Sitting of 27 April 1993

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

    LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 29 April.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures she is introducing to assist the long-term unemployed in the north of England.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): New measures announced in the Budget will provide an extra 1010,000 opportunities nationally for the long-term unemployed. Learning for work, community action and an expanded business start-up scheme will be available for long-term unemployed people.
    Mr. Atkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that Tyneside training and enterprise council, which I understand has been chosen for a pilot scheme for one of four workstart programmes, yesterday launched its own workstart programme, Tyneskill support, aimed at people who have been out of work for more than two years? Does my hon. Friend agree that the advantage of workstart is that it confers a double benefit—first, for the people who are helped and, secondly, in that it helps to convince employers that people who have been out of work for more than two years still retain their skills and an enthusiasm for work and should not be written off as unemployable?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who points out the amount of help that we give to people who are unemployed long term. Indeed, the United Kingdom has a good record compared with our European counterparts. The proportion of long-term unemployed people in the United Kingdom, at 28 per cent., is lower than in Italy, where it is 67 per cent., in Belgium, where it is 61 per cent., in Ireland, where it is 60 per cent., in Germany, where it is 45 per cent., and in the Netherlands, where it is 43 per cent. That shows that we dedicate help to the long-term unemployed.
    Mr. Lewis: Does the Minister's litany of assistance include encouraging people to go on the sick register instead of the unemployment register? Will he ask his right
    832
    hon. Friend the Secretary of State to order the investigation that I have requested into the scandal going on in the Employment Service in my constituency?
    Mr. McLoughlin: It is rather sad that when we have seen unemployment falling for two months, the only people who complain about it, and continue to do so, are Labour Members. That is not surprising, in view of the way that they have relished it when unemployment has continued to rise.
    Mr. Trotter: May I say how much Tyneside will appreciate being chosen for one of the new schemes and how appropriate it is that an area of high unemployment, with an excellent basic record of industrial relations and skills, should have the opportunity to make itself available for inward and home-based investment as the recession ends? The news will be much welcomed in the community on Tyneside.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to say that the scheme will have an important impact. We shall watch it closely to see what lessons we can learn from it.
    Ms Quin: Will the Minister confirm that there is a massive problem of long-term unemployment on Tyneside and that the scheme to which the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) referred aims to create 400 jobs for the long-term unemployed by July, whereas there are 32,000 long-term unemployed people on Tyneside? Will the Minister agree to support some of the ideas advanced by the Labour party to bring Government Departments together in an office in the north to identify and promote employment opportunities in the region?
    Mr. McLoughlin: It would make a great difference if we started to receive some support from the Labour party for the many schemes that we try to offer long-term unemployed people. The Labour party is always lacking in enthusiasm. The hon. Lady rightly mentions the high unemployment in the northern region, but in July 1986 unemployment in that region stood at 220,000, whereas according to the latest figures it is now 166,000–25 per cent. lower. I should have thought that even the Opposition would welcome that.

    Total Quality Management
    Mr. Stephen: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether she will use the techniques of total quality management to measure the extent to which her Department is efficiently delivering the service which industry and commerce need.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Total quality management has a part to play in the Department's drive to improve services and to ensure value for money.
    Mr. Stephen: Will my hon. Friend ask a senior official in his Department to liaise closely with the European Foundation for Quality Management and to explore whether the excellent self-assessment model it has developed would benefit the public service?
    Mr. Forsyth: Anything that improves quality management at a European level is to be welcomed. I will pass on my hon. Friend's helpful suggestion to officials in the Department.
    Mr. McAllion: Does the Minister accept that his Department's ability to deliver services efficiently depends at least in part on its reputation for honesty? That being so, can he explain to the House why he allowed Sir Robin Butler, the head of the civil service, to write to civil service unions on 16 March saying that the imposition of no-strike clauses on public sector workers was not even under consideration when, 18 days earlier on 26 February, