbers of children—many of them, I suppose, the children of single parents—who simply do not have what the idealised picture of the family would give them. Times have changed radically since 1978, and we must recognise that.
Children learn amazingly fast between the ages of three and five, and everybody who has had anything to do with children recognises that fact. But, if those years are wasted, when a child enters school at five he will already be backward both in his linguistic and motor skills and in his behavioural achievements. He may never catch up. If we want to ensure that, nationally, our children are not disgracefully less competent at the ages of seven, 11 and 14 than we should like them to be and if we want them to be as advanced as many of their European or Far Eastern contemporaries, we simply must decide not to waste the crucial years between three and five.
Of course, it is obvious what the Minister's answer will be. I have already had it from various members of the Government and from civil servants. That answer is that the universal provision of nursery education is far too expensive to be contemplated. I am tired of that response. It will be relatively expensive, especially during the period in which it is being introduced. I would not be so insane as to suggest that it could be introduced by a fiat on one particular day. It will take time to introduce universal nursery education, but I believe that when something is as crucial as this measure the expense must be faced. Taxpayers' money —that commodity which is always said to be so rare and which we hear about so often - must be spent where it is fruitful and productive, as it will be in this case.
In 1992, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities produced some figures which were supposed to cost the provision of nursery education for all children between the ages of three and five. It suggested that the somewhat staggering figure of £456 million would be needed every year to provide nursery education for all those children. Of course, it based those figures on a guess of what the take-up by parents and guardians would be. On that point it is difficult to do more than guess: we cannot know. Nevertheless, the figure of £456 million that it produced is, I believe, considerably too high. It includes not just the introduction of the new provision for all those children but the improvement of all existing provision. It is based also, I believe, on the premise that nursery education should be full time.
I believe that half a day's school is enough for children between the ages of three and five, and that they can obtain enormous benefits from a half day's schooling. That entails the schools being full-time although the children are not. One group of children may be educated in the morning and another in the afternoon. That is what regularly happens now in local authority nursery schools. That means that the cost would be far less than the AMA thought it would be.
One has to remember also that many LEAs already support children in playgroups and that some local authorities admit children into reception classes at regular primary schools after their fourth birthday and before their fifth birthday. That is to say, if a child's birthday falls in August he will attend primary school from the following September when he is barely four. So all those children will already be in receipt of funding. Therefore not all the money that will undoubtedly be needed to establish universal nursery education will be new money. In any case, I believe most strongly that the financial argument is fatally flawed.
The argument would be seen to be flawed if Ministers were prepared to take their courage in their hands and look clearly at the future. I do not ask that Ministers should look at tomorrow. Still less do I ask that they should look at whatever day it may be that they have to try to screw money out of the Treasury. I want them to look a generation or more ahead, because we now know—we are not guessing—that the provision of nursery education, the learning, when learning is easy, of language and of physical skills such as the use of pencils and paint brushes, the disciplines of self-motivated learning, the social ability to become a member of a group and the understanding of the use of language by other people (the understanding that an instruction is something that is to be obeyed) are life saving for some children and for all children they are the firm foundation upon which they will build when they reach primary school.
It is impossible to exaggerate the difference that it makes to a child of five, who these days will be starting out, after all, on the national curriculum, whether he has attended a nursery school. That is the only sure way of raising education standards. I beg the Committee not to be put off by the argument that such provision costs too much. We must grasp the fact that we shall save far more money in the future if we spend it within the next year or two, or three or four.
Money now is wasted on a vast scale in trying to pick up the pieces of those children who fail at school. We should at once adopt the universal provision of nursery education as a principle to which we are committed firmly and from which we shall not again allow ourselves to be deflected and defeated by money problems. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: It is a great privilege to be associated with the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, in moving the amendment. I can think of no one with a more distinguished and admired record in this and many other related spheres.
In the Prime Minister's introduction to the White Paper, Choice and Diversity, he claims that,
"the Government are determined that every child in this country should have the very best start in life".
Yet the Bill makes no proposals to extend nursery education, let alone to make it universally available. Given the extensive research evidence showing the value of nursery education, that omission is quite extraordinary and must call into question the extent to which the Government are genuinely committed to raising standards.
1482
As far as I am aware the only independent evaluation of the 1992 key stage 1 SATs has been carried out by the National Union of Teachers in conjunction with Leeds University School of Education. The report was published on 15th March last. That evaluation identified highly significant variations in the performance of different groups of year two children. Significantly, children with nursery experience out-performed those who had not had nursery education.
Section 8(2)(b) of the Education Act 1944 contained a far-sighted provision which required local education authorities to ensure that education was made available for children under five. That was disastrously repealed by Section 24 of the Education Act 1980, which provided for local education authorities to have only a power to provide for educational facilities for children under five. The new clause which we are proposing, and the associated amendments, attempt to return the position broadly to that of the Education Act 1944, making provision for all those parents who want it.
Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause requires local education authorities to make available sufficient nursery schools and places, including both full-time and part-time provision, for children who have reached the age of three, as distinct from the 1944 Act which stipulated a minimum age of two. The subsection also requires that the provision should be "suitable". That is important because anxiety has often been expressed about four-year-olds being put into reception classes with children who are almost six. By insisting on the education being suitable it is hoped that nursery education will be provided for the younger children who can then progress to reception classes.
Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause requires the Secretary of State to satisfy himself each year that sufficient resources are available to meet the requirements of providing for nursery education. The amendments to Clause 10 on page 4, lines 12 and 14, exempt nursery education from the ambit of Clause 10. The Schedule 18 amendments remove Section 24 of the Education Act 1980.
Local authority nursery school staff are able to teach the children in appropriate ways because their work is based on firm principles of early childhood education. Teachers and nursery nurses discuss and plan their work together. For that reason there are rigorous and innovative approaches to curriculum development. The professional training of teachers and nursery nurses enables them to keep meticulous records and to provide a carefully planned and structured learning environment which encourages the all-round development of young children.
Research has constantly shown that nursery education offers children the best foundation for their future education, including the national curriculum. The Education, Science and Arts Committee in another place has been so impressed by the standard of nursery education that it has called for an expansion of nursery education to cater for all three

1483
and four year-old children whose parents desire it for them. Its report Standards of Reading in Primary Schools states:
"Our first concern is with pre-school provision. Before they learn to read, all children need a broad range of experiences, including playing, speaking, listening, using books, enjoying stories and recognising shapes. Nursery education provides an excellent opportunity for all these to be experienced. Our enquiry in 1988 into educational provision for the under-fives left us in no doubt of the value of nursery education".
Across the Atlantic, the conclusions are similar. American research into the long-term effect of a nursery curriculum based on play shows that children who experienced such a curriculum were progressing better in their schools, scored higher on tests of functional competence—practical reading, writing and calculation—and were less likely to be involved in criminal activity such as drug abuse. The research suggests also that children who are encouraged to be independent, active learners while young will be more community minded and responsible in adolescence. Indeed, American researchers have concluded that it is cost effective to provide high quality nursery education. For every 1,000 dollars invested, 4,130 dollars were returned to the taxpayer by way of savings on education and social problems later in life.
The most recent statistics from the government statistical service may give the impression that over half of three and four year-olds are receiving nursery education. The correct figure for children attending local authority nursery schools and classes in approximately 25 per cent. By contrast, it is noteworthy that reports from the Select Committee in another place, Her Majesty's Inspectorate and educational researchers have highlighted the inadequacy of many reception classes as distinct from nursery schools. Those reports express anxiety about the lack of appropriately qualified staff; inadequate staffing ratios (some four year-olds have been admitted to classes containing over 30 children with only one adult, and class sizes are generally rising); the inappropriateness of the curriculum (children attending nursery schools and classes generally receive a broader, more meaningful curriculum than children attending infant classes); the lack of suitable space, particularly outdoor play space; and the low expectations of infant staff. Research has shown that reception staff sometimes have lower expectations of the ability of four year-olds than staff working in nursery schools and classes.
It is clear from those reports that little consideration has been given to the needs of four year-olds when early admission policies have been implemented. All that and much more leads to the conclusion that state nursery education provides the most effective foundation for the educational careers of all our children. The combination of qualified staff providing a well thought-out planned curriculum that is appropriate for meeting the needs of young children and the long-term positive outcomes are power contributions to raising standards. Any further removal of funding for state education—and there are already reports of a further round of such cuts being under way—will result in neglecting the educational needs of under-fives which must be a retrograde step.
1484
We are constantly told by the Minister that this measure is designed to be a strategic Education Bill to carry us into the 21st century. Surely it is inconceivable that nursery education, arguably the single most important pillar of the Prime Minister's much trumpeted commitment to the very best start in life for all our children, should be ignored; hence the very deep and profound significance of this amendment.
11 p.m.
Baroness Seear: At this time of night and after the two speeches that we have already heard, I shall speak briefly in supporting this amendment. Like, I imagine, nearly everyone else in the Chamber, I have received a large number of letters from parents with children in nursery schools, particularly from parents who have children in nursery schools that face closure. The anxiety of parents who fear losing nursery education for their children is surely one of the best pieces of evidence available of the value that is placed on nursery education by parents who have children in nursery schools. In replying to those letters I have committed myself to saying what I can, however briefly, in support of this amendment.
I think we perhaps even now do not realise how seriously inadequate the education of the population as a whole in this country is. I suppose this Bill is intended to deal with that inadequacy. We can neither economically nor socially afford to allow our education to be as bad as it is at present for such a high proportion of the population. Of course it is excellent for some, but that is not the point. We have an appalling tale of under-educated people who will be quite unable to hold their own economically in the world of tomorrow. It is difficult enough for them to hold their own in the world of today and it will be infinitely more difficult in the world of tomorrow. Those people will almost inevitably become social liabilities and problems to themselves, to their neighbours and to society. There is no question about that. We have had all the evidence presented to us, and I shall not attempt to repeat it, of the educational value of nursery education. It gives children an opportunity to take advantage of the better education later on that we are hoping will be the outcome of this legislation. Nursery education is an investment. It costs a lot of money, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has said. Of course it does. All good education costs a lot of money. But if the money is spent in this way it will avoid a tremendous waste of money later on. The truancy we experience in schools at the present time is a waste of money and of resources. The failure to take up opportunities that are there is a waste of money and of resources. The Government are often accused of being short-term in their view of policies in general. Let not the Government be short-term in their education policies. If the Government wish to prove they are not short-term and that they understand what investment means in areas of this kind, the best way they can show that is to invest in nursery education.
I wish to make one other point which I believe has not yet been made. I speak with total ignorance of

1485
small children. I have just been away with three of them and how anyone copes with 30 in one class without going stark staring mad I cannot imagine. However, that is another matter. The small children who do not receive nursery education are not without learning experiences. What kind of learning experiences are they receiving? They are learning from videos and from what they see on some of the most undesirable, as well as some of the most desirable, television programmes that are around and which their families absorb day after day and night after night. Those are the impressions they receive at their most formative stage. We need to take that point seriously into account. If we want to counter those impressions, we must counter them with impressions, opportunities and learning of a social, intellectual and cultural kind that only nursery education can give. I beg the Government not to regard this as a frill to be afforded later on when we have a little more money but as an absolutely central part of the current education programme.
Baroness Faithfull: I have added my name to this amendment and I rise to support it. I shall not go into the details which have been so ably explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Nursery education is expensive, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has pointed out. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister would consider establishing the principle that nursery education should be available in this country.
I recognise that to introduce a policy of providing nursery education for all children in this country at this time might cost more than the country could bear, although I take the point that it would be money well spent. If the Government feel that they cannot do that, could they at least establish the principle of nursery education and then introduce it stage by stage? They might take three, four or five years to implement a policy of full nursery education for all children, but starting with the children most in need such as those who come to school at the age of five unable to speak any English and are therefore backward for all time. It might also be considered for the children of disruptive and unhappy families. Would it not be possible to work with Part III of the Children Act which states that care and education should be provided for all children in need up to the age of eight?
We must also consider that parents have choice. In the first instance they must choose for themselves what they believe to be right for their children. A number of parents in this country would prefer at this stage to joint the Pre-School Playgroups Association. Many of the people running playgroups are now being trained.
Therefore I make a slightly different contention. I am sure that if we were to ask all Ministers in Her Majesty's Government I dare to suggest that we would find that most, if not all, of them sent their children under five to nursery schools.
I accept the Government's point with respect to money. Could we not establish the belief in nursery
1486
education for all children, taking five years to implement such a policy, beginning by providing nursery education for those children most in need?
Baroness Young: I do not believe that there can be anybody who takes an interest in education, as all of us taking part in this Committee stage of the Bill do, who does not accept the importance of nursery education, which has been so well advanced in the speeches which we have heard. I do not intend to go over those arguments again because I am sure that my noble friend the Minister accepts them as much as I do or anybody who takes an interest in this matter does. There are a great many statistics to support all the contentions that have been made.
I believe that as Members of the House of Lords we have to be very careful before we commit the Government to the enormous amounts of extra expenditure involved. I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, say that it was no use saying that it was all too expensive and that she was tired of that argument. That may well be the case. We are often tired of hearing arguments repeatedly. However, I have heard the noble Baroness expound at equally great length on the importance of special education and how much more money we should spend on that. I have heard other noble Lords, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in particular, expound at great length on how much we should do to keep children at school after the age of 16 and in higher education.
The arguments are all ones which we understand, but those of us who take a responsible line in public life know that it is a very soft option to argue a case and say that the cost does not matter. That has led the country into a great deal of trouble. It would be quite wrong at this stage of the Bill to say that the cost does not matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said that it had been estimated that to provide nursery education would cost £460 million. It is my understanding that it would cost considerably more than that and that if the Government were to provide nursery education for every three and four year-old the cost could be over £1 billion. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can confirm that when she replies. It may well be that that would apply if every child were in full-time nursery education. I would accept the argument that part-time education is quite enough for three to five year-olds.
I was very interested in the argument of my noble friend Lady Faithfull, who supported the amendment but hoped that we could introduce nursery education stage by stage. If my noble friend looks at the statistics, that is exactly what is happening with regard to nursery education. Over 53 per cent. of under-fives were attending a nursery school in 1992. In the academic year 1991–92, 55 per cent. of children aged four were admitted to nursery classes. A further 19 per cent. of children aged four were admitted to primary school. Therefore, that provision is coming in stage by stage.
I was pleased to hear what the noble Baroness said about play groups. Over a quarter of a million places are available in pre-school provision—day nurseries, child minders and play groups. Forty-one per cent. of

1487
under-fives attend play groups. Therefore, to suggest that almost nothing is happening for the under-fives is quite incorrect. I believe that there is great virtue in the argument that there should be different forms of provision: there should be nursery schools and play groups. Play groups which involve parents are very valuable indeed. They help to train and they help mothers in difficult situations to see what is the best way to help their children. Quite incidentally, they provide an enormous amount of employment for people as well as benefiting the children.
What my noble friend argues for is happening. The numbers of children in nursery schools have risen by 55 per cent. since 1983. That is another way of saying that such provision is being introduced stage by stage. That being the case, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. But even if it were to be necessary, the House of Lords is not involved in raising money: it does not involve itself in taxation matters. It is quite wrong for us to commit the Government to expenditure of this proportion. Once we start to do that we are in great trouble. I ask my noble friends not to support the amendment on that ground, if not on any other.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: I have listened with interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. However, in referring to the financial privileges of another place, she has introduced a little bit of a blue herring, if I may so put it. The situation is perfectly well understood. It has always been in order for this House to make requests to another place involving the spending of money. Another place is perfectly well able to protect itself from those requests if it so wishes. However, to put about the idea that we in this place are not even allowed to ask is a voluntary abnegation of our functions which I do not believe is necessary.
The noble Baroness drew attention to the fact that trouble has occurred through spending money that we did not have. I agree that it has. I agree that that trouble must be avoided. What we are only just beginning to realise is the magnitude of the case for arguing that we have got into even worse trouble by not spending money; and indeed that not spending money may be a very expensive habit. I was most impressed by the figures supplied by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about the cost of not doing what the amendment recommends. Before invoking the argument of cost, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, might have costed it both ways. Doing nothing is not a cost-free option. One should consider the costs of that in any spending proposal that comes before one.
I shall not gild the lily of the arguments that we have heard already. I wish to add two small points. Speaking as a parent, I thoroughly agree with the arguments that have been put forward about the usefulness of nursery education. We have heard much during the Bill about the importance of parental choice. I am expressing a parental choice: I should like to be allowed to have it.
My noble friend Lady Seear alluded to some letters. I have received them too. They are impressive, well written, individual and with strong feel underlying
1488
them. I have great respect for those who regularly brief us, but I think Members of the Committee will understand what was meant by my friend the late Lord McNair. He said that he was always particularly impressed by letters from "real people". They have authority over the other place and one day they may express it.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: If I may say so, this has been by far the most impressive part of the debate this evening and one of the most impressive debates I have heard in the House for a long time. It seems to me that the quality has been like that of an Unstarred Question debate on a Wednesday evening. It has had something of that quality, though in a moment I shall say why I think it would be inappropriate for the Committee to accept the amendment this evening.
I hope nonetheless that there are benefits to be gained from the Committee stage debate which we are having. Almost everything the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said touched a chord in the Committee. I have for a long time been a firm believer in nursery education. I had the privilege of helping to organise the day nursery at the University of Southampton some 15 years ago and it was an important part of the higher education institution. However, it must be admitted that in the initial stages it was conceived as much for the benefit of the parents, as is often the case with nursery education, as it was for the children. Happily, the children benefited greatly.
Since that time it is true that the provision of nursery education in this country has increased by some 40 per cent. but it is still clearly only partial. As Members of the Committee have emphasised, it is, in the main, extended or partly extended to children who are least in need of it, although no doubt all are in need of it. I was much impressed by the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made: one thing that has happened in the past 15 years is that more and more children sit at home watching television and playing computer games. It is the experience of many children aged three to five that what passes for education is experience in playing Nintendo or the equivalent, rather than learning to talk, to paint, to take part in theatrical or musical experiences—all the things that a good playschool can offer. So there is much common ground between us.
The Bill before us focuses on particular areas: primary education, secondary education and, to some extent, further education. We are assured and I believe we are reaching agreement that it probably does not centre on higher education and certainly, as it stands, it does not centre on nursery education. I agree with Members on all sides of the Committee that nursery education has been the Cinderella, if that is the appropriate word, of the education programme in this country, despite the improvements which my noble friend Lady Young indicated. I hope that one of the fruits of this unstarred debate, as I regard it, will be to elicit a response, though not necessarily on this occasion, as to how we may see more resources devoted to this important issue.
However, there is a Motion before us and although the noble Baroness said that it was not her intention

1489
to suggest that something should be done by fiat, the Motion is exactly that. It is a fiat. Subsection (2) of the amendment states:
"It shall be the duty of every local education authority",
and then in what must be subsection (3)—although in the Marshalled List it is numbered as a second subsection (2), which must be an error—it goes on:
"The Secretary of State shall satisfy himself in respect of each financial year… that the resources available to local education authorities are adequate."
How is that to be done? No one on the other side of the Committee has addressed that issue. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that it is money well spent. It may indeed be money that will save other expenditure later. That is a fair point. But where is the money to come from now? The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, suggested that it might be of the order of £456 million: I have seen quoted a figure more of the order of £1.5 billion.
It is not responsible to introduce in a Bill of this kind a huge order of expenditure. I am not contradicting the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I am not saying that it is improper in the House of Lords to draw attention to or to propose measures which would incur expenditure. I am not making that technical point. I am making the point of irresponsibility. It is not sensible to say, "OK, now we'll spend another £450 million a year" or "Now we'll spend another £1.65 billion a year". If one looks at the costing, there are about 165 words in Amendment No. 48. That would be £10 million per word of the amendment per year if we were to accept this motion.
I believe that there is no case for writing in a fiat —for that is exactly what this motion is—at this stage. On the other hand, as I said at the outset, I think that this has been the best part of the debate so far. I agree with most of the observations made as a goal. I think that that is what the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, intended, though it is true that she has run short of patience on hearing the financial argument utilised. I think it is also what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, intended; namely, that we should be asking for a goal. I hope that we shall indeed have a Wednesday Unstarred Question debate on this theme very soon, and I hope that we can move towards a position where nursery education in this country has the higher priority it deserves. But the Committee, I hope, appreciates that it would be most irresponsible to carry an amendment which would have the effect of putting a burden on the Exchequer of the order of £1 billion per year.
Lord Northbourne: It is unfortunate that this most important issue has arisen at such a late hour. I do not intend to repeat arguments so ably made save to say that I understand that new American research due to be published tomorrow on a cohort of young people now aged 27 shows the financial advantages achieved as a result of nursery education by that half of the cohort which had such education.
My concern is specifically for disadvantaged children. I wonder if the noble Baroness will be able to give at least some comfort along the lines of the suggestions of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull.
1490
Children who are abused and neglected at home from birth do not have any hope by the time they are aged five. They have low self-esteem and lack social skills. When they arrive in primary school they do not know what to do and are the butt of their fellows. So they go on from failure to failure.
I wonder if there is some compromise by which the Government can at least try to ensure that children who are entitled, for example, to free school meals have some sort of voucher assuring them of the availability of nursery education. The advantages are twofold. First, the children themselves get the support they need; and, secondly, family problems can be identified early in a child's life and the parents, one hopes, given support, so avoiding much more serious problems later.
Lord Elton: I have heard the Government criticised on a number of occasions on the basis of the performance of other countries in Europe. One wonders why there is no mention of Europe now, when, with the exception of one country, we are alone in having compulsory education at the age of five. Our children go to school on average 12 months ahead of European children. When I hear the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, talk about what goes on at home, I wonder why British homes are so much more dangerous than French, Spanish or Italian homes for children of that age.
Lord Northbourne: Is the noble Lord aware that in France 95 per cent. of children have nursery education?
Lord Elton: I was aware that that was so in Belgium, not in France. If I have been misinformed, I apologise. I understand that in the great majority of European countries—there are now two exceptions —compulsory school education starts 12 months after it does here. I am tempting too many people—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow his colleagues to pursue the argument. It is not a matter of what is compulsory; it is a matter of what actually happens. The fact is that in comparison with most European countries we have a smaller proportion of the cohort of 3 year-olds to 5 year-olds going into nursery education whether it is compulsory or not. That is what really affects the issue.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: I will leave my noble friend to answer that question from the Dispatch Box because she can dispose of it much better than I.
First, if we are to speak of these vast sums of money to be expended I agree that television offers a danger to very young children, young children and just children. Some of the resources should be spent on cleaning up our media, and particularly our television.
Secondly, I look at the reforms, which I hope my noble friend is going to encourage, to which I referred in an earlier amendment in regard to whole school behaviour policies. I have seen the effect that that has had on the performance of the children who enter those schools, and it is dramatic. I believe that a good

1491
deal of those resources should go into the GESTs which have recently ceased for encouraging that sort of development in schools. Those are more modest sums; they are within the terms of the Bill and do not call into question the privilege of another place in the disposing of revenue.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Renfrew that this has been an important debate. It is extremely difficult to argue against motherhood and apple pie, because nursery education is clearly a good thing. But it is good up to a point and only in an order of priorities. We have massive problems in our secondary schools which we need to cure. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was perfectly right that we have disadvantaged children who need help because they cannot obtain it from the home. But the home needs protection and we do not want the automatic removal of all our children, at increasingly earlier years, from an environment in which they should be nurtured and develop the most important elements of their characters.
Lord Skidelsky: I do not want to take up much time because it is late. However, I should like to reinforce one or two points made earlier.
The issue between us is not about desirability of pre-school provision. The issues relate to how best that provision can come about; what the role of private and public money is in providing pre-school education and particularly—a point mentioned by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and also other noble Lords—to what extent, in starting a process of improvement, one should target provision on those in most need and therefore allow money of a sensible kind to be spent in the initial stages on those for whom problems have been identified.
The kind of wreckage spoken of by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, occurring in later life due to lack of pre-school education arises particularly in those families which are under-privileged and disadvantaged. Therefore, the issue of targeting is extremely important. I do not believe that a blanket duty on the local authority to provide pre-school education for all addresses the problem of targeting.
That is my first point and it reinforces what has already been said. My second point relates to the role of private money in the whole process. Germany has a high proportion of pre-school children in some kind of nursery education, of which 71 per cent. is either wholly or partially privately funded. It is a high proportion and I am not saying that it will be as high in this country. But to say at this point that it is up to the local authority exclusively to be providing pre-school education is to deter other methods of finance from coming into the business. It is also to deter variety in the provision of pre-school education.
Therefore, both issues are important: first by targeting we should try to get public money going to those families that are most in need of it; secondly, we should not agree to things that would have the effect of preventing private money coming into pre-nursery schooling.
Baroness Blatch: I too recognise that there is in this Chamber enormous support for the notion that children younger than five can derive a good deal of benefit from education. Some would also argue that, in consequence, such education should be provided by the state for all three and four year-olds. Indeed, that is what the amendments are about.
The Government would certainly agree that young children can gain a great deal from starting school before the age of five. Other forms of group provision for three and four year-olds, such as pre-school playgroups, can also do much to broaden these children's experience, to introduce them to new ideas and to new friends and to help prepare them for their compulsory schooling. Incidentally, what a disappointment that there has not been a word in favour of pre-school playgroups. That is why it is our policy to encourage the development of a diversity of provision for the under-fives which takes account of local needs and circumstances. Taking into account educational and other forms of group day care, over 90 per cent. of all three and four year-olds are now participating—over 50 per cent. in schools, the others in playgroups or day nurseries.
Despite this high level of participation, we are often compared unfavourably with our European neighbours in the provision we make for the under-fives. There is scope here for a good deal of sterile argument, which I do not propose to get into. But I should like to make two points. First, with an overall three to five year-old participation rate for education alone of around 65 per cent., we compare well with many of our European neighbours—and I may add that almost all of our under-fives' education is provided by the state, without charge. The proportions elsewhere are much lower. Secondly, those figures do not take into account one of the real strengths of this country—the contribution which the voluntary playgroups make to provision for the under-fives. The Pre-school Playgroups Association estimates that 41 per cent. of three and four year-olds now attend playgroups—19,000 playgroups serving many hundreds of thousands of children. Why on earth should we have to leave them out of the statistics?
The intention of the amendment—in fact the absolute consequence of it—is that the playgroup movement shall cease to exist. It is to provide state education for all three and four year-olds whether or not they need it: it should be made available just in case a family decides it wants to use it.
Lord Peston: Will the noble Baroness give way for a moment? I am really staggered by the tone of her response to the debate, which in my judgment simply does not meet the requirements of the amendment. My children went to playgroups. Playgroups are fine but they are not pre-school education. They are playgroups. We are discussing pre-school education. I think that the noble Baroness ought not to be making these party points but addressing the substantive issue here, which is an extremely serious one. It is one on which we may differ—I am not suggesting that the noble Baroness has to agree with us—but we do not need this kind of point.
Baroness Blatch: I also need no lecture from the noble Lord, Lord Peston, suggesting that I am being frivolous or scoring party points. I believe that we have good reason in this country to be extremely proud of a very healthy part of the voluntary sector. A direct result of the amendments would be to kill off pre-school playgroups. That would be a tragic day in this country.
This is particularly true at a time when there are inevitable limits to what can be afforded from the public purse. Providing free education for all three and four year-olds would need an increase in annual spending. All kinds of figures have been bandied around, so just let us say that it would be a very large sum of money: certainly in the billions rather than in the millions. There would also be very substantial capital costs, as I know to my cost, as a former county councillor. Additional spending on this scale is not something that we can sensibly contemplate at the moment. I agree absolutely with my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Renfrew that, while we must be free to discuss these matters, we must also exercise responsibility and not be frivolous, harbouring idealistic notions that these sums of money need not be worried about in this place.
Surely it is better to find ways of making the best and most productive use of those resources which are available. The Government therefore hope that the steady growth in education for the under fives which has characterised the past decade will continue. But we also believe that at the same time we should do all we can to maximise the educational opportunities presented by other types of provision, and ensuring that what they offer young children is of the highest possible quality. That is why we are currently supporting a very substantial increase in the Pre-School Playgroups Association's training for playgroup leaders.
I also understand that many Members of the Committee are also concerned that the local education authorities' role in planning and monitoring provision for the under-fives may in future be hampered, particularly where there is a sizeable increase in numbers of self-governing state schools. I can assure this Committee that that is not our intention. Local education authorities will retain the power to establish nursery schools and to propose the addition of nursery units or classes at schools that they maintain. I have tabled an amendment to make sure that can happen even when responsibility for securing the provision of primary and secondary school places has passed wholly to the funding agency.
Local education authorities will be able, if they wish, to make arrangements with self-governing primary schools for the provision of nursery education, either as an integral part of the school or with the school acting as an agent for the LEA. They have the right to make representations—and, if they wish, statutory objections—about any proposal which a self-governing school may make for the creation or discontinuing of nursery places. We shall also bring forward an amendment to ensure that they are able to get from self-governing schools the information they need to discharge their Children Act responsibilities to
1494
review provision for young children. We have also tabled amendments to clarify the position of self-governing schools which wish to provide part-time nursery education.
We intend in due course to offer advice to LEAs and self-governing state schools which will encourage them to collaborate, particularly in relation to young children with special needs, and will stress the importance we attach to the continuing development of a diversity of provision for the under-fives to suit local needs and circumstances.
We have done much to address the issue of quality. I have here the Rumbold Report. Starting with quality, it stressed the importance of securing the highest quality for the under-fives in all the settings that they attend; nursery and reception classes and playgroups. We in the Department for Education and our colleagues in the Department for Health are asking the Pre-School Playgroups Association to secure a real improvement through greatly increased training of playgroup leaders in the quality of experience offered by playgroups.
As I said, I am sorry that we have not heard more support tonight for the playgroup movement. I spent eight of the most happy years of my life as chairman of my local playgroup and toddlers' group. We linked in with the local primary school. We served about eight rural villages and I would match what we did with our children with any nursery school in the land.
Playgroups do a great deal to involve parents in their children's development and the Rumbold Report stressed that very important point. Paragraphs 106 and 107, on page 14, state:
"The one constant element in the child's experience of these transition processes is the parent, and not surprisingly it is the quality of involvement or partnerships between parents and educators which is likely to determine the effectiveness of continuity. It is only by drawing on parents' detailed knowledge of their children that educators can begin to gain an understanding of the range of their previous experiences together with an indication of their social and intellectual skills and competencies. On this basis, educators can build continuity of experience with children, and ensure that the provision made reflects and values their cultural and language background.
"The potential of this partnership will be fully realised when educators more clearly see the home itself as normally affording a rich natural context for all aspects of young children's development. Parents can significantly influence their children's learning: but this potential contribution needs to be fully recognised and acknowledged by both parents themselves and by teachers. Partnership implies a two-way process with knowledge, information and insights flowing freely both ways".
An important point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about serious underachievement among our teenagers. I want to put a personal spin on that particular point. I spent 25 years of my life fighting those people in education who were against a structured approach to reading, writing and basic numeracy in our schools; those people who believed that it was more fashionable that children should not involve themselves in competition which flew in the face of all the natural abilities and natural inclinations of young children. I refer also to those young people who were allowed to drop key subjects and who thus missed the acquisition and consolidation of basic skills early in their lives.

1495
Worse than that, it was fashionable for years and years throughout the 1960s and 1970s to forsake the teaching of spelling, grammar and punctuation in favour of what I like to call "unstructured creativity". All that I can say about that is that even young people who are naturally creative need reading and writing to give full expression to that creativity, and those of us who are not naturally creative need those basic skills to live our lives competently and confidently. So, if anything was responsible for the under-achievement of our teenagers, it has a great deal more to do with that movement than with the lack of pre-school playgroup provision. The amendments would sound the deathknell of the pre-school playgroup movement and I have said all along that I believe that that would be sad.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, made a very important point about disadvantaged children. Local education authorities are highly responsible in that the provision that they make is always targeted at those children with special needs. When they come to my department with an application for nursery provision, we take that as a first category of need in determining whether the provision shall be approved.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Renfrew that this has been an important debate. We must not talk ourselves down. Something like 94 per cent. of our under-fives are in some form of provision. In 1979 we inherited a pretty poor provision for under-fives. We now have a much healthier provision and it is growing all the time. Let us encourage the growth of that sector, but do not let us put an impossible imposition on this House and the country. I can tell the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that I, too, have received real letters from real people, but it is real people also who would have to pick up the bill and it is an impossible bill to impose on this or another place.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: I am grateful for the Minister's response. I listened to the enormous puff which she gave to playschool groups. My friend who is in now in charge of this business, who lives in Cambridge and who I know well, will be very pleased to read of it. However, I do not think that pre-school playgroups provide nursery education. If more of those who take charge of them become trained, I fear that the great advantage that those groups now have—that they are cheap —will be lost and there may then be fewer of them than previously. Yet without trained teachers who understand thoroughly what child development demands, we shall not get what I believe that we should have in this country.
I find it difficult—in fact, almost incredible—to be told that this amendment is irresponsible. I find it almost incredible that the argument of cost should be advanced without any notice being taken whatsoever of the savings that will result. And I find this incredible and rather insulting: I do not think that any of the noble Lords who put their names to this amendment could be accused of putting forward frivolous proposals without—as I was told in my case—thinking that the cost mattered. I never said that the cost did not matter. I said that the cost was enormous,
1496
but that it would pay in the end. To describe the principle of universal nursery education for those between three and five as an ideal is perhaps right, but nobody could put forward such a proposition without taking it seriously and believing that it is a necessity.
I agree with a good deal that has been said about targeting, but when in 1978 we were thinking about how to ensure that nursery education was provided for those children who were at risk of having special educational needs later, it seemed difficult to get the targeting right. I now think that we have become much more honest than we were in 1978. We realise that the people who will have educational and behavioural needs will, to a large extent, be children who come from deprived parents. So it is quite possible that targeting may be a way forward.
I also believe that it is important that the Minister has said that LEAs will retain the power to establish nursery schools even in an area—if such areas exist—where all the schools are grant maintained. That is an important matter to pursue, because we should have the power—even if we cannot have a mandatory provision—to provide that nursery education is left in the hands of the LEAs, which are the only people who know how a whole area looks with regard to special deprivation. I hope that the principle will be pursued in future amendments.
I hope also that the Minister can assure me that we shall hear what is intended with regard to the LEAs and nursery education provision and will say whether she is willing to contemplate the helpful and sensible suggestion that has been made about the phasing in of nursery education over a period of years. I do not say anything against pre-school playgroups, but I hope that we shall hear no more about how they will do as a substitute for nursery education.
If we can be assured that the goal of universal nursery education is a principle that the Government have in mind and that the responsibility for nursery education will remain with the local authorities, then I am willing to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: It would be less than honest of me if I did not come to the Dispatch Box to say two things. One of course is, as I have spelt out already, that local authorities will retain the responsibility for providing for pre-school playgroups. Other than that, there is no assurance over the universal goal of nursery school education. We believe in a diversity of provision, as I have said. We believe that the pre-school playgroup, as a part of that choice, should remain in being. Where local authorities put a request to us to expand or provide new nursery places, we shall consider that request alongside all other bids for money.
We cannot go along with the principle behind the amendments or the idea that we should have one monolithic system for all three and four year-olds.
Baroness Warnock: I must be satisfied with that answer for the time being. I do not promise that this amendment or something similar, perhaps in a modified form, and taking into account targeting and phasing in, will not come back at a later stage. But for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: No.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 10 [Responsibility for providing sufficient school places]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 4, line 9, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (4) below")
The noble Lord said: Clause 10 and Schedule 2 will undoubtedly seriously compromise the orderly planning of the school system as a whole. They will disadvantage the planning and provision of nursery, special needs, adult and other specialist forms of education. I shall argue that they will erode parental choice, notably in smaller authorities. The funding agency for schools and the local education authorities will effectively be set up in competition with each other. There is no guarantee as a result that sufficient schools in terms of the Act will be provided since there is to be no ultimate responsibility.
The Bill provides that in the event of dispute the matter should be determined by the Secretary of State, drawing central government into detailed local controversy. The Secretary of State will be directly accountable but how can he meaningfully discharge such responsibility across every neighbourhood throughout England and Wales? Does that not inevitably call into question the viability of meaningful accountability and is this not a matter of profound constitutional significance? It is wholly impractical to establish split statutory responsibilities with no proper lead role. That should rest with the local elected bodies best placed to assess and adjudicate upon local needs.
In Committee in the other place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. Forth, explained the provisions by saying that at stage 2 there is a shared responsibility exercised by parallel duties. Both the FAS and the LEAs have a shared responsibility for securing sufficient places. He said that his words are the definitive answer and that the FAS and the LEAs have separate, but parallel duties for achieving sufficient places. The LEA has the Section 8 duty and the FAS has a similar but different duty under paragraph 3 of Schedule 2.
To add to the complications involved, the two bodies will be expected to take account of provision within each other's sector while being able to propose a provision only in their own. Given that plans by the voluntary sector will also need to be considered, the importance of a clear lead responsibility is evident.
As was pointed out on Second Reading in this Chamber, there are a number of areas of the education service where the splitting of the planning provision duty would be of serious concern. Perhaps I may give four examples. The first example is nursery education. If no single body is to have the sole function of providing nursery education the planning of comprehensive coverage and the most efficient dovetailing of nursery places with existing primary schools will be compromised. Future grant-maintained schools in the primary sector will have little incentive to run expensive nursery provision. And if they do, thereby
1498
pre-empting the use of available funds, that may have little to do with meeting the most acute need in a particular locality.
The second example is special needs. The proposal for the extension of grant-maintained status in the special needs sector is contentious. The Bill proposes a further laudable strengthening of the rights of parents of pupils with special needs yet threatens to weaken those same rights by producing a divided responsibility to implement them. The third example is adult education. The debate last year on the Further and Higher Education Act and further debates this year in this Chamber demonstrated deep concern over the future of adult education in the new further education regime. Much of the provision takes place in schools but Clause 10 proposals would leave LEAs with a residual function but declining control over premises and shrinking resources.
The fourth example is the youth service, music tuition, other cultural provisions, outdoor activities and extra-curricular activities in general. The provision of extras—such as facilities outside school hours for teenage pupils, music tuition and outdoor activities—will become increasingly difficult as LEAs lose the role of planning and overall service. I suggest that that is particularly deplorable when the United Kingdom has established such an outstanding international reputation as an example for young musicians, helped in their development by local authority orchestras, and when there has been by contrast so much recent acute anxiety about standards of safety in outdoor pursuits outside the control of local authorities. Indeed, the grant-maintained sector will be expected to look elsewhere for extra-curricular activities, increasing the likelihood that LEA provision will be progressively withdrawn under pressure from central government on spending.
In conclusion, we must recognise that the funding authority and the LEA are different bodies. The LEA is locally accountable through the ballot box. Inevitably, the funding agency for schools, however committed its servants, will be a distant body operating at national level. Apart from the unnecessary cost of creating a second body to carry out functions already performed by an existing body, experience shows that serious difficulties will inevitably occur where bodies are expected to deliver public services under parallel or shared duties. An example is the current upward split of responsibilities for pupils with special educational needs which are shared between the LEAs and the National Health Service.
It is abundantly clear that the sensible way to proceed is for a lead role to be preserved for local authorities. Of course LEAs will be expected to work with the FAS but the agency should not have the duty to plan and provide school places. I beg to move.
Midnight
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Of course, Amendment No. 67 is the key amendment. I support these amendments for the reasons that have already been given. There is so much in the planning of school provision that the sharing of responsibilities is bound

1499
to cause difficulties. Areas already mentioned such as special needs, nursery provision, peripatetic music tuition and adult education will be at a particular disadvantage. And who is it who is best informed about local feeling and conditions? Who knows about the future and structure of local housing, industry, police, social services, transport and so on, all of which may need to be involved in issues of school provision? Is it the locally elected members and their staff or is it a new and remote body appointed from London?
Furthermore, parents, in whose name so many of these reforms are being introduced, will have real problems as regards knowing whom to approach with a complaint or for information. The involved provisions in Clause 10 and Schedule 2 are really unnecessary. That is the main criticism of them. The lead role can and should be left with the local community until it clearly has no further part to play. I support the amendments.
Lord Renton: Clause 10 has the admirable objective of ensuring that there should be enough school places and that funds are provided for them by the funding authority. I should have thought that nobody could object to that.
The group of amendments to which the noble Lord referred—and of course he is technically speaking only to Amendment No. 49—has a rather strange combined effect on the purpose of the clause. Indeed, the crux of the group of amendments is to be found in Amendment No. 67 to which I invite the attention of the Committee. It states:
"No order may be made under subsection (1)"—
it is subsection (1) which is operative in providing the power to fulfil the purpose of having enough school places and the money for them—
"unless 100 per cent. of the pupils for whom education is provided in county, voluntary and grant-maintained schools in the area are registered pupils at grant-maintained schools".
I suggest to the Committee that that is a completely unrealistic proposition. Indeed, it is so unrealistic that I beg to suggest—and it is not a phrase which I use very often—that Amendment No. 67 is a wrecking amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I absolutely agree with that. It is a wrecking amendment. Is the noble Lord, Lord Judd, suggesting that where parents have decided that the schools their children attend should opt out of local authority control—even where the relationship with the local authority is a good one; that applies in Lincolnshire, Bromley, Hillingdon, Kent and Essex—until 100 per cent. of all schools are in the grant-maintained sector the LEA should retain full control? I have spent a great deal of time this evening spelling out how this process would work. The amendment we are discussing is a wrecking amendment. Even at this late hour I ask the Committee positively to reject it.
Lord Judd: I have heard what the Minister said and indeed what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said. I would only say again that I find, not for the first time in this debate, that we have been presented with an extraordinary proposition. If we argue—of course, it
1500
is open to counter-argument—that it would be better to continue with the existing arrangements, with local democracy having a lead role in the planning and provision of education in an area, we are accused of proposing wrecking amendments. But that argument can be stood absolutely on its head because what we are arguing—this comes out in one clause after another—is that what the present provisions in the new Bill are doing are wrecking the whole relationship of partnership which has existed between central and local government in the past. Therefore I ask Members of the Committee, whom I greatly respect, to be careful in the deployment of the word "wrecking" or we shall find ourselves compelled on almost every clause we debate to accuse the Government of wrecking principles which have been basic to not only the educational system but indeed to the spirit of shared democracy between the centre and localities for many decades in this country.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord sits down I hope he will allow me to intervene. He seems not merely to have overlooked but to have denied what is said here —indeed he has not tabled an amendment to leave it out—that it is not only the funding authority and the Secretary of State whose responsibility is involved but also that of the local education authority; what he quite properly describes as the operation of democracy. It is there. It is written in the Bill as it stands. So his argument falls completely.
Baroness Blatch: I wish to speak in defence of my noble friend. He is extremely economic in his use of the word "wrecking". I do not recall a frequent use of the word. It is a proper word to use in this context because there is an arrangement to put in place a mechanism when grant-maintained schools opt out of local authority control to take care of both funding and planning. The amendments we are discussing fly wholly in the face of that and invalidate the very essence of grant-maintained status. It is for that reason that I believe the Committee should reject the amendment.
Lord Judd: I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. I do not find the matter quite as straightforward as she suggests because until, for example, the 10 per cent. threshold is passed, the Minister accepts that a local authority will continue to have legal responsibilities. Therefore, it seems to me that this is a matter of judgment. It is not an either/or situation. However, in deference to the Committee, the late hour and the pressure we are all working under with this far-reaching and extensive Bill, I do not intend to pursue the point tonight. I shall withdraw the amendment but I expect that in one way or another we shall return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Noble Lords: No.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 4, leave out lines 11 to 13
The noble Baroness said: Unlike the previous amendment, this amendment provides for a single transfer point at the halfway stage between 10 per cent. and 75 per cent., or at least between zero and 100 per cent, for the responsibility of securing provision of sufficient places. It is not my intention to make an issue of this in any sense of the word or to divide the Committee but I should like to hear the Minister say how she believes this extended operation of joint planning and joint responsibility for the securing of provision of sufficient places will work in practice. I and several others feel a considerable amount of anxiety about how that period will be operated, particularly for the benefit of the pupils in the schools.
It is generally accepted that in some local authority areas it may well be many years, if not many decades, before the 75 per cent. point is reached. Therefore, as soon as 10 per cent. of pupils are in opted-out schools there will be a long drawn-out shared responsibility.
I have to confess that, unlike the proposers of the previous amendment, to a large extent I wish that the Bill provided for a single and imminent point at which all schools become grant maintained. That is not because I do not see an important and continuing role for local authorities. I believe that they will continue to have such a role even when all schools are grant maintained. It is because I believe, as I said at Second Reading, that the thrust of the Bill towards independent status and autonomy for educational institutions—always, of course, accountable to their immediate community and their stake-holders—is a desirable end and the best guarantee of quality education. I also believe most strongly in the value of direct parental involvement in their children's education.
Nevertheless, I recognise that that is not what the Bill proposes and that there will be a very long path from where we are now to where I, at least, wish us to be. In many areas the going will be slow. It will be at the whim of each individual school whether it moves to grant-maintained status. My concern now is to ensure that the path is as smooth as possible and that the children who pass through the schools in that period, which may last many decades, have the best possible provision in the meantime. In that regard I have anxieties about the operation of the joint planning.
I recognise that some of the arguments have already been addressed in relation to earlier amendments, and I thank the Minister for having addressed them in response to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I believe that the spirit of competition can be positive. I believe that competition between individual schools will be wholly to the benefit of the children within them if it is healthy competition and each school tries to do its best. The possibility of negative competition arises where there is hostility between the local authority and the principal of a funding agency. Let us not suppose that that will not occur, because it will. We have already seen that in some local authorities. Such hostile competition can be very destructive and can involve pupils in the
1502
schools in inter-authority warfare. That will be a cause for concern. I hope that the Minister can reassure me on that point.
Secondly, I believe that even in authorities where there has been a friendly relationship with the funding authority there will undoubtedly be tension when there is a question of either opening or closing a school. Undoubtedly either side will be reluctant to close a school or see a new school open on the other side of their binary divide. I fear that the Secretary of State may find herself or himself—because that will occur for a considerable period in the future—constantly involved in having to make a judgment between what may be perfectly reasonable proposals of the local authority and the funding agency, well supported we must hope for the children's sake by the quality of the schools which the authorities already run.
Thirdly, we must suppose that even in the worst of scenarios of the closing and opening of new schools that will not occur. In the meantime, where co-operation is not good in an area, the local authority may very well decide to undermine the funding agency, or vice versa, by increasing its own provision school by school, perhaps by small amounts of 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. so that the Secretary of State would have no cause to intervene. The result would be gross over-provision and, in consequence, waste of public money, with unfilled places either in the funding agency grant-maintained schools or in the local authority schools. In addition, education for pupils is unsatisfactory because we all know that when there is a mismatch between the resources and the numbers of pupils the education suffers in many ways.
I feel a great anxiety about the matter. I hope that the Minister can reassure us. I should like to see at the very least a single transfer point when more than half the pupils have opted out. However, I hope that the Minister can reassure me that the 10 per cent. and the 75 per cent. divide will work well. I beg to move.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Renton: With deep respect, perhaps I may point out that to leave out paragraph (a) of Clause 10 (1), leaving paragraph (b) where it stands, would not be feasible. It would not make drafting sense. Therefore, presumably the amendment which my noble friend has moved is merely a probing amendment.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I may briefly reply. All four amendments have to be read together to make sense.
Lord Renton: Even if they are, the point I have made remains valid, I am afraid.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: Paragraph (a) refers to the possibility of dual responsibility; and that is precisely what my amendment seeks to eliminate.
Lord Renton: The point is this. Clause 10(1) (b) would read as follows:
"In respect of the area of any local education authority, the Secretary of State may where he wishes that responsibility"—

1503
there has been no earlier reference to "that responsibility"—
"to be held by the funding authority alone, make an order under this paragraph".
One could not possibly legislate like that.
Baroness Faithfull: I have put my name to the amendment. I too recognise that it is a probing amendment for information from the Minister. I take the point made by my noble friend. However, for clarity's sake, one wishes to have some further information from the Minister at this stage.
When I was first appointed a director of social services, I was sent by my local authority on a management course to Birmingham University. I was instructed by Professor John Stewart; he was responsible for the course. I learned from Professor Stewart—he has written extensively on the subject—that for good administration one must have clear lines of management and that it must be clear to all exactly who is responsible for what. If there are no clear lines of responsibility there is a great deal of trouble for the people using the service. In this case that is the community, the children, the schools and the teachers.
I submit that the management structure of the local education authority facilities is flawed. The funding authority is responsible for some duties; the local authority is responsible for others; and the Department for Education is responsible for others. It cannot be more strongly and clearly stated that the management structure is flawed. If the funding authority were to be limited to funding, and not to planning, then we would have a clear understanding of the structure. Does the Minister agree that the structure is flawed and will not be understood either by the public or by many of those who administer it?
Furthermore, if the local authority were to be responsible for the planning, it would be a democratic exercise, whereas if the funding agency is to be responsible for some planning, it is not a democratic exercise. There is no question of pressing the amendment, we are merely probing for information from the Minister.
Baroness Brigstocke: I too worry about the sharing between the funding agency and the local education authority of responsibility for the provision of school places. From my own experience as a school head, albeit in the independent sector, I believe that both the LEAs and the schools, not to mention the teachers and parents, will be confused by the division of responsibility and the complicated arrangements proposed for dividing that responsibility. I hope that the Government will take note of the underlying anxiety that has been expressed this evening. The funding agency needs, for the foreseeable future, to work with the LEA. One or the other needs to have overall responsibility. I just cannot see how it would work otherwise.
Perhaps I may adapt a favourite quotation of the eminent banker, Sir Sigmund Warburg. He had written in all the books in his extensive library:
"Progress in thinking is progress towards simplicity".
I would say: "Progress in management is progress towards simplicity".
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: It seems that Members of the Committee opposite are articulating many of the anxieties that we expressed in the previous discussion, where we put forward our preferred solution to the problems. I agree with many or all the anxieties, particularly those of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, about the possibility of hostility between the two funding sources.
There are a couple of points of detail on the amendment on which we should like clarification, if possible. First, it appears that all the powers will be taken away from the local education authorities when the figure of 50 per cent. of pupils in the grant-maintained sector is reached. I should have thought it would be more logical to have something above 50 per cent. rather than 50 per cent. It is a small point, but it seems to be more logical.
A second larger point is that there will be no planning role for the grant-maintained sector up to 50 per cent. of the pupils in the grant-maintained sector. I suggest that that is not addressed by the amendments. Finally, perhaps I may clarify whether I correctly understood the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, when she said that she personally would like to see the FAS having a funding not a planning role. That is not what is suggested by the amendments, although I heartily agree with her.
Baroness Blatch: Clearly the amendment is of a very different order from the previous amendment. I understand the tensions on both sides of the Committee about how they believe the reforms will work. It is important that I spend my time, as we proceed with the Bill, to do what I can to reassure the Committee that we believe that the arrangements we have set in train will work. As to whether the amendments are defective, I have to defer to my noble friend Lord Renton because I am simply not competent to detect any deficiencies in the amendments. On the question just posed by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I note that he would clearly prefer the figure to be much higher than 50 per cent. and, if I accept that he was supporting a previous amendment, he would prefer it to be 100 per cent.
On the other point that he makes about there being no planning role for the grant-maintained sector, that is true. My understanding of the amendments—or at least my understanding of the sentiment behind them—is that the planning role should remain with the local authority, both for local authority-maintained schools and for the grant-maintained sector; otherwise, the amendments would simply not work at all. That means, as it did in the previous amendment, that grant-maintained schools which opt away from local authorities would find themselves, at least up to 50 per cent., still in the hands for planning purposes of the local authorities.
As a prerequisite of all this, it needs to be remembered that there will be shared information on an annual basis on all the basic statistics known to both the funding agency and to the local authorities. That will provide evidence of tensions—either for there being a need for more or fewer places; or indeed of none. I believe that is important. It means that both the funding agency and the local authority can look

1505
ahead. Where the relationships are good —I suggest that in most local authorities they are good—I think my noble friends are a little too pessimistic in assuming that local authorities and the funding agency for schools will refuse to co-operate and will always compete in an atmosphere of hostility. I believe that that results from nervousness. These amendments can only be addressing a situation that does not work. The arrangements will work perfectly where there is an amicable relationship. For example, in relation to provision for 16 to 19 year-olds we already have the further education funding councils and, potentially in competition, local authorities and self-governing grant-maintained schools. Experience to date suggests that the bodies concerned can and do co-operate effectively. In particular, the further education funding council does not simply represent that all provision should necessarily be in its own institutions.
Perhaps I should explain the parallel duties. Once an order has been made under Clause 10(1) (a), responsibility for securing the provision of sufficient places will rest on both the local authority and the funding authority. Separate but distinct duties will be placed on each body. That will mean that each body will be separately accountable for whether it has fulfilled its responsibility. The local authority will continue to be required to discharge the duty under Section 8 of the 1944 Education Act, which is to secure that there are sufficient schools available for children in its area. But in addition, a separate duty will be placed on the funding authority so that wherever schools which are available for an area providing relevant education are not sufficient, the funding authority will be under a duty to publish proposals for securing the availability of sufficient school places.
Those two separate duties will ensure that where there is a shortage of places, both the local authority and the funding agency will be prepared to act to remedy the position. So it is important to remember that the Section 8 duty of the 1944 Act will remain right up to the 75 per cent. point with the local authority—in other words, in that sense it is the lead body that has the prime responsibility for making sure that there are places for children in schools; but the duty to provide those places will rest either with the grant-maintained schools sector if it is appropriate or with the local authority.
In practice, at stage 2, both the local education authority and the funding authority will have the power, as distinct from the duty, at any time to propose significant enlargement of an existing school or the establishment of a new school.
As soon as the proposal by the funding authority to provide a new school has been approved by the Secretary of State and implemented, the duty on the LEA to secure the provision of sufficient places has been met. In its planning the local authority would of course be able to take account of the fact that a proposal had been approved in relation to the grant-maintained sector. That would be its duty under Section 8 of the 1944 Act.
If there was a need for a new school and there were no proposals from the funding authority, the LEA
1506
would need to act to ensure that there were sufficient places. If the local authority failed to act and a shortage of places resulted, the local authority would clearly be in default of its Section 8 duty. At the same time, the funding authority would come under a duty to bring forward proposals to make good the deficiency. That duty will not apply where for the funding authority to act would be inconsistent with the efficient use of its resources; for example, where there were no GM schools in the area and the only cost-effective solution was to make a significant enlargement of an existing LEA maintained school.
It would, of course, clearly be desirable for the local authority and the funding authority to discuss with each other which of them it would be the more appropriate to act in a specific situation. But if following any discussion both bodies still wished to bring forward proposals, then clearly the final decision about which type of school would be established would rest with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Whatever trigger point was chosen, to hand over sole responsibility from the local authority to the funding authority would create a situation where one sector or the other could not be managed effectively, which is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. It is therefore essential to have a period where responsibility is placed both on the local authority and on the funding authority. Since the local authority and the funding authority can make proposals only in relation to their own sectors, it is essential for there to be a period where both bodies assume some responsibility for securing the provision of sufficient places. That enables both the grant-maintained sector and the local authority sector to be managed effectively.
Amendment No. 50 raises a number of issues which we discussed in earlier debates. The effect would be that until 50 per cent. of pupils in maintained primary or secondary schools were in grant-maintained schools, there would be no possibility of strategic planning for the grant-maintained sector. That is the inevitable consequence of the amendment, since it would clearly be difficult for schools which had chosen to leave local authority control to be returned to it by the force of law. I should not like to be the one to go to Birmingham schools, which went through great difficulties to become grant maintained, only to tell them that they were to be returned to the local authority until 50 per cent. of the schools there are in the grant-maintained sector.
However, it cannot be right that grant-maintained schools should exist outside any kind of planning framework until the point when 50 per cent. of pupils were in grant-maintained schools. That would carry the risk of undermining the coherence and effectiveness of the provision of schools in the area. The way forward, therefore, as the Bill provides, is to have a system of parallel LEA and FAS responsibility between the 10 per cent. and the LEA exit point, which, as I have earlier described, is perfectly practicable and feasible.
Therefore, while understanding the anxieties and knowing that there is a genuine nervousness about

1507
how these things will work in practice, I believe that what the Bill proposes is the best possible way forward.
12.30 a.m.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble Baroness sits down, it may be due to the late hour that I am not following her properly. This is a technical point; it is not an educational policy point. It is likely that the 50 per cent. target will not be reached in many areas for a long time and therefore the dual control will exist not only for months but perhaps for decades.
I understand from what the noble Baroness said that, if there is disagreement between the local authority and the funding authority, they have to collaborate in making planning decisions. However, who has the last word? With whom will the responsibility lie if one thinks that there should be another school and the other does not? Does it all then have to go to the Secretary of State? If they fall out it may not cause a considerable amount of delay and I am sure we all want the same thing, but I see that it could be confusing when the two are making decisions. It is not as though in many areas it will be for a short period of time. It may go on for a long time or it may not.
Baroness Blatch: It would depend on the situation, but in practice what would happen is that right up until the 75 per cent. point has been reached, when all the control moves to the funding agency for schools, and during the period up to 10 per cent. and between 10 per cent. and 75 per cent., the local authority has a duty under Section 8 of the 1944 Act to be responsible for providing sufficient places for the numbers of children within its area of responsibility. That remains intact throughout the whole of this period. Therefore, if there were, for example, a need for more school places and the local authority was not addressing that, the local authority would clearly be in breach of Section 8 of the 1944 Act. It would be for the Secretary of State to issue a direction to the local authority saying, "You must see to your duty under the Act to provide for places for your children".
At the same time, as long as the two bodies were in being they would have to look to their duty as to which of them should provide those extra places. It may fall naturally into an LEA-maintained schools' area; it may fall naturally into a grant-maintained schools' area. It may well be that one of them will see the duty quite clearly. It may be that the local authority will talk to the funding agency and say, "There is a tension here. We need more places. What do we think is the best way of approaching it?"
That is how we would expect it to happen on most occasions. It could be that the local authority simply drags its feet. It would then be given a direction by the Secretary of State and would have to look to its own area of responsibility to see whether it was at fault or, indeed, whether the funding agency was at fault. But at the end of the day—the noble Baroness is right—if one gets through all of that and there is still no
1508
agreement, the Secretary of State would issue a direction for one or the other to meet its responsibilities under the Act.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she help me to understand this? I share the concern about this extended period of dual responsibility. If there is a shortage of places and the local education authority is failing to supply the places that are needed it will be told by the Secretary of State to do so and the funding agency will bring forward proposals. All that will take a little time. What will happen to the children for whom there are no places?
Baroness Blatch: We all know that it does not quite happen like that. We know that year-on-year information is made available about where tensions are. They are usually seen well in advance. There is a great deal of information much earlier in the day, or yesterday. There is information about live births in the area, the numbers of children from the time of birth to their arrival in school, migration rates, and so on. It is known well in advance whether there will be pressure for more places in an area. Schools would therefore plan for that. Schools know their duties under Section 8 of the 1944 Act and I cannot think that local authorities would not address that. Any tension would be over who should provide—whether it should be the funding agency or the LEA. If the funding agency proffered places it would be for the LEA to accept that meeting of the need. If the local authority believed that it should provide, it would be for the local authority to do so. If they both decide that they would like to offer an answer to that need, it would be for the Secretary of State to consider both applications—for either an extension of the school or a new school. It is only where local authorities do not have a civilised relationship with the funding agency that there is a problem. I suggest that there is less of a problem about new places than there would be about surplus places.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may seek clarification on one other point because I have become as confused as anyone at this time of night. It concerns something that she said earlier. Surely she is not saying that grant-maintained schools will actually return to the LEA if there is this 50 per cent. cut-off point. That cannot be in any real sense. I think I can see what she meant, but it is not as though control over their affairs is taken away from them and given back to the LEA. That is not what she was saying, is it?
Baroness Blatch: The way schools are run now, the LEA schools are not controlled in that way. We are talking about a very real control, which is planning control. It is control over the size of the schools; control over whether they should expand or not expand; whether they should be amalgamated or be closed. One of the problems with the amendments before us is that, although the intention may be that up to 50 per cent. of the planning role remains with the local authority, the local authority cannot be assumed to have control over the grant-maintained schools. So unless, as the the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby,

1509
suggests, we give planning controls over grant-maintained schools, which means putting them back into the local authority sector, there is a vacuum. One would have to exercise all planning over one sector of schools in an authority. That would be extremely difficult. As I say, putting these schools back into local authority control for the purpose of planning would be highly unwelcome to at least some schools in the country.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I too may ask for a clarification. I am confused as I was not confused before. I understand my noble friend's answer to the last question but I believe that she said earlier that the local authority would continue to have the overall duty to secure the provision of sufficient places. As I read Clause 10, I believed that between the 10 per cent. and 75 per cent point that duty was to be shared. Is that the case or does the local authority retain the major responsibility anyway?
Baroness Blatch: We are into legal terminology. The local authority continues to have a duty under Section 8 of the 1944 Act to provide sufficient places for the children in its area. My understanding of the way in which the Bill is written is that there is then a duty to meet that need if there is a funding agency and a shared duty with the local authority. The requirement that it should be met by one and/or the other remains with the local authority.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I thank my noble friend the Minister very much for her patience and many replies to our questions. I believe that she has gone a very long way towards reassuring me that at least there is good will there. I still worry about the areas where the good will does not exist. It is one of the major questions within the Bill where we have to hope that good will will prevail and that the arrangements will work. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 51 to 54 not moved.]
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 4, line 17, at end insert (", but shall not cover education provided to children with special educational needs.")
The noble Lord said: I wish to move this amendment, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee. The amendment is basically designed to keep the planning of special needs in local education authorities. That is primarily as a result of the fact that local authorities in various parts of the country of various political hues have made tremendous strides in meeting a great many of the problems that arise with special educational needs. A great deal of progress has been very hard won since the 1981 Act. There have been problem areas throughout the country and there has not been an even level of progression by any means. As the Minister pointed out, local authorities will still be involved in certain areas of special educational needs; for instance, dealing with individuals when it comes to statementing.
It should also be noted that, as the Audit Commission said in its report, since the 1981 Act a great deal has been achieved by schools and LEAs on behalf of pupils with special educational needs. I suggest that it would make sense to at least hear from the Government how they plan to deal with special educational needs on an area basis. It is extremely difficult for individual units and schools to deal with the problems because almost invariably there will be new problems of special educational needs coming in. Peripatetic teachers and others will be needed at times and there will be a changing situation. So that we may have some idea of the whole picture for areas, I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Renton: Some Members of the Committee may remember that I have a special interest in children with special educational needs and in special schools. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has moved this amendment, because I believe that this Bill needs a little clarifying and cross-referencing. There is no reference to such schools in Clause 10 or to an obligation to provide such schools.
Therefore, we have to turn to Part III, which includes a great many clauses under the heading of "Children with special educational needs". They are Clauses 148 to 180, but one is particularly relevant. I refer to Clause 173(1) (a). I should like to consider it in detail because it is relevant to the amendment which the noble Lord has moved and to the motive which all of us have in mind; namely, that enough special school places shall be provided and that funds shall be provided for them. Clause 173(1) reads:
"The funding authority may establish in the area of any local education authority a school which is specially organised to make special educational provision for pupils with special educational needs if—"
and it is a very big "if"—
"(a) an order under section 10(1) of this Act applies to the area".
Therefore, there is a link, but it is a question of having to run in order to read. It may be that, if only to help the users of this long, complicated and detailed Act, a reference in subsection (1) of Clause 10 to subsection (1) of Clause 173 will help its readers in the years to come.
I say no more because I am sure that we are all united in wishing in one way or another that the funding authority shall - I know that the provisions state "may", but we all want it to be an obligation—make sure that there are enough special school places. I hope that I need say no more.
12.45 a.m.
Baroness Blatch: I defer to my noble friend who has taken a special interest in making sure that legislation makes sense and is clear and coherent. I note what he has said.
Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that a major objective of the Government's proposals and schools policy is to strengthen provision to meet pupils' special educational needs. Our proposals for all pupils with any special educational needs—those with or without statements—have gained a warm welcome and a wide measure of support. It is also true that children with statements

1511
are more easily identified and catered for in the sense that I know underlies the concern behind the amendment.
We are emphasising the role of the school in the new structure for special educational needs under the Bill; for instance, by requiring governors to formulate and report on their policies towards pupils with special educational needs. We are tightening up on LEAs' procedures in making assessments and statements. We are giving parents new rights of appeal to an independent tribunal. Underpinning all those initiatives is the code of practice which the Secretary of State will put before Parliament.
We shall be debating these important measures later. But I mention them now for two reasons: first, to demonstrate that we are in this Bill establishing a coherent structure for all special needs provisions; and, secondly, to emphasise that the system for special needs should not be seen as separate from the mainstream education system.
This amendment would go against both those principles. Its effect would be that in carrying out its duty to ensure that a sufficient number of school places was available in an area, the funding agency would not be responsible for places for children with special educational needs—up to 20 per cent. of the school population.
All schools—ordinary and special, self-governing and LEA —have a vital part to play in providing for pupils with special educational needs. The coherence of the planning system obviously requires that places for those pupils are properly considered alongside those for other pupils. In the majority of cases an individual pupil's special educational needs do not affect his or her requirements for a school place.
In order to maintain the coherence of the system which we have designed, it is essential that the FAS retains its responsibilities for planning school places for pupils with special educational needs in an area at stages 2 and 3. Education for such pupils should therefore remain within the scope of Section 10 orders. It would be invidious to take 20 per cent. of the population and to deal with them separately in terms of finding places for them. A large proportion of that 20 per cent. of young people belongs in mainstream schools. It will be for mainstream schools to ensure that they have places for those children, whether they are grant maintained or LEA maintained.
Lord Addington: The amendment was moved at this time of night in the spirit of inquiry. I thank the Minister for her reply. It helped to clarify at an early point government thinking in respect of the rest of the Bill. I shall read what the Minister said when I have a clearer head. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 56 and 56A not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 4, line 24, at end insert:
("() in the case of an order under paragraph (a) of that subsection, whether the local education authority or the funding authority shall have prime responsibility.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment follows on and covers much of the same ground as was discussed
1512
on Amendments Nos. 49 and 50, and I shall endeavour to avoid too much repetition. The amendment has two purposes. First, it clarifies the way in which an LEA and a funding authority would work together. Listening to our debate tonight, even in this august company, it is clear that clarification is needed.
Specifying either the LEA or the funding authority as having the leading role, will make it become crystal clear to everyone to whom an outsider should refer in the first instance. In my experience, that is a common pattern for industrial co-operation where a conflict of interest may be involved, and for good reason. It is a simple arrangement and it works. It is a pattern that has been adopted with great success in the Ministry of Defence in its prime contractor arrangements. It does not lessen the influence of the junior partner, but makes the working relationship clear, and avoids uncertainty and jockeying for position.
Secondly, the amendment would give the Secretary of State encouragement to designate a LEA as having prime responsibility when the 10 per cent. barrier has been passed and where that LEA was clearly performing well, as for instance, does my LEA in Hampshire, which has been extensively, and quite rightly, praised by Ministers recently. By doing that, good current practice would continue with the minimum of uncertainty and the funding authority would be able to concentrate, in the early years when it is developing its role and skills, on those areas in most need of its attention. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I should like to be helpful to my noble friend, but I have to say to him that once the 10 per cent. trigger point has been reached and passed, then funding agencies are responsible for grant-maintained schools and LEAs are responsible for LEA schools. While the LEA has a duty under Section 8 of the 1944 Act, as I have already said, if it failed to act under that responsibility, and there arose a shortage of place, the local authority would clearly be in default of that Section 8 duty. At the same time the funding agency would, for its own schools, come under a duty to bring forward proposals to make good the deficiency unless the duty did not apply; that is, unless an order to do so would be inconsistent with the efficient use of resources or if it were a clear-cut case that the responsibility was more with the LEA than with the funding agency. Therefore, it is impossible to say that the LEA will be in the lead when it has no control over GM schools and that GM will be in the lead when it has no control over LEA schools.
The important point is that there is a prime responsibility in terms of the Section 8 duty under the 1944 Act for the local authority, but both bodies have a duty to provide. I suspect that in 99 per cent. of cases the issue of who should provide is clear cut. It is only on the rare occasions when they disagree or when there is tension about who should provide that the matter will come before my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Clearly, one hopes that it will be resolved at local level. It would be desirable for the bodies to co-operate, but in the unlikely event of them not co-operating there is a fall-back position for my right honourable friend.
Earl Russell: I am not sure that the Minister has taken on board the thrust of this most interesting amendment. I take her point that the funding agency cannot be responsible for local authority schools or the local authority for grant-maintained schools. However, I cannot help wondering whether in putting that argument forward the Minister has done more damage to her Bill than she realises.
Her argument is of course perfectly sound in so far as it relates to individual schools. But if the Minister is thinking only in terms of individual schools she is giving away the Balkanisation which is at the back of the thinking on the Bill. There are of course many questions to which the noble Lord's amendment would direct our attention which stretch beyond any individual school. The question of overall provision is the most obvious and whether, for example, the building of a new housing estate will lead to a case for a new school. There are also the questions which we shall touch on later about the youth and music services, school meals and the careers service. Those matters call for overall thinking about the service as a whole which stretches beyond the range of any individual school. That is where I should find the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, extremely helpful. I should be glad to know that the Government had understood and had considered the thrust of the point behind it.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Earl raises an interesting point, but we are not necessarily talking about an individual school. We are talking about there being more children than there are places, or there will be deemed to be some time in the future a tension between the numbers of children and the provision of places.
Perhaps I may take the specific example which the noble Earl gave of the building of a new housing estate with a need for a new secondary school. Let us suppose that the FAS is in place and that it is in the secondary sector, as are most of its schools. There is then the Section 8 duty on the local authority to make sure that the needs of that potential population are planned for. However, planning and meeting that need could be for the LEA, if it is its responsibility, or it could be that of the grant-maintained sector. If all the schools in an area were in the grant-maintained sector, for example, it would make more sense that that sector took upon itself the responsibility to meet that need. Therefore, there is no tension.
There is a clear Section 8 duty on the local authority to ensure that children in its area have places, but the duty to provide is on both the LEA and the FAS, if it is in existence. It may be clear cut if the FAS has only one or two schools, but if it has a quarter, a half or the whole of a sector the duty is much clearer; it falls to the funding agency. Therefore, it is not possible to give one sector or the other a leading role. It would be a moveable feast and it would change year to year.
Earl Russell: Does the responsibility for overall planning rest anywhere at all?
Baroness Blatch: The structural planning, which is a local authority responsibility, remains with the local
1514
authority. However, we are dealing with planning for school places within the context of a structured plan, of development in an area and of there being a rising or a falling birth rate. It would fall to local authority statistics in the first place and the reading of those statistics would show whether more or fewer places were required in an area. It would then be the shared duty between the FAS and the LEA to meet that need.
1 a.m.
Lord Lucas: I was very interested to listen to that exchange between the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend the Minister, as I was to her initial reply. We have heard much this evening on these matters and no doubt we shall hear more in the future. I shall read what my noble friend said. I expect that I shall return with further comments but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 4, line 24, at end insert:
("() Before making an order under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that the making of such an order will not endanger the provision of facilities for adult education.").
The noble Baroness said: I know that the Minister is sympathetic towards adult education. I believe that she recognises that at present the need for effective and well-supported adult education in the country has never been greater. There are high levels of unemployment. There are large numbers of older people for whom adult education provides many extremely valuable outlets. People are seeking a second chance, a fresh start. There are a whole variety of needs which are all very much to the fore at present.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is extremely important that adult education should expand rather than decline. I am sure that she knows also that in many parts of the country there is very grave anxiety as to whether adult education colleges will be able to maintain their place, let alone expand as many of them would wish, because of the resource problem.
As the Minister knows, it has always been a problem that the responsibility for financing adult education has rested with the local authorities, but that responsibility has been discretionary rather than mandatory. That inevitably means that when there is pressure from schools and other areas where there is a mandatory requirement on local authorities to make adequate provision, it is extremely tempting—indeed, sometimes there is no choice—to relegate the claims of adult education to the bottom of the queue and the claims are not met or not met adequately.
This amendment is not unrealistic. It does not seek a mandatory requirement on local authorities to provide adult education. It merely seeks that in meeting their other obligations laid out in the clause, they,
"will not endanger the provision of facilities for adult education".
That is not imposing a mandatory requirement on the local authorities to provide those facilities. It merely asks them to bear in mind that amid various

1515
competing claims for the money which the local authorities have, adult education requirements shall be borne in mind. We believe that it would be extremely helpful to avoid the further development of the Cinderella position of adult education if that could be written on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: There is also a specific point on which it would be helpful if the Minister can reassure the Committee. Great use is made of school facilities in the provision of adult education. There is real anxiety—it may be well-founded, it may not—that any acceleration of grant-maintained status may mean that those facilities will not be so readily available for use in the furtherance of adult education.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. We know that the Minister is well disposed towards adult education and has put on record her commitment to improving access to higher education. The use of schools for the provision of adult education takes place in some of the most deprived communities of our society. There is anxiety that this could be undermined unless specific reassurances and provisions can be given. I believe the Committee will therefore be particularly interested in the Minister's reply tonight.
Baroness Blatch: This is another important point. Clause 10 concerns the provision of sufficient places in a local authority area for pupils of compulsory school age but it is not appropriate that the introduction of procedures which are intended to facilitate the efficient planning of provision for school pupils should hang on the adequacy or otherwise of facilities for further education for adults.
Local authorities have a duty by virtue of Section 41 of the 1944 Act, as substituted by Section 11 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, to secure the provision for their area of facilities for further education for adults. Any order made under Clause 10 will not change the LEA's responsibilities under Section 41 of the 1944 Act, even where the responsibility for providing school places remains wholly or in part with the funding authority. In any case it is for the governors of individual schools to decide whether or not their school premises should be used for adult and community education provision and it will remain open to local authorities at all times, by agreement with the governors of schools, including grant-maintained schools, to provide further education for adults through school-based provision if they so wish.
The use of school premises out of school hours is a matter for the governors. This is similar to the position in LEA-maintained schools. A GM school would be expected to charge sufficient to cover the cost if its premises were used for non-school activities. Evidence suggests that a significant proportion of GM schools have increased the community use of their premises since becoming grant maintained. I have seen some interesting results of the early surveys on that.
Under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 the duty to secure the provision of adequate facilities for further education for adults is divided between the new further education funding councils and the local authorities. The Funding Agency for Schools has no
1516
role here. The further education funding councils' duties will be to secure the provision of adequate facilities for further education for adults as set out in Schedule 2 to the Act. Schedule 2 includes courses leading to academic and vocational qualifications; courses enabling adults to gain access to such qualifications; basic skills courses; courses to develop proficiency in English as a second language and courses for students with learning difficulties, preparing them for entry to one of the above courses.
Local authorities will continue to be under a duty to secure the provision of all types of further education falling outside the scope of Schedule 2. Such courses will largely be of a less formal nature, mostly not leading to qualifications, and they will serve the general educational and leisure purposes of local communities. It is not a question of there not being provision or whether there should be provision. The provision for adult and community education is made within other legislation and not necessarily in this legislation.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I hope it is in order for me to speak to Amendment No. 60, which is grouped with this amendment and stands in my name.
Noble Lords: Yes!
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I shall therefore quickly address that matter. The Funding Agency for Schools, as its name implies, is concerned with schools. Much of the provision of the youth service takes place in schools, and therefore it could be argued that the FAS will have an interest in the youth service. However, the responsibility of the FAS will be planning provision of school places rather than extracurricular facilities such as the youth service. The FAS will therefore be likely to have only a peripheral interest in the youth service.
In authorities where the Education Secretary gives the FAS a shared responsibility for planning school places under Clause 10, the sharing of responsibility is likely to cause confusion, and the service be destined to suffer as a consequence. The future provision of the youth service could be at risk if grant-maintained schools no longer wished to be involved in its provision. For communities in which there were only grant-maintained schools access to the youth service could be lost if alternative provision were not available to the LEA. This amendment standing in my name seeks to ensure that the youth service will remain wholly the responsibility of the local education authority.
Baroness Seear: I am not surprised but I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. Of course we are aware that the vocational and other courses which she listed will be financed by the funding body. However, as we have argued previously, there are a great many other activities in adult education, many of which lead on to vocational courses. It is those courses, which are not directly funded by the funding authority but which are still the responsibility of the local authority, about which anxiety is being expressed.
Although, as the noble Baroness said, there is an obligation on local authorities to provide for adult

1517
education, that has been discretionary. I do not believe that she met my point that when money is very tight and there are heavy demands from the schools, for which there is a mandatory responsibility, and real pressures, it is inevitable that the non-vocational part of adult education—and I believe that the distinction between vocational and non-vocational courses in relation to adult education is a false one—is in real danger of being squeezed out.
I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that adult education colleges up and down the country are extremely anxious about this Bill. She knows some of the more fortunate colleges in London and my own particular area of interest. Those colleges have been well supported. We are very grateful that that is so. But that applies to a very small number of fortunate colleges in London. For a great many others, that is not true and adult education, which is not specifically vocational, is to go. We believe that if the proposed words were on the face of the Bill the position of adult education colleges would be strengthened when approaching local authorities for support.
At a quarter past one I shall not press the amendment. If I say that I wish to withdraw the amendment I hope that I shall be allowed to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 4, line 24, at end insert:
("() For the purposes of this section responsibility for providing sufficient school places means the provision of school places which are sufficient in number, character, and equipment available to afford for all pupils education offering such variety of instruction and training as may be desirable in view of their different ages, abilities, and aptitudes, and of the different periods for which they may be expected to remain at school, including practical instruction and training appropriate to their respective needs, but does not include music education.").
The noble Lord said: Frequently, some of the richest educational experiences of children are derived from co-operative efforts which have been organised effectively on a local authority basis for the past 40 years. Much cultural activity is most unlikely to continue on the same scale without the excellent stimulus that so many education authorities have provided.
The envisaged reduction in the role of local education authorities has serious implications for music provision, as it has for the arts and museums, which are covered by Amendment No. 62. The attack on local education authorities—and I believe that it is an attack—will undermine activities such as school orchestras and choirs. That is a deplorable development when the United Kingdom has acquired such a high international standing in those spheres. I fail to understand how we can go through an identity crisis as a nation and wonder why we are not good at this or that yet, having reached a peak of excellence in music, we do not do everything possible to sustain that role which is admired throughout the world.
As we have seen, more than half the provisions of the Education Bill are aimed at extending the number of grant-maintained schools. That has the potential to
1518
separate individual schools from the wider educational and social community with important implications for arts and music activities. On a practical level, the co-operation which has existed between local authorities and national bodies such as the Arts Council is likely to suffer. The tasks of those bodies in encouraging high standards of performance and participation in artistic ventures will be monumental when they have to communicate with the governing bodies of schools or small groups of schools.
Individual schools lack the resources to co-ordinate group music making such as orchestras and choirs. To achieve that requires a structure which will strategically co-ordinate, organise and maintain quality and range of provision. It is clear that most schools could not possibly provide a wide range of musical opportunities on an individual school basis. The cost of providing musical instruments and specialist teaching would be prohibitive. Clusters of schools—the prophesied consortiums—could not match the provision an LEA-wide service is able to provide. LEA advisory and support functions, including peripatetic teaching, are clearly vital for high quality music tuition. The removal of peripatetic teaching will cut off access to instrumental teaching, usually in groups as part of the curriculum in primary and lower secondary phases. I gather that the Government have been considering using Section 145 of the Local Government Act 1972, provision of entertainments, to allow LEAs to maintain school bands or orchestras. But school bands and orchestras are just one part of music provision in schools. One cannot be divorced from the other. Orchestras and bands feed off the music in schools. LEAs should be retaining the planning role for music in schools.
I know how seriously the Minister takes the challenge to education and how much she cares about the standing of Britain in the world. She has not infrequently referred to it in her speeches. I hope that the Minister will consider seriously the issue of music and culture. I hope that she will realise that there is a great deal of anxiety abroad and will be able to reassure us today in the context of the amendment.
1.15 a.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I support the amendment because I see the object of it as to create, as it were, a safe haven for a very special and specialised subject, music, which in terms of teaching and learning is quite unlike any other subject in the curriculum. Of course, the curriculum includes music education, and that is not what concerns me. But I hope that we would all agree that any respectable school programme must include a great deal of extra-curricular music, especially musical instrument tuition, instrumental ensemble work, school and county orchestras and choirs of all sorts, shapes and sizes. On this side of the Chamber we would like to be sure that music education outside the curriculum is not affected by Clause 10, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that such will be the case.
The prime responsibility of the funding agency for schools must be the planning of school places rather

1519
than the organisation of extra-curricular programmes, and it is in the nature of things that music education, in its widest sense, will be only a marginal interest to the FAS. To divide responsibility would also be a recipe for comprehensive confusion. In any authority where the Secretary of State had given the FAS shared responsibility, the future of music education would be in grave danger if grant-maintained schools did not want to be involved in it. Everybody else would then suffer. We believe that the provision of music education can best (and most safely) be left to the LEAs. They have, after all, a remarkable track record.
Practical music differs from other subjects in one way above all others. You cannot teach the trombone to 20 people at the same time. Instruments have to be taught one to one or in very small groups by expert teachers. The LEAs over the years have developed an excellent system of peripatetic music teachers, serving groups of schools and providing skilled, targeted teaching with the maximum economy of time. If Clause 10 is to apply to music, peripatetic teaching is gravely at risk—not that it is not at risk already.
The rot has already set in. The London borough of Barnet disbanded its service in 1990. Coventry Centre for Performing Arts closes this year. South Glamorgan Visiting Music Service will be terminated if it is not self-financing within six months. So much for gwlad y gan, the land of song. In Newcastle the size of the service has been halved; 11 teachers have been made redundant. In the London borough of Barnet all 43 teachers in the award-winning music team have been awarded their own redundancy notices. In North Tyneside the service has been disbanded and the teachers have been offered jobs in other council departments. I have it on good authority that the senior woodwind teacher was offered a job as a gardener. Just imagine it: he might perhaps be able to prune with his piccolo, but what will he do with his bassoon?
In the matter of extra-curricular music education, local education authorities have always given remarkably good value for money. Now they are being so persecuted, cribb'd, cabin'd and confined that they are being forced to make these crazy cuts in a service which has been the envy of the world. They must be allowed to provide musical education services because the FAS has other priorities, no commercial adventurer will think it worth his while and the school music teachers are simply not equipped to cover so wide a range. No music teacher can teach the violin, the oboe, the trumpet, the guitar, the synthesiser, the sitar and the lute, run an orchestra, organise a steel band or a jazz combo, recruit and train a choir and at the same time and for low pay give instruction in harmony, counterpoint, composition, analysis and the entire history of music. There is a vast area in music education which can only be filled by the services of a local education authority. I hope that the Minister will see the sense of the amendment and accept it.
Earl Russell: All the amendments are joined by themes which are perhaps a little more appropriate. It is more far-reaching than the Government Front Bench realise. One is that they all raise the question of overall planning, on which I say no more at the
1520
moment. The other is that they all deal with activities which are carried on very often in the schools in association with the education service but without being the central part of the school's activities.
Those are all, therefore, likely to become peripheral in the horizon of the funding council. In fact, it means that they all run the risk of being relegated to an educational Channel Islands. We all know the difficulties which arise whenever we have to try to deal with an issue which falls between the boundaries of different ministries. It is hard to get it to the top of anybody's attention.
What we suggest in all the amendments—the youth service, music and adult education—is that they will be put in that position where they fall, as it were, between the boundaries of different ministries. We suggest that since these are services which large numbers of people value in all quarters of the House, it could produce an unfortunate and unforeseen effect. We hope that that point will be given some thought.
Lord Addington: I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in his Amendment No. 59. Also, since Amendment No. 61 covers similar concerns in a different field, it may be appropriate and assist brevity if I try to tie in my comments on that amendment as well.
Here we are talking about issues where we have economies of scale of interest and finance. We have people with expertise across the local authority area which is used in outdoor activities. One teacher or other person is available to take people, for example, sailing, canoeing, camping, hill-walking or whatever else goes on. Also, we can recruit people into large enough groups to make up the units. For example, one needs x number to crew a boat and x number to go walking safely. One also needs a certain amount of expertise from various fields such as safety and navigation on land and water. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, pointed out, in music one cannot expect to find all the human resources in one school. In addition, if there is one type of expertise in one school, in x number of years one may conceivably not find sufficient people to utilise that expertise.
Thus I suggest that this whole group of amendments, Amendments Nos. 59, 61 and 62, to an extent should all come together. I should have no objection, although I cannot speak for other noble Lords, if the noble Baroness chose to answer them all at once. It is a situation where we are trying to maximise and become as efficient as possible in using the physical interests of the pupils and the physical resources of the teachers.
Lord Judd: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has made a sensible suggestion which the Minister may find convenient. Therefore, perhaps I may add a word on outdoor activities, the arts and museums.
Outdoor education centres have, as I believe everybody realises, provided powerful learning experiences for nearly a quarter of a million young people through direct contact with mountains, moorland, rivers, caves and sea in a form of education which is sought often through arduous and

1521
adventurous undertakings or careful observations and research in order to explore both the physical world and the more difficult terrain of human aspirations and capabilities. It is a form of education which we recognise has proved to be a powerful experience which is increasingly shown to complement and enrich the curriculum, and it is one for which Britain has again long been recognised as a world leader.
The residential outdoor centres, which have so well shouldered the responsibility for the lives of countless young people over the years, have become internationally respected models of good outdoor practice. The concern is that qualified and experienced staff are the most expensive item in any centre's budget and are most likely to suffer when cuts are made. The tightening of LEA central budgets as schools opt out is already affecting the budgets of outdoor centres. The addition of other provisions to that made by LEAs could put still more pressure on costs and cause the dismantling of the provisions currently made.
We have to recognise the fact that in recent weeks there has been—a matter already referred to in the debate today—acute anxiety about what happens when this kind of activity moves outside the well-proven and responsible spheres of local education authority provision with all its professionalism.
Local authorities also currently provide extensive arts, museum and cultural activities. There is a natural overlap between those and the provision of the rest of education. Local theatres often provide the best opportunity for those studying English or foreign languages to see plays or books they are studying performed. Museums provide a valuable resource to schools, whether to give children examples of life in a particular period of history or a specific event in their own area. Initiatives such as city farms offer inner-city children a valuable opportunity to see animals in the flesh and learn about the workings of farms which directly or indirectly provide them with food. Those services are all invaluable educational resources which help interest children in their school and in learning.
For such services to be planned and provided to meet the needs of schools at a realistic cost which reflects their educational value they must be overseen by the local education authority—the only body which currently and for the foreseeable future has some responsibility for the totality of education in the area.
Baroness Warnock: I must add my support to the amendment. I probably said enough on another occasion about the importance of music education. I fear that in speaking again on the other aspects of this amendment I may well be accused, as may other noble Lords, of thinking that money does not matter. There is a cost element. The local authority must expend its money on keeping these services going. I believe that educationally this is one of the most important fields. No single school, as we have heard, can possibly supply the teaching of music; nor can it keep the necessary supply of musical instruments required for people who are embarking on their instrumental studies. We cannot afford to lose that glorious aspect of education.
1522
On the subject of museums, it is not just the schools which will suffer but the museums themselves. I know that the museum whose running I have been deeply involved in—the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge—depends very largely on support from the local authority, which pays the museum a yearly subsidy provided that the museum will lay on exhibitions especially for schoolchildren. The museum loves to do that and does it very well. If the local authority has no responsibility for that form of education, then the museum will greatly suffer.
I see no alternative to local authority involvement. No independent trusts or companies will be interested in what cannot be a commercially viable provision.
The other feature of local authorities which I must emphasise in all those connections, but particularly in music, which is what I know about most, is the knowledge of the individual children who are taught and provided for in, for example, the Saturday morning music schools that the local authority provides. That has an important careers aspect in the sense that the local authority music advisers are extremely good at finding places for children to continue their musical education and at suggesting careers that they may adopt and helping with their training. If we lose all that, we lose not only a great music tradition, which has only recently been built up, but also a personal interest in the children which enormously supports and helps them and, putting it at its crudest, helps to prevent them from becoming delinquents. I therefore hope that we shall be assured that the local authorities will retain those powers.
Lord Lucas: I do not entirely share the anxiety expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and others. If I may take an example, in Hampshire we have an excellent music service which is in the process of being devolved under the local management of schools scheme. The initial indications are that about one-third of schools will not take it up. The reason is that they wish to spend more and spend it better. They have found and are finding ways in which they can organise their music more to the taste of their pupils than is done under the Hampshire music service, good though that is. The reason is that parents demand that there should be good music provision, good sports provision and good extra curricular activities in schools. It is one of the major things by which they judge a school because they know much more about that than about education. I am sure that the grant-maintained schools, which have to compete hard for new pupils, will be particularly concerned to provide those sorts of services. And were not the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, those of local education authorities cutting provision rather than of grant-maintained schools cutting provisions?
I hesitate to add a concern of my own, but I feel a shadow coming on from the direction of the further education funding council, which appears to be developing the idea that a lot of funding of sixth form colleges should be related to outcomes and that outcomes should be measured in terms of examination results. If that becomes the way of sixth form colleges, and certainly if that seeps into the rest of the education

1523
system, there will be a strong disincentive to provide extra curricular activities generally. I hope that my noble friend Lady Blatch can assure me that there is no intention of allowing that to happen either in the school system or in further education.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Following the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, perhaps I can add a word on Amendment No. 61 because mutatis mutandis what I said about music education applies equally to outdoor education. It is extra curricular; it is vitally important; and it is heavily funded by the LEAs both in terms of money and experience. It is perilously at risk. Outdoor education gives opportunities for excellence to non-academic pupils in schools or to those who are not particularly artistically gifted. Its very existence permits more people to do better, and that is perhaps one of the central concerns of all education.
In this specific matter there is the unique importance to be borne in mind of safety—safety on mountains, on rivers and in caves. And this is a labour-intensive matter. One cannot put 30 school pupils into Lliwedd Slabs in Snowdonia to teach them the elements of rock climbing with only one instructor: they tend to fall off and it reaches the newspapers. Once again, Clause 10—despite what may be grimaced on the other side of the Chamber—is inappropriate, irrelevant and perhaps even positively dangerous if it applies to outdoor activities.
Lord Addington: I want to make one very brief point in response to the taunts of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He talks about maximising the response. How does he know exactly whether that musical response will meet the needs of the pupils and not just their parents? How does he know whether in two or three years' time, once they have set up a wonderful classical section, there will not be half a dozen budding jazz musicians?
Baroness Blatch: I wonder where some noble Lords have been over the past 25 years. All I can say is that the musical needs of many hundreds of thousands of children are not being met in schools because of the very ad hoc system. I have seen the liberating of systems—just the kind of example that has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Lucas—where more children's needs in terms of musical talent are being met. It is very exciting. I am in and out of schools all the time and I am constantly moved by the quality and the quantity of good music sung and played by our young people.
Amendment No. 59 does not make sense. It is not possible to exclude music education from the provisions of Section 8 of the 1944 Act. Music is a foundation subject of the national curriculum and compulsory for all pupils aged five to 15. It was indeed this Government who made it a compulsory subject in the national curriculum. Schools can also offer music as an A-level subject. It is therefore not possible to exempt schools within the grant-maintained sector and under the responsibility of the funding authority from providing music education.
1524
Our proposals will not prevent schools, as now, offering extra-curricular music activities such as school choirs and individual and group instrumental tuition. Where they provide instrumental tuition as an optional activity, they can of course charge a fee, which must not exceed the cost to the school of providing the service. I see no reason at all why our proposals should discourage schools which are keen to provide such additional activities from doing so.
There is no reason why the delegation of funds to schools in respect of non-mandatory music services should affect the existence of these services. Local Management of Schools, the method by which money is delegated to schools, does not reduce the overall amount of money which is available for education. It is simply a fairer way of allocating resources. We know already how much better schools make use of that money than LEAs themselves. It must also be said that local authorities are not required under our law to delegate provision for music services.
Turning to the other amendments, as I have already explained in relation to Amendments Nos. 59 and 60, the current provisions of the Bill are based on Section 8 of the 1944 Act. I do not intend to go over that ground again. But it is our view that the local authority's duty under Section 8 of the 1944 Act does not extend to the providing of music. As for Amendment No. 61, there is no reason why the delegation of funds to schools in respect of non-mandatory outdoor education services should affect the existence of those centres. I repeat that Local Management of Schools, the method by which money is delegated to schools, does not reduce the amount of money available for education but is simply a fairer way of allocating resources. Again local authorities are not required to delegate provision for outdoor education.
I think that noble Lords have taken a very pessimistic view. All the evidence is that these services are thriving. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that he follow my tracks around some of the counties in this country where the prospects are very exciting indeed.
Lord Judd: I notice the fervour with which the Minister speaks. I always think that that illustrates her commitment. I do not question her commitment. It is the doubt whether she is deploying it in the most effective way that disturbs many of us in the Committee.
I hope the Minister will understand that we listen when the Prime Minister and the noble Baroness talk about the best possible chance for all our children and talk about one nation. I imagine that all those who have participated in the debate are relatively privileged members of society. I am sure that we would all be glad to contribute to the wider activities of the schools and groups to which our children belong. We would be glad to see the children benefiting from that. We know that resources are not limitless. But what we are really disturbed about is that in so many of the areas of the most acute deprivation it is simply not possible for parents living on a minimal income to contemplate fees. It is not

1525
possible for them to contribute to the provision of the kind of resources which more affluent communities in some of our shires can contribute.
Therefore, far from moving towards one nation with better opportunities for all our children, this process is becoming divisive. That is what underlies our whole anxiety. We sit in this Chamber and beat our breasts about what is happening with crime and delinquency which results from people going through pretty negative experiences in the grim reality of their daily routine in life. What is so challenging about so many of the outdoor activities which we have heard about is that they enable precisely those kinds of children and young people to have an experience which helps to build character, self-confidence, and the rest, and to become positive. That goes for other cultural activities.
I am not questioning the good faith of the Minister but if it were some other hour rather than 20 minutes before two o'clock in the morning, because of the anxiety which exists I would be pressing this amendment to a Division. In the circumstances, I do not intend to do that. I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment. But I hope that the Minister will find it possible to say something a little more reassuring tonight.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he will accept an invitation from me to visit Great Barr, Handsworth and Small Heath schools in Birmingham. They are grant-maintained schools serving very difficult and deprived areas. He should listen to the music and see what the cultural experiences are of those children. They are second to none. They are schools which can do it. What we need to do is to disseminate that good practice. Those schools are serving the children and their families extremely well.
Lord Judd: I shall be delighted to accompany the Minister on a tour of the whole country. The sooner we can arrange that together I shall willingly clear my diary to do it. It would be a good experience. If we are doing that we shall have to make it a representative journey. There are quite a number of places which I shall invite the Minister to visit as well.
Baroness Blatch: The point I make is that if those schools can do it, all schools can do it. They need the will and the determination and the attitude to do it.
Lord Judd: They also need the parental income.
Baroness Warnock: Will the Minister address the problem which I do not believe that she has addressed? I do not doubt that individual schools can make very good contributions to instrumental music.I also believe that schools are capable of entering into a consortia and perhaps having larger choirs and orchestras. Nevertheless, I do not believe that any single school or small group of schools, even if they had the will to do so, are capable themselves of producing something to the standard of the best of our town-based and country-based orchestras, which leads to many of their children members going into the
1526
National Youth Orchestra. That is the kind of thing which individual schools are quite incapable of doing because of their size. Can the Minister address that problem as well as telling us, which I believe, that many schools have good standards of music. Many schools have a lousy standard of music as I know from going around the schools.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 60 to 69 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 4, line 44, at end insert:
("() For the purposes of subsection (3) above, the kind of education to which an order relates—

(a) where an order is expressed to relate only to primary education, includes any secondary education provided in a primary school and excludes any primary education provided in a secondary school, and

(b) where an order is expressed to relate only to secondary education, includes any primary education provided in a secondary school and excludes any secondary education provided in a primary school.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 70 I speak also to Amendments Nos.96, 97, 140, 175, 182, 192, 308, 316, 318, 321, 323 and 328. I know that these amendments may at first sight seem rather complicated, but their essential purpose is simple. First, it is to enable grant-maintained middle schools to be established and to enable them to be fitted into the framework already set out in the Bill. Secondly, it is to make clear that the funding authority may not propose the establishment of a grant-maintained nursery school although proposals may be made for a grant-maintained school to provide nursery education as well as other primary education.
I have pages of explanation of these amendments and if any noble Lord wishes to question me on any of them I shall, of course, respond to such a request. However, because of the hour I hope that the Committee will allow me simply to move Amendment No. 70. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
1.45 a.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 4, line 46, leave out ("in respect of the area to which it applies")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 71, I should like to speak also to the other amendments grouped with it. Again, if Members of the Committee are not over-inquisitive about what these amendments are about, I shall deal with Amendment No. 71 which is required as the effect of Schedule 2 is no longer to be restricted to the area of the LEA to which the order applies. In particular, Schedule 2 (as proposed to be amended) will contain provisions which may affect who is to pay for boarding places outside the area to which the Clause 10 order applies. As noble Lords know, LEAs do purchase places in boarding and independent schools from time to time. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 72:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to consult
.—(1) Before publishing proposals under sections 45, 92 or 101 of this Act (and without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (4) of each of those sections) in relation to a school or schools in any area each funding authority shall consult and at all times have regard to the views of the bodies described in subsection (2) below.
(2) Those bodies are—

(a) the local education authority for the area in question;

(b) the governing bodies of other schools in the area;

(c) the Diocesan Board of Education (where the proposals relate to or may affect any Church of England voluntary school or any endowed grant-maintained school to which the Diocesan Board of Education appoints one or more of the Foundation governors);

(d) where the proposals relate to or may affect any voluntary schools or any endowed grant-maintained school other than one mentioned in paragraph (c) above, the persons or bodies who appoint one or more of the foundation governors of each such school.

(3) Any reference in this Act to a Diocesan Board of Education shall be interpreted as a reference to the Diocesan Board of Education constituted under the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991 for the diocese concerned.").
The right reverend Prelate said: This amendment seeks to ensure that before making proposals the funding agency should consult essential interested parties. The Bill already provides clearly who can object once the proposals have been published. Clauses 92 and 101 set out who can object in detail, but consultation before proposals are issued is just as important as objection once proposals are made. Indeed, consultation before proposals are made may be more important because once proposals are formulated they have a tendency to take on a life and momentum of their own.
The Bill indicates that the Secretary of State will give guidance to the funding agency as to who shall be consulted, but I think that that should be on the face of the Bill, as who should object is already on the face of the Bill. The Churches have a particular concern here. Because we have been represented on the local education committees, we have automatically been involved in the preparation of proposals affecting any school. That has helped the Churches to do their own strategic planning when trying to ensure that a church school is within reach of every child. However, as and when the local education committees disappear, we shall have no assured place in this strategic planning and in the preparation of proposals, and we need one if we are to be sure of genuine choice and diversity. We need, therefore, to be assured of this full and genuine consultation before proposals are made by the funding authority.
Amendment No. 72 is grouped with Amendment No. 72A. They are almost identical except that they differ in the reference in Amendment No. 72A to the "Roman Catholic Diocesan Bishop" concerned where the school affected is a Roman Catholic school. The Committee will remember that in moving an earlier amendment I said that in the past there have been sensitivities about referring to the Roman Catholic bishops in primary legislation. We for our part do not see that difficulty, but in case there is difficulty either on the part of the Government or elsewhere we have moved the provisions in two alternative forms—if I
1528
can put it like that. I hope, however, that the Government will accept them in principle. Although I am happier with Amendment No. 72A than with Amendment No. 72, I move Amendment No. 72 which stands in my name. I beg to move.
The Duke of Norfolk: As Amendment No. 72A is grouped with Amendment No.72 perhaps it is in order for me to speak to it. Amendment No. 72A seeks to include Roman Catholics in the arrangements set out in Amendment No. 72. In brief, the requirement sought by way of the amendment is a duty to be imposed upon a funding authority to consult the providing bodies when the funding authority is preparing proposals for Clause 45 (the establishing of new grant-maintained schools); Clause 92 (the changing of the character of former voluntary schools); and Clause 101 (the discontinuance of a former voluntary school).
At this time we acknowledge reluctantly that representation of the voluntary providing bodies on the funding authorities will be minimal. By this amendment I hope to secure a statutory right to be consulted in the case of proposals being prepared in one or more of the key areas to which the clauses I have listed refer. Again, the Catholic Bishops are anxious to be seen, as the Government have frequently acknowledged, to be an active partner in the provision of state education. Without the close involvement the amendment seeks to secure, the Churches' oversight of their own schools could be perilously and permanently impaired.
Lord Northbourne: I support Amendment No. 72A. The right reverent Prelate referred to developing a coherent policy so that there is an appropriate church school available at each stage of the child's development. We are talking here about a partnership between the Church and the state to provide education. In the amendment we are asking only for consultation. It would be unacceptable in a partnership if the partners were not consulted in the case of important issues such as the establishment, change of character or discontinuance of one of the partnership's schools. I therefore strongly support the amendment.
Lord Hylton: Perhaps I may say a word in support of Amendments Nos 72 and 72A. They go some way towards remedying the lack of consultation that there has been in the preparation of previous legislation and in the prescription under previous legislation as to what should be done in specified cases.
Baroness Blatch: I wonder whether the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk will accept that I accept what they say and what they ask for in principle, will take this proposal away, think about it and return with it on Report and between now and Report will consult the right reverend Prelate.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am most grateful to the Minister for that assurance and I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Duke of Norfolk The Duke of Norfolk had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 72A:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to consult
—(1) Before publishing proposals under sections 45, 92 or 101 of this Act (and without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (4) of each of those sections) in relation to a school or schools in any area each funding authority shall consult and at all times have regard to the views of the bodies described in subsection (2) below.
(2) Those bodies are—

(a) the local education authority for the area in question;

(b) the governing body of other schools in the area;

(c) the Diocesan Board of Education (where the proposals relate to or may affect any Church of England voluntary school or any endowed grant-maintained school to which the Diocesan Board of Education appoints one or more of the Foundation governors);

(d) the relevant Roman Catholic Diocesan Bishop (where the proposals relate to or may affect any Roman Catholic voluntary school or any endowed grant-maintained school to which that Bishop appoints one or more of the Foundation governors);

(e) where the proposals relate to or may affect any voluntary school or any endowed grant-maintained school other than one mentioned in paragraph (c) or (d) above, the persons or bodies who appoint one or more of the foundation governors of each such school.

(3) Any reference in this Act to a Diocesan Board of Education shall be interpreted as a reference to the Diocesan Boards of Education constituted under the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991 for the diocese concerned.").
The noble Duke said: I am pleased to follow the Church of England, as usual, in these ecumenical days. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 72A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 74:
Before Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Criteria for an exclusion
.—(1) The articles of government for every maintained school, grant-maintained school, maintained special school and non-maintained special school shall provide that no pupil shall be permanently excluded unless—

(a) all reasonable steps have been taken by the school to avoid excluding the pupil, and

(b) allowing the pupil to continue to attend the school would be seriously detrimental to the education or welfare of the pupil, other pupils or staff at the school."

(2) A plan should be made for a pupil excluded from school which may include placement in a residential school.
(3) At all stages parents and pupils must be involved.
(4) Account must be taken of inadequate social conditions and a disruptive family.").
The noble Baroness said: I have great compassion for my noble friend the Minister for the way in which she is withstanding this terrible ordeal at such a late hour. Combined with that it is a worry and distress to me that we should now be discussing these amendments. I propose to speak to Amendments Nos. 74 to 78 en bloc. They refer to exclusions from school.
When dealing with the Education Reform Bill in 1988 I moved an amendment relating to non-school attendance. I regret to say that at that stage my amendment was refused by the Government. Now we are in a terrible state in relation to non-school attendance. Recently I visited a city where 7 per cent. of all the children are out of school on any one day.
1530
That city has the highest juvenile crime rate in Europe. Therefore, I believe that the amendments are of vital importance.
I shall speak first to Amendment No. 74, which lays down that all reasonable steps should be taken to avoid excluding a child from school. I have deep sympathy with many teachers who find that particular children are so disruptive, difficult and upsetting that they are almost glad when those children are not in the class. However, I am afraid that that will not do. There must be some way of helping such children to attend school.
I understand that some pupils are so disruptive that they disturb all the other pupils. Under those circumstances something must be done about them. I recommend that a plan should be made for every pupil excluded from school. That plan might include placement in a residential centre. There are in this country some excellent schools, many of which are known to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, in which there are vacancies. However, those vacancies are not being taken up by the local authorities, which would be cheaper for the taxpayer, although the schools are expensive. If children cannot be helped at home or in their day schools there are residential schools which are able to take them.
The plan should include the attendance at a case conference of someone from the social services. At all stages the parents and children should be involved. I also believe that, when children are excluded from school, account must be taken of inadequate social conditions and of the disruptive family. I have known children stay away from school because they are living in bed and breakfast accommodation and because of the difficulties at home which have led to their becoming out of control. Some children may live with single parents who are unable to cope with them, or they may have been sexually abused in the home. When considering the position of children who are excluded from school, social conditions and the disruptive family should be taken into account. There are places which can deal with such children and many of them are successful.
I cannot refrain from saying that the Home Secretary has recommended that centres should be set up for children who have committed crimes. Many such children have not attended school. It would be far better to spend the money which the Home Office recommended should be invested in those extraordinary centres on sending to existing residential schools which have vacancies the children who have been excluded from school.
Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 cover the whole question of the reviewing of cases of children excluded from school. Amendment No. 77 provides for a tribunal so that if the parents of a child who is excluded from school are upset about it and feel that they have good cause to be upset, they can apply to a tribunal. They would be able to apply to a tribunal on various other matters, in particular as regards a child who is excluded from school for a term and then not allowed to return.
I have been brief because it is late. I shall not divide the Committee because I wish to return to the matter.

1531
We must tackle this problem and tackle it well. Although all measures should be taken to keep the child at home and in school where it is possible and practicable to do so, some children need to attend residential establishments and such establishments do exist. I beg to move.
2 a.m.
Lord Elton: My sympathy goes equally to the Minister and to the Deputy Chairman who also seems to be having some difficulties. I have amendments in this disintegrated group. I shall speak first to Amendments Nos. 81A, 81C, 81D and 87A. Those amendments are grouped together and also deal with exclusions.
We have a difficulty in this regard, to which I referred earlier. I am sorry that the Minister is not on the Front Bench at present because it was her reply to a Written Question which led me to suppose that we should by now have the Government's response to the consultation on exclusions. A two-year monitoring period of exclusions was established. The committee, which I chaired, inquiring into discipline in schools, recommended a three-year monitoring period. The Government completed it in November of last year. I had thought that the report would be ready in time for the passage of this Bill. It was not available for its passage through another place and it is not available now. Because of the difficulties of the situation, I gently chide my noble friend. I hope that it will available before we return to the issue. It will be extremely serious if it is not available for the Report stage of the Bill.
The Bill does not seem to recognise the fragility of the situation when a pupil is readmitted on a direction but the school is reluctant to receive him. In that regard I am slightly on the other side of the net from my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I see the great difficulties which disorderly children can in extremis cause in a school and the penalties which all the children in the same class, and perhaps in the same school, can suffer as a result. Their interests must be guarded.
If a pupil is to be ejected as a result of Clause 11 by an order made under Clause 12, the odds against the successful return of that pupil are extremely high. I realise that recourse must be had to forcing a pupil on an unwilling school from time to time, but one must recognise that, to be fair, the school must be given rather more purchase on the pupil that it formerly had.
These amendments propose that a school may make conditions or specify an agreement and that the direction to return a pupil to an unwilling school shall be made subject to the agreement of the parents or the pupil, or both, to certain conditions. If those conditions are not fulfilled, the pupil shall again be excluded and, probably, permanently excluded.
Amendment No. 87A proposes a new clause after Clause 12. It sets up a method whereby the conditions may be enforced or altered as needed during the period of return. It is a long measure and I shall not now go through it with the Committee. I hope that the Government will look closely at this matter because
1532
when we made our report we looked closely at the idea of home/school contracts and came to the conclusion that an unenforceable contract was a menace because once it was seen to be unenforceable it would be exploited and be worthless. This provision at least has an element of enforceability and I commend it to the Government.
In the same group I have Amendment No. 86. That deals with the occasion when the relevant authority is making a direction on a school within a group of schools among which a child has not been able to find a welcome. It seems to me that before making such a direction the authority should not only consult the school on which it is making the direction but it should also consult the other schools that have excluded the pupil to see what the trouble really is so that it can make its direction in reasonable terms. That is a great deal less than I had intended to say on the matter of exclusion which I think is central to getting the system right. However, I think that is all the Committee is able to take aboard at this time of night. Therefore, I shall sit down.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I, too, shall be extremely brief on this subject although I share the view that it is an extremely important subject. I wish to start off by performing the sporting feat of being on both sides of the tennis net with both the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I can see the need to keep children at home and to keep children with their families. I can also see the need to protect the interests of other children in the class and indeed in the school. I echo the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about the fact that the Government's consultation paper has not been produced for this debate. I share his hope that it will be available for the Report stage.
I am sorry to return to the question of funding but surely one partial solution to this problem is to give local education authorities adequate support services which are properly funded. Perhaps one additional idea which is not contained in these amendments but has been suggested—I hope the Minister will be able to address this point in his reply—is the idea of providing financial support for excluded pupils through the GEST programme; the grants for educational support and training. That is all I want to say on these topics. I shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply.
Lord Henley: I offer my apologies for the absence of my noble friend the Minister but she cannot reply to all the amendments. However, I assure the Committee that my voice is bearing up. I hope we can come back to this debate on exclusions at a later stage in Committee. Later on I will be repeating the assurances given earlier by my noble friend that we shall have an opportunity—I believe she mentioned this in her answer to my noble friend Lord Elton—to see the Government response before we come back to this in Committee.
My noble friend has already referred to the vital importance of maintaining good discipline in our schools. It is—and has always been—a key indicator of school performance. In maintaining good order the

1533
head faces many difficult decisions. One of the most difficult is whether to exclude a pupil. Exclusion of a pupil from any school is a serious matter. It is a sanction that should be used sparingly and wisely. It should always be the last resort, never the first. The Government are concerned about the number of pupils that are being excluded from our schools and that the provision made for them once they are excluded is not always satisfactory.
As my noble friend mentioned, those concerns led us to issue a discussion paper on the subject at the end of November. There was a good response to that paper. Over 200 constructive and thoughtful replies were received. Those comments are being considered and the Government will shortly be bringing forward their own proposals in the light of the analysis of those responses.
A number of the amendments appear to echo, albeit in somewhat different wording, the existing provisions of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. I am thinking in particular of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I am sure that the Committee will agree that we should be wary of change for change's sake. Indeed, a number of respondents to our discussion paper made that very point. If changes are required—and I stress that the Government will be announcing their own proposals shortly—I hope that we may restrict them to matters of substance. Furthermore, for the reasons I expressed earlier, I do not consider it appropriate to impose in primary legislation detailed and specific requirements.
The Government's discussion paper specifically asked whether guidance would be helpful and what aspects it should address. There was a generally positive response and, although the Government are frequently criticised for the amount of administrative guidance offered to schools, I believe that this is one area where a constructively worded DFE circular would be both welcome and timely.
As for appeal arrangements, in the case of county, controlled and maintained special schools, LEAs already have powers under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to review decisions to exclude pupils permanently and to consider, after consulting the governing body, whether the pupil should be reinstated and, if so, to give directions to that effect. Where the LEA confirms the exclusion decision it remains open to the parent—or the governing body if the pupil is to be reinstated—to appeal against the decision to a special committee established by the LEA. Arrangements also exist for parents to make representations to the governing body and, if they are not satisfied, to appeal to a separately constituted appeal committee against the permanent exclusion of their child from a voluntary-aided or grant-maintained school.
I do not see any need to replace those existing arrangements for review and appeal, which seem to have worked reasonably well over the years. However, we are considering what further guidance could be given on the conduct and procedures for appeals in the context of the analysis of responses to our discussion
1534
paper on exclusions. The present Bill also includes provision for independent members to be appointed to appeal committees.
The Government are not persuaded of the need for an exclusions tribunal to be established. As I have explained, there are existing procedures for review and appeal, firstly, to the disciplinary committee of the governing body and beyond that, either to the LEA or, in the case of GM schools, the governing body's appeals committee. Adding a third tier to those arrangements creates a further layer of bureaucracy in a process which needs to be resolved relatively quickly in the interests of the child. Our aim should rather be to improve and speed up existing appeals procedures so that the arrangements to secure suitable education for the pupil—either by reinstatement, admission to another school or the provision of education otherwise—can be made for the pupil as soon as possible.
I hope therefore that my noble friend Lady Faithfull will not press her amendments. I believe that she said that two o'clock in the morning was not a suitable moment to do so. Perhaps we can return to the subject at a later stage.
I turn briefly to Amendments Nos. 81A, 81C, 81D and 86 in the name of my noble friend Lord Elton. I agree entirely with my noble friend that the decision-making power should be used only after consultation with all the parties directly concerned, but I believe that the requirements to consult already imposed on the directing body in Clause 12 are sufficient. I do not think that there is any need to impose further requirements as suggested in the amendments.
With respect to Amendments Nos. 81A, 81C and 81D in particular, we support the notion of non-binding agreements between schools and parents but would not want those to become an integral part of the admissions or exclusion procedure. That is why I resist those amendments—although I suspect that my noble friend will not wish to press them tonight—which would allow schools to set conditions before they agreed to admit a child under Clause 11.
2.15 a.m.
Lord Elton: If my noble friend will forgive me for intervening, it is important that we get it straight. I would not dream of pressing any issue at this hour or without reading what he said. However, I am not sure that what he says is clear.
Amendment No. 87A is the new clause providing the procedure for consultation and agreements (or contracts as we used to call them) before readmission. Does he say that that is a matter against which the Government's face is set? I would think that that was a mistake.
Lord Henley: I was speaking to Amendments Nos. 81A, 81C and 81D. I do not believe that I had come to Amendment No. 87A.
Lord Elton: Amendment No. 87A was part of the group with Amendments Nos. 81A, 81C and 81D. It is the new clause after Clause 12. I sent a copy to my noble friend's department. I believe that it is aware of

1535
the grouping. Although quasi-judicial is too grand a word, Amendment No. 87A sets out the procedures by which a contract, agreement or conditions can be monitored and can trigger the final exclusion of the child or can be used as a means of inculcating better behaviour.
Lord Henley: I would not like to say that our face is firmly set against the provision. Bearing in mind the late hour, it would probably be best if we came back to the issue or corresponded on it between now and a later stage in Committee. My advice at present is that we would not be happy with Amendments Nos. 81A, 81C and 81D. However, I would be prepared to have another look at Amendment No. 87A, possibly before a later stage, if there were something on exclusion which might meet my noble friend's concerns.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to my noble friend. He has received further advice which I do not think will take him a great deal further down the track.
I too believe that we should come back to the issue. I am a little puzzled that he says we should return to it later in Committee. We are now dealing with the part of the Bill which deals with exclusions, as I understand it.
Lord Henley: If my noble friend will bear with me, when we reach Part IV, Clause 181, in a day or two's time, it might be a suitable moment to come back to this subject.
Lord Elton: Again I am grateful to my noble friend, although how much digestion of the report he promises we shall be able to procure before then is open to doubt.
Baroness Faithfull: We are in great difficulties over this issue. In moving Amendment No. 74 I have spoken rather volubly. I thank the Minister for what he has said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I shall be bringing the matter back at the next stage of the Bill. Am I allowed to withdraw Amendments Nos. 74, 75 and 76?
Lord Henley: What my noble friend should do is not to move them when those amendments are called. Perhaps she will withdraw Amendment No. 74.
Baroness Faithfull: I do so, so long as I can bring the amendments back at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 74.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 75 to 80 not moved.]
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 81:
Before Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Welfare of the child
. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and of the funding authorities, local education authorities, governing bodies of grant maintained schools and the governing bodies of voluntary schools in the exercise of their functions conferred upon them by or under this or any other enactment to ensure in any decision concerning a child that the welfare of the child shall be a primary consideration.").
The noble Baroness said: My noble friend Lord Elton and I seem to be on two sides of the fence, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said. However, this provision connects with the children who are
1536
disruptive and difficult possibly because of very difficult home circumstances. Perhaps they have been sexually abused. There may be disruptive conditions at home. The best way to help that child may be to send him to a residential school.
Experience has shown that a number of children have been recommended by a psychiatrist and a psychologist to go to a residential school but the school named by the psychiatrist for the child was expensive and the city treasurer was not prepared to pay the fees on behalf of the local authority. I point out that, under the Children Act, the welfare of the child is paramount. I believe that however expensive a school is the primary consideration for a seriously disruptive child should be the welfare of the child and not the fact that the treasurer says the school is too expensive. Therefore, I wish to air the whole problem of expense. Paying for those children to go to an expensive school is in the end cost effective because most of the children are successful and leave the place well adjusted, and not delinquents. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The group has been broken up and I shall deal with my amendment briefly when I reach it.
Lord Henley: I thank my noble friend for that. My noble friend Lady Faithfull has moved Amendments Nos. 79, 80 and 81, I believe. As I indicated earlier, Section 22 of the Education Act 1986 lays on head teachers the responsibility for maintaining high standards of discipline and behaviour in schools and for regulating the conduct of their pupils, subject to any guidance provided for them by the governing body. Having given this responsibility to head teachers, we look to them to exercise it sensibly.
Lord Elton: I believe that Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 were not moved, which is why I did not speak to my amendment. We are now on Amendment No. 81.
Lord Henley: I apologise, I shall move straight on to Amendment No. 81 and the question of the welfare of the child and, as my noble friend said, the provisions of the Children Act. Those provisions lay stress regarding the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned. This is appropriate in that context. They apply when important decisions are taken which affect a particular child. However, although there are some areas of overlap, the main concerns of the Children Act and the Education Bill before us are different. The former is primarily concerned with every aspect of a child's welfare—parental responsibility, guardians, care orders, the protection of children and fostering. The Education Bill includes provisions to ensure that parents will play an active part in choices regarding the child's education. There is therefore no need to include on the face of the Bill a provision regarding the ascertainable wishes of the child, as the noble Baroness stresses.
We have long exhorted LEAs to take into account the wishes of the child when carrying out their duties, particularly on occasions such as were mentioned, but we do not believe that it would be necessary or desirable for the Secretary of State to set guidelines on how people's views might be ascertained. Those are matters which are entirely for local determination in

1537
the light of the particular circumstances. I hope therefore that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I think perhaps we have not understood one another very well. Amendment No. 81 is concerned with the financing of special cases of children excluded from school who cannot be dealt with either at home or in the school and the funding of those cases. Inevitably the child is consulted under previous legislation.
I do not really agree with the Minister, but at this late hour it is a complicated business and I shall not pursue the matter further. I shall withdraw the amendment and bring it back at the next stage of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Direction to admit child to specified school]:
[Amendment No. 81A not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 81B:
Page 5, line 14, at end insert:
("() If no school meets the criteria set out in subsection (2) of this section the appropriate authority may make a recommendation to the Secretary of State under section 12 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is one of a very small group: 81B, 85A, 86A, 86B and 86C. Clause 11 makes no provision for when a pupil is permanently excluded from the only school within a reasonable distance which provides suitable education. The system under Clause 11 is that a pupil shall be put into a school by direction provided that the school is within a "reasonable distance", offers a suitable education and that the pupil has not already been permanently excluded from it. For instance, if one excludes a classicist from, say, Ashbourne Grammar School, I think it most unlikely that there will be another place available. I may be wrong, but I am sure that in many rural areas it will be impossible to find another place to deal with him satisfactorily; and he must be dealt with. It would be a pity if he were dealt with necessarily by education other than in school.
The amendment draws attention to that difficulty and suggests that the authority should in that case make a recommendation to the Secretary of State, who might or might not act upon it, to re-inject the pupil into the school from which he has been permanently excluded. I am on the other side of the net this time. I hope that the noble Lord is seized of the problem, and if he cannot deal with it now perhaps he can deal with it later.
Lord Henley: I hope that I am seized of the problem and that I am on the right or the appropriate side of the net. I hope that we understand the concerns which lie behind these amendments. My noble friend envisages a situation in which the only suitable secondary school within easy reach of a child's home had either excluded the child or had refused to admit him or her. I expect that that already happens from
1538
time to time. It is precisely in order to help parents with children in such circumstances that we have included Clauses 11 and 12 in the Bill.
Perhaps the Committee will allow me to explain why I think that the clauses as drafted would provide sufficient protection for all parties involved. If the child had been refused admission to the only school within easy reach on the grounds that the school was full, the appropriate authority would be perfectly entitled to direct the school to admit the child. Clearly it would have to think carefully if there were a large number of pupils in the same position, since a school could reasonably claim that it would not be able to accommodate them all. The admission of one extra person would be unlikely to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. The LEA or the funding agency would not need to consult the Secretary of State before making such a direction but it would need to consult the school in question, which would have the right to refer the matter to the Secretary of State.
The options available to the directing authority would be different if the child had been excluded from the only school within reach. It would not be able to direct the school to re-admit the child. But under amendments which the Government will table shortly the LEA in which the child in question is resident would be required to provide suitable education other than in school. Again, there would be no need for the appropriate authority to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. I hope therefore that my noble friend will be satisfied with this explanation and will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
Lord Elton: It is late at night. I shall only say that the Government therefore say that a child so excluded must necessarily be educated other than in school. It may well be the right decision, but it is perhaps a regrettable one and we shall discuss it later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 81C and 81D not moved.]
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 5, line 22, at end insert (", unless the school is a voluntary school that has in place a section 6(3) (b) 1980 Act arrangement, the terms of which would preclude such admission or, in the case of a grant maintained school that was formerly a voluntary school where such similar arrangement forms part of the agreed admissions policy as under the provision of section 72 and paragraph 2(a) (iii) of Schedule 5 of the 1988 Act, the terms of which would similarly so preclude.")
The noble Lord said: I apologise for the fact that there appears to have been a typing error on the Marshalled List. The second line of the amendment should read "section 6(3) (b)" rather than"6(6)".
This small, but important, amendment relates to voluntary schools which have a special agreement with the local authority about admissions to the school and to grant-maintained schools which are likely to negotiate a similar agreement at the time of their formation. Under those agreements the LEA imposes a limit, either in numerical or percentage terms, on the number of "non-adherents" who may be admitted to the school at the relevant age-group. That is done in order to protect the religious character of the school. Schools are obliged to admit up to the standard

1539
number of non-adherents. For example, a Catholic primary school with a standard admissions number of 30 each year, might reach agreement whereby only five non-Roman Catholics should be admitted.
Where the Section 6(3) (b) agreement is in place, the imaginary school already cited may accept five non-Catholics —the limit of the agreement—but if for one reason or another they only recruit 24 Catholics the amendment confirms the existing situation that they should not be forced to accept another non-Catholic to make up the standard number, even though the school remains one short of that number.
Amendment No. 82 seeks to place on the face of the Bill a continuation of agreements, where they exist, in the sort of cases described at Clause 11. I beg to move.
2.30 a.m.
Lord Hylton: In supporting the amendment perhaps I can point out that when replying to an earlier amendment the noble Lord, Lord Henley, defended the existing arrangement. Amendment No. 82 refers specifically to an existing arrangement under the 1980 Act. As has been pointed out, it continues an existing practice which tends to preserve the character and ethos of specific schools.
It is important in this context to remember that many Roman Catholic schools were built and created with 15 per cent. of voluntary contributions, often from parents, parishioners, from the diocese, and from a whole range of bodies outside the educational system as it then stood. That is only one reason why it is desirable to continue what already exists.
Baroness Blatch: I am well aware of the anxieties of voluntary bodies that the direction-making power in this clause could be used to override agreements for preserving the religious character of aided schools. But I hope that I can convince the Committee that their anxieties are without foundation. Both I and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State have great respect for the valuable contribution which Church schools have made to the education system over the years. Indeed, I absolutely respect the point made in regard to the 15 per cent. contribution and the efforts of parents. We will not allow that to be undermined.
Clause 11 must be read in conjunction with Clause 12. We believe that the body responsible for securing the supply of school places in an area needs a new power to deal with the tiny minority of pupils who are unable to obtain a place at a school within a reasonable distance of their homes. But we have no intention of allowing either LEAs or the funding agency to ride roughshod over the rights of schools or parents. That is why Clause 12 requires the direction-making body to consult all those concerned before it makes a direction. And, as an ultimate safeguard, the governing body of a school will have the right to refer a proposed direction to the Secretary of State.
We do not expect this power to be used at all frequently. It is rare for a pupil to be excluded from or refused admission to all suitable schools in the area. But plainly there will be occasions when it is
1540
reasonable, and plainly in the best interests of the child, that a school, even though it is full, should be required to admit a pupil; for example, when the nearest alternative school with spare places is some miles from the child's home.
I accept, of course, that the possibility of direction to a voluntary-aided school may arise. But the Secretary of State would only uphold a direction which would override the religious character of an aided school in exceptional circumstances where there was no other alternative within easy travelling distance. I trust that Members of the Committee will feel able to rest on that assurance and withdraw the amendment. I repeat that it would be only if there were no other alternative and that became the most appropriate school; with, of course, the right to challenge that decision.
Lord Northbourne: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said, which certainly gives some comfort on this issue. At this late hour I should like to have the opportunity of taking away what she has said to consider it further. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 83 to 85 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Procedure for giving direction]:
[Amendments Nos. 85A to 86C not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 87:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Excluded pupils
.—(1) The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 23—

(a) in sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) the words "or indefinite" are omitted; and

(b) in paragraph (b) the words "or indefinite" are omitted.

(3) In section 24 paragraphs (c) and (e) are omitted.
(4) In section 25 paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) are omitted.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 87 has broken loose from the group but the noble Lord need not seek for his notes. I move it only to say that I shall return at Report stage to the question of the ending of indefinite exclusions. That was covered in my noble friend's group but the noble Lord did not mention it in his reply. It is too important to leave aside. I shall be returning to it at a later stage. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I merely say that I note what my noble friend says and will come back to this at a later stage.
Lord Elton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 87A not moved.]
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 87B:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Mid-day dinner break
(".The mid-day dinner break shall be organised so as to enable all children to be seated together and served either with school dinners, a cafeteria meal or a meal brought from home.").
The noble Baroness said: We come on to a different subject and I feel quite hungry at the thought of it. I move this amendment out of experience of visiting several schools.
Since school dinners ceased under the previous Act, only children whose parents are in receipt of income support are supplied with school dinners. At one school I visited, the school bell rang at one o' clock and, tinkle, tinkle, tinkle, outside the gate of the school was the pizza van. There was a rush from the school to the pizza van. Children bought themselves a pizza, not having washed their hands. I happened to go on a spring day. They all sat about on the steps of the school eating their pizzas.
I do not think, first, on social grounds, that that is a good way for children to be brought up. I believe that the way school dinners used to be served provided a social training for children. They all sat down together. They had to talk together and talk to the staff, not that the staff always enjoyed it. Nevertheless, it was a social occasion. I believe that, from the point of view of the atmosphere and discipline of the school, school dinners were a good institution.
I realise that it would be unwise to recommend the return of school dinners as they used to be. Therefore I have said:
"The mid-day dinner break shall be organised so as to enable all children to be seated together and served either with school dinners"—
to which the children whose parents are on income support are entitled. Even now a cafeteria meal that the children can buy is served. Alternatively, some children bring their meal from home. I believe that this amendment would serve to produce a better social atmosphere in school and would be healthy for the children. I beg to move.
Baroness Elles: It may be convenient if I speak to Amendment No. 88 which is grouped with Amendment No. 87B if that is acceptable to my noble friend the Minister. I should like to suggest that any education policy cannot ignore the importance of providing and maintaining certain standards for the health of the pupils who are meant to benefit from the education policy. Amendment No. 88 seeks to ensure that the Government accept their responsibility to make a contribution by publishing guidelines on the nutritional values required to provide for and maintain those children attending schools, whether LEA schools or self-governing grant-maintained schools.
As my noble friend Lady Faithfull has already said, at present not only is there no obligation on any authority or school to provide food for their pupils other than for those eligible for free school meals, but there is also no quantifiable or identifiable yardstick which sets out what those free meals should contain; so that the provision can vary from a couple of sandwiches, which I understand is sometimes the case under some LEAs, to what would generally be
1542
considered to be a proper hot meal. We should remind ourselves that this situation is applicable to those children of parents in the country's lowest income groups and for whom the school meal is frequently the only substantial meal of the day.
Taking into account school meals in general, however, there is a lack of adequate provision of certain nutritional contents in the diet which can, as we know, lead to a number of diseases; coronary heart disease being particularly prevalent. The foundations for that illness can begin in childhood. It is the single largest cause of death in this country as well as being the highest cause of death when the United Kingdom is compared with other developed countries. The question of coronary heart disease has been singled out as one of the key areas targeted in the recent report of the Department of Health, The Health of the Nation.
These are not the only problems which have arisen in this country, particularly among the young. There is the problem of obesity and in certain cases, for instance, severe behavioural problems which are influenced by unsatisfactory diet. Amendment No. 88 would place responsibility on the Secretary of State to issue guidelines—I emphasise guidelines—which would be widely drafted, offering wide options allowing for considerable flexibility, and setting out what are in effect minimum requirements for a healthy diet based on the needs at different ages and separate standards for boys and for girls.
Much work has already been done in this field. The national nutritional guidelines have been established by the committee for medical aspects of food policy and recent surveys have shown, in line with the Government's 1991 dietary reference values, that, for instance, in the case of a high proportion of girls both iron and calcium intake are below even the lower reference for nutrient intake.
These aspects of dietary recommendations have been skilfully analysed and recently published by an expert working group under the aegis of the Caroline Walker Trust. The findings were endorsed by all three major government departments concerned—the Department of Health, MAFF, the Department for Education—and supported by leading scientists in the field, including Sir Francis Avery Jones, a very distinguished gastro-enterologist.
The advantages of adopting this amendment are clear to me, at any rate, if not to my noble friend. There would be a standard attainable throughout the country; it would enable schools and LEAs, when publishing tenders for catering contractors, to identify required standards. For instance, one LEA in Berkshire used the Caroline Walker Trust publication to guide it. The catering contractor in that county which obtained the tender for Berkshire schools, emphasised the desirability for such standards to be identifiable when tendering.
Efficient and imaginative provision within the guidelines, and co-operation where possible in each school with the head teacher, has resulted in Berkshire with an increase in the take-up of school meals from about 30 per cent. to 39 per cent. in the space of about two years. Monitoring by the authority or school is

1543
also easier when there are guidelines on which to base their investigations into value for money and for the kinds of provisions supplied. In a recent survey by the Consumers' Association parents have responded with nine out of 10 in favour of the provision of school meals.
Finally, budgetary implications must not be overlooked. With grant-maintained schools and the setting up of local management schemes there could well be a dramatic slipping of standards of nutritional value in order to allocate funding for other purposes unless there is some guideline or target which, while not being mandatory or essential, should be encouraged to be followed. Parents and school governors would also have their responsibilities simplified if some kind of guidance is made available.
The immediate budgetary responsibility must also be seen against the background of the long-term health of children which in the end dictates the general level of good health in this country. Already in 1937, Boyd Orr recognised that,
"From the point of view of the State, the adoption of diet lower than the optimum is uneconomic. It leads to a great amount of preventable disease and ill health which lay a heavy financial burden on the State."
If for no other reason, I very much hope that my noble friend will accept my amendment. I beg to move.
2.45 a.m.
Earl Russell: In supporting these amendments, I shall say only that I hope that the Department for Education will consider the excellent section on diet in the Government White Paper, The Health of the Nation.
Lord Elton: Those who read my noble friend's speech will find that it made an excellent case for the guidelines for which she is asking. It is not necessary to support it further.
I do not in all honesty expect the Government to accept the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, but I hope that while the Bill is going through the House they will look at their school dinners policy and, perhaps over the years to come, will remember that it is not only a question of nutrition but of socialisation. As I have said before, what happens in the dinner break has a marked effect on what happens in the first period after the dinner break. The whole thing is part of the same policy.
Lord Rea: In supporting the two amendments tabled by the two noble Baronesses, I shall try to be as brief as possible although this is an extremely important topic. A mark of that importance is the fact that I am still here at 2.45 a.m. to support them. I am not alone in considering the amendments important. That is also the opinion of the organisation of which I am vice-chairman, the National Forum for Coronary Heart Disease Prevention, which represents 35 national bodies with an interest in the prevention of heart disease.
If the Minister agrees to the amendment here and now, that would be wonderful. If she intends to take it away and think about it, I seriously commend to her the report which was mentioned by the noble
1544
Baroness, Lady Elles, on nutritional guidelines for school meals, published by the Caroline Walker Trust, which translates the recommendations of COMA, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, on recommended dietary allowances to the school situation. Several facts about diet in childhood have become scientifically much clearer since the nutritional guidelines for school meals were abolished in 1980—mistakenly, in the view of almost all nutritional expertise of all political shades.
With regard to coronary heart disease which has been mentioned and in which the United Kingdom is a world leader —if "leadership" is the right word for a parade of death certificates—it is now clear that the origins of this illness occur early in life and that diet in infancy and early childhood matters. It is now clear that those adults who develop coronary heart disease are more likely to have had a nutritionally deprived childhood than those with healthy hearts. The ill effects of that can be countered to a great extent by good, well balanced meals at school, to which the children who are most in need will be entitled because children with a deprived diet are more likely to develop heart disease in later life. I commend both amendments to the Committee.
Lord Judd: Perhaps I may say from this Front Bench that if the Minister is able to respond positively to the amendments, she will have the full-hearted support of the Opposition.
Lord Henley: That Minister is not responding; I am responding, but no doubt I shall have the full support of the noble Lord.
Responsibility for school meals matters rests with local education authorities and the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools. It is for them to decide what sort of service should be provided—a three-course meal, a snack service or the statutory minimum of a meal for those entitled to free school meals only—and the facilities that are appropriate to deliver those meals. The Government do not specify the type of service that LEAs and schools must offer, but they must provide a meal free of charge to any pupil whose families receive income support. We are satisfied that these arrangements allow LEAs and schools to provide a service which takes into account local priorities and tastes—because they differ across the country—while establishing safeguards for those on the lowest incomes.
The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Faithfull would require schools to make arrangements for all children to sit together to eat either a meal prepared by the school meals service or food that they have brought from home. But children's eating habits have changed. Not all children eat school meals or packed lunches. A significant minority now choose to make their own arrangements, which might involve going home for lunch or eating off the school premises. What pupils eat, or do not eat, at lunchtime is a matter for the pupils and their parents.
A requirement for all pupils to be seated together would place unacceptable constraints on the organisation of schools. It is for the head teacher of a school to plan the school day. He may, with good

1545
reason, decide that dinner should be taken in two sittings, with half the pupils in lessons while the other half are eating, and to make his arrangements for lunchtime supervision of the pupils accordingly. It is entirely a matter for the individual school.
LEAs and schools are at liberty to specify nutritional standards to those who prepare meals. Most authorities have introduced "healthy eating" options on school meals menus and are changing their ingredients and cooking methods in response to medical advice.
The Education Act 1980 removed the requirement on LEAs to provide meals which conformed to government-determined nutritional standards. LEAs supported the change. Guidelines were abolished because they resulted in a great deal of what I am told is called plate-waste and were very expensive. Furthermore, they acted as a straitjacket within which LEAs were unable to make improvements in terms of variety of food, use of convenience foods and changes in food delivery, such as the cash cafeteria system.
It would be impractical to impose national nutritional standards on the meals served in schools today. To apply standards to meals served in secondary schools would be very difficult, since most operate cash cafeteria systems offering pupils multiple choices. In primary schools, most of which still offer a set meal, the problem, as most parents will know, is creating meals which children will eat. Children have a greater choice than before. The fact is that, if school meals are not to their liking, however nutritionally advisable, pupils will not eat them, will bring their own food, go without, eat snacks or eat at shops and cafes outside the school gates, where they are likely to eat worse at greater cost.
But, as I have said, an absence of government guidelines does not mean that no thought is being given to nutritional standards. The Caroline Walker Trust, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Elles and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, published last November a report on nutritional guidelines for school meals. The report includes guidelines for the nutritional composition of school meals which the authors hope will be adopted voluntarily by school meals providers in drawing up tender specifications. The Government have acknowledged the trust's initiative as a contribution towards the aims set out in The Health of the Nation White Paper, referred to by my noble kinsman Lord Russell. The practicability of the guidelines is to be tested by the catering working group of the Nutrition Task Force established following the White Paper. Government departments, catering groups and representatives of the School Meals Campaign are all involved with this.
For the reasons I have given, I believe that it is inappropriate for the Government to dictate what a school's lunchtime arrangements should be or to promulgate national nutritional guidelines. Those matters are best left to others. I hope therefore that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank my noble friend for his reply, by which, I must confess, I was somewhat shocked. It seemed to me to be divorced from the
1546
reality of what is happening in schools today. Many women are working. They give their children nothing to eat, either before they go to school, or for lunch at school. That is not true of every child in every family, but a high proportion of them.
I sought the views of some children. I spoke to three different sets of children from three different schools. One would hardly believe it, but they all wanted school dinners back again. However, they said that they used not to like the school dinners provided in times gone by. When I asked them what kind of school dinners they wanted, they said, "We should like to have good salads and good fruit". They especially wanted good fruit.
I am sorry that my noble friend does not think that this requirement can be included in the guidelines. I can quite see that Amendment No. 87B should not be included on the face of the Bill, but I think that it should have gone into the guidelines. I might bring this matter back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Elles Baroness Elles moved Amendment No. 88:
Before Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("School meals
. The Secretary of State shall issue guidelines to local education authorities and grant-maintained schools on nationally agreed nutritional standards for school meals.").
The noble Baroness said: I was disappointed, not surprisingly, by my noble friend's reply to the previous amendment. There was no question of dictating what anyone should eat. If the Minister had looked at page 70 of the Caroline Walker Trust report he would have seen a summary of nutritional guidelines for school meals. That could not be simpler. It merely dictates —if one can use that word—the amount of iron, calcium and nutrients which should be provided in school meals during a certain period.
I thought that that was a minor request. I understand that the Government may not want to change the face of the Bill at this stage. However, I hope that the Minister will ensure that schools are issued with the guidelines even if they are not included in the Bill. That is the least that can be done by a responsible Department for Education. After all, it is responsible not only for the moral, spiritual, educational and intellectual development of children but, above all, for their health. If they were not in good health they would not be able to benefit from the teaching. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I wish to stress that we acknowledged the publication of the Caroline Walker Trust. We acknowledged that its initiative was a useful contribution towards the aims set out in White Paper, The Health of the Nation. We do not believe that it is a matter which should appear on the face of the Bill. However, I am prepared to take away my noble friend's advice and look at the possibility of guidelines. Perhaps we can return to the matter at a later stage.
Baroness Elles: I thank my noble friend for that much more helpful reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Miscellaneous functions relating to grant-maintained schools]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 8, line 25, leave out paragraph (b)
The noble Lord said: The amendment removes from Clause 15 the reference to Clause 98. It is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Perhaps the Minister will give the Committee a few words of explanation. I understand that the amendment prevents the Secretary of State from delegating to the funding agency the responsibility for approving the change of site of a grant-maintained school. What is the purpose of including that provision?
Lord Henley: It requires that a self-governing state school may transfer to a new site only by order of the Secretary of State. I stress that the amendment is technical. It is a necessary consequential change so that new provisions which we shall be introducing at a later stage in our deliberations regulate the transfer of site of both self-governing and LEA-maintained schools. The new provisions will replace Clause 98.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 90:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
Functions in respect of grants for certain expenditure due to immigrant population
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by order impose on a funding authority the function of paying on his behalf grant under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 (grants in respect of special provision for immigrants) payable by him by virtue of section 211(1) (a) or (b) of the Education Reform Act 1988 (grant-maintained schools, CTCs and CCTAs).
(2) The payments shall be of such amounts and be paid to such persons as the Secretary of State may, in accordance with section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966, determine.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment provides for an enabling power so that, should the Secretary of State so wish, he would be able to transfer to a funding authority the mechanical function of paying Section 11 grants to grant-maintained schools, the education associations, the CTCs and the CCTAs. The funding authority would not judge claims for Section 11 grants but would simply make those payments of Section 11 grants which the Home Secretary had determined. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: We are supportive of the principle behind the amendment but perhaps the Minister will clarify a few points. Will the responsibility of the grant be transferred to the Department for Education given that nearly 90 per cent. of the grant is used for educational projects? Will the terms of the grant be extended to include all immigrants, not only those from new Commonwealth countries?
I understand that Section 11 grant is given pro rata to grant-maintained schools, no matter how small the number of children from new Commonwealth countries. I give just one example. I gather that in Tower Hamlets a Church of England secondary school with few ethnic minority pupils receives an
1548
excessive share of the Section 11 money that is given to Tower Hamlets. Why is that so? How will the grant be distributed to CTCs? I hope that the Minister can clarify those points.
Also, what explanation do the Government have for the 30 per cent. reduction in the amount of Section 11 money available for the 1994–95 financial year?
3 a.m.
Baroness Blatch: First, the intention is that the grant remains with the Home Office. However, the noble Lord raises an interesting point in that regard; namely, the number of ethnic minorities covered by the grant. The noble Lord will know that that is a contentious issue on which considerable debate is taking place between my department and the Home Office. We know the particular challenges which schools face when they are dealing with a child who has a language difficulty. It should not matter from which country that child originates. If there is a language difficulty, that imposes a burden on the teacher in the classroom. However, that is a matter for other legislation at some other time.
As regards the other point about allocation systems, this amendment is about the mechanism for allowing grant to be paid. I hope that the noble Lord will support it. I shall write to him about the allocation and distribution system.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 91:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
("Duty of Secretary of State to issue guidelines
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall issue guidelines as to the arrangements to be made by—

(a) every school; and

(b) every local education authority

in England and Wales to ascertain, where practicable, and to give due consideration to the views of pupils.
(2) The guidelines shall in particular provide for arrangements to ensure—

(a) that proper consideration is given to the views of the registered pupils at a school as to matters affecting them in the running of that school; and

(b) that in making any decision affecting an individual pupil, the ascertainable views of that pupil about the decision are given due consideration, having regard to his age and understanding.").

The noble Lord said: Two organisations have drawn to my attention the subscription by the United Kingdom to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child. Both have suggested stronger amendments than this in order to secure compliance with a duty which will fall on this country on 1st January next year. I do not advance any particular merit in the amendment except that it will give my noble friend the opportunity to say what is the position and whether any amendment is necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My advice is that there is no conflict between the Education Bill and the UN convention. Article 12 of the convention states that the child shall in particular be provided with the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child. We believe that the provisions of

1549
the Children Act should cater for that. Therefore, I believe that my noble friend's amendment is unnecessary to bring us within the ambit of Article 12.
Lord Elton: I must read that reply before I understand it. In the expectation that I shall but without any promise not to return to the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 93:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
("Complaints procedure
.—(1) Section 23 of the Education Reform Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), the words "with the approval of the Secretary of State, and" shall be omitted.
(3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide guidance for local education authorities' working arrangements subject to subsection (1) above and such guidance shall provide for complaints to be dealt with

(a) speedily and

(b) anonymously, if the complainant so requests."

(4) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) In the case of a complaint made under section 68 or 99 of the Education Act 1944, the Secretary of State shall be required to acknowledge receipt of a written complaint within 3 weeks of receiving it and give due reason to the complainant if he has failed to dispose of the complaint within 3 calendar months".").
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment. It seeks to insert a new clause relating to complaints procedures: first, to speed up a response to complaints procedures; and secondly, to allow them to be made anonymously if parents so wish.
Under Sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944 parents and others have had the right to complain to the Secretary of State. But the more recent Education Reform Act provided parents with greater scope for making their anxieties heard at local level. Section 23 of the Act required all LEAs to set up local complaints procedures to deal with complaints about the curriculum. Each local procedure must be acceptable to the Department for Education. Parents can complain about LEA policy or the policy of a school. Under the Act, they cannot complain directly to the Secretary of State until the complaint has been dealt with locally.
Local complaints procedures are excellent in principle but there is evidence that LEAs can and indeed have dragged their feet in dealing with complaints. There has also been evidence of victimisation of parents who have complained. There is also an anxiety that parents are ignorant of their legal rights.
I give two examples. In June 1989 Mrs. Denise Bell complained about Ealing's religious education service. It was not until May 1990, nearly a year later, that the complaint was considered by the LEA and formally dismissed. Mrs. Bell then complained to the Secretary of State and the Department for Education took a further 16 months to deal with that complaint. Mrs. Bell eventually succeeded in her complaint but the
1550
whole process took over two years. Mrs. Bell also suffered a certain amount of intimidation. In fact it often takes a great deal of courage as a parent to lodge a complaint; that is, courage not only on one's own part but on the part of one's children who may be on the receiving end of victimisation.
More generally, the comprehensive report from the National Consumer Council of November 1992 highlighted instances where parental complaints had been dealt with satisfactorily and had led to changes in school policies. However, it also reported that the current system needed tightening up. For example, one LEA rejected a complaint with a terse letter and gave no reasons whatever for its decision. Another complaint took four months to be dealt with locally and a year by the Secretary of State. The report's recommendations include,
"timelimits for acknowledging complaints, replying to requests for information and … the final response to the complainant should be set and made public".
This proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to regulate the local complaints procedure so that complaints can be made speedily and, if the complainant so desires, anonymously. It also suggests a time limit on the Secretary of State to acknowledge a complaint and give due reasons if he fails to do so within that specified time limit. This is a probing amendment but I hope my noble friend might be sympathetic to the principles behind it, particularly as regards parameters of time and of the possibility of anonymity to protect parents and their children who might feel that they needed to make a complaint. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I wish to express general sympathy for what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has said certainly as regards the anxiety about complaints not being dealt with within an adequate time. However, I am a little uneasy about the way this measure is expressed here. I wonder whether it might not be better to suggest, for example, that if a complaint has not been dealt with within a specified time by the local education authority, a person has a right to complain to the Secretary of State. I am uneasy, too, about anonymous complaints. I quite understand the reasons why such a suggestion is being made, but a great deal of mischief can be made by people who cannot be held accountable for the complaint that is being made. I hope we shall not pursue that course.
Baroness Blatch: At the outset I must say that my noble friend has my admiration as she has sat through the full deliberations on the debate today and has performed duties too. I know that she is not well and I am sorry that her amendment is being discussed at such a late hour. I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments, and certainly with the principle of them. I know that people are concerned at the speed with which complaints are dealt and at the intimidation that often arises in the process.
Let us look first at the proposed new subsection after subsection (1). It suggests that the Secretary of State should provide guidance to local education authorities by means of regulations. I am not sure that regulations are the appropriate vehicle for issuing

1551
guidance, but in any event the Secretary of State has already provided guidance to LEAs about arrangements for the consideration of complaints about the curriculum. DES Circular 1/89 outlined the criteria LEAs should follow when setting up procedures for the local handling of complaints and required them to submit their proposed arrangements for the Secretary of State's approval. It stipulated that the Secretary of State would need to be satisfied that the arrangements would offer full and fair consideration to any complaint and avoid undue delay. It specifically highlighted the need to incorporate a mechanism to identify urgent complaints and to institute procedures to consider these appropriately. Every LEA has since had its procedures approved by the Secretary of State.
I recognise the concern that some parents may lack the confidence to make their complaint or will hesitate for fear that their child will suffer in some way. The circular of guidance specifically points out that a complainant should be allowed to be accompanied when making representations and that arrangements for an interpreter's presence should be made where necessary. Beyond that, there is no bar to a case being handled by a third party on the complainant's behalf, although I suspect that anonymity would be easier to preserve where the complaint was of a general nature than when it referred to provision made for a particular child.
I believe that the point has been made by the right reverend Prelate that the amendment may be defective. It is not so much a matter of anonymity but of the protection of the parent while the complaint is being made. It is difficult sometimes for parents to go through this procedure. I am sympathetic to that part of the amendment, but there is no need to legislate for guidance when arrangements are already in place. I shall willingly keep the adequacy of the guidance under review.
Turning to the proposed amendment after subsection (2), this concerns complaints which, having exhausted the local machinery, are referred to the Secretary of State under Sections 68 or 99 of the Education Act 1944. I agree entirely with my noble friend and other Members of the Committee that it is reasonable and desirable to ensure a prompt acknowledgment of any complaints that are received in the department, and for a progress report or explanation to be provided if it proves impossible to resolve a complaint within a specified time. The department's internal procedures already cover such issues but I have asked for a check to be undertaken to ensure that the timescales proposed in the amendment are always adhered to. I believe that it is appropriate to include this sort of prescriptive detail in primary legislation.
We aim to dispose of complaints as speedily as possible, but the timing is not totally under our control. Most complaints call for consultation with the school and the local education authority involved, and also with the Office for Standards in Education. Given the limited number of precedents, issues are often raised on which legal advice is necessary. Moreover, there is sometimes further correspondence with the complainant, who may introduce new
1552
evidence after making his or her initial complaint. As a result, some cases take much longer to resolve than the department would wish, but we shall continue to make every effort to keep delays to a minimum. My noble friend knows that there is a great deal of scope for improvement, but I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Cox: I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate for his support in principle. I should like to reassure my noble friend that when I used the word "anonymous" it may have given the wrong connotation. I meant that a complaint might be made through a third party, say a parent governor, so that the child would not be picked out and victimised. However, I accept her point.
I thank my noble friend for her sympathetic response and her assurances concerning guidance and checking what is currently happening. I should like to read her remarks in the clear light of dawn, which is imminent. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before my noble friend sits down, having heard my words coming back to me perhaps I may apologise now rather than tomorrow in front of a crowded Chamber for the fact that I said that I believed that it was appropriate to include this sort of prescriptive detail on the face of the Bill. I meant to say that I did not think that it was appropriate to put it on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Cox: Sadly, that is how I understood my noble friend's remarks. While reserving the right to return to the matter later, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Resolution of disputes]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 9, line 1, at beginning insert:
(".—(1) There shall be established a body corporate to be known as the Schools Tribunal, to exercise in relation to England and Wales the functions conferred upon them
(2) The Secretary of State shall appoint—

(a) a President of the Tribunal,

(b) the panel of persons who may serve as chairman of the Tribunal, and

(c) a panel of persons who may serve as the other two members of the Tribunal apart from the chairman.

(3) The President and the members of the chairmen's panel shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
(4) The members of the lay panel shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.
(5) Regulations under subsection (1) above may provide for the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to be exercised by such number of tribunals as may be determined from time to time by the President.
(6) The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, provide such staff and accommodation as the Tribunal may require.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to set up an independent body on the lines of the special needs tribunal to resolve disputes between the funding authorities and local education institutions.
Given the lack of clarity over the working arrangements of the parallel duties of local education authorities and the funding authorities it seems highly likely that disputes will occur not infrequently. The most obvious example is where there is a need to close a school within an area and the funding authority wishes to see an LEA school close and the LEA to see a grant-maintained school close. In such a case there may be many considerations to take into account: the catchment area of the school which will close, the alternative schools for children in that area and the provisions of the school proposed for closure which meet the particular needs of the community in terms of the curriculum, denominational provision or single sex provision.
Closing a school is always an emotive matter for the local community. It therefore seems appropriate to have an independent body familiar with similar situations with the experience and knowledge to take the decision, able to adjudicate in such cases. The tribunal proposed is similar in composition to that set up to deal with the special needs cases. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the proposition serious consideration. I beg to move.
3.15 a.m.
Lord Henley: I shall give the matter serious consideration. However, I have to say that I believe it is an invention of an additional complicated and completely unnecessary bureaucracy. I think it would also be a considerable waste of public money. Clause 17 already provides for the Secretary of State to resolve disputes. Perhaps the noble Lord thinks—I do not know—that in the example he gave, the Secretary of State would always find in favour of the funding agency, whatever "in favour" in that context might mean. There can be no question of such a situation arising. The Secretary of State must act reasonably at all times. He is, of course, open to judicial review.
Nor do I accept that there necessarily will be that many disputes. I hope very much that LEAs and the funding agency will be able to work together in harmony the great majority of the time. I think that disputes will arise rarely. The Bill tries to spell out in some detail which body is responsible for which functions. However, we recognise that there is the possibility. That is why we intend to legislate in the way that we do.
Lastly, I have to stress the cost. The proposed tribunal would have associated costs. Those costs would start to accumulate even before the tribunal was required to resolve any disputes. Members of an operating tribunal have to be drawn from panels of potential individuals. Those potential individuals would have to be appointed, a time-consuming and costly operation. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Judd: I find that a bit rich. We are seeing an immense growth in bureaucracy with the funding authorities and the complexity that will arise from the
1554
legislation. To refer to the proposal as unnecessary bureaucracy when it is designed to smooth the working of the bureaucratic muddle that will be created is to me a little disingenuous.
There will be problems of credibility for the poor old Secretary of State. He will say, "We think we ought to set up a funding authority now, and it will take on increased powers." Then some disputes arise and he makes the judgment about what is right in the dispute. I do not believe that that will build up public confidence in the system.
Perhaps I may say this in the best possible spirit. It has been a long and exacting day. It is sad that we finish on a note that is characteristic of the preparation of the Bill, its passage through the Commons and the way in which it has been considered in this Committee. The one position of the Government is that they will not listen to any suggestions, however good in intention and however constructive, which come from outside their own ranks and bureaucracy.
Lord Henley: I simply do not accept that. I have taken on board quite a few points. I repeat the points I made. I do not accept that it is necessary to create another layer of bureaucracy. I do not believe that there will be the disputes that the noble Lord claims.
Again I must stress that the Secretary of State will be acting in a quasi-judicial manner. He therefore must act reasonably at all times. He is, of course, open to judicial review.
Lord Judd: I am a realist and withdraw. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Duty to compile information and conduct research about provision of education]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 9, line 11 leave out ("relevant")
The noble Baroness said: I have spoken to Amendment No. 96. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Viscount Astor: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past three o'clock.

Education Bill
  Correction
  As a result of a mishearing, Lord Bruce of Donington, speaking on the Statement on Bosnia at col. 1270, line 32, of the report for 19th April, was reported as referring to "the Soviet command" rather than "the Serbian command".
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 5th APRIL
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 5th APRIL
  ROAD PRICING
  ROAD PRICING
  UTTOXETER BYPASS
  UTTOXETER BYPASS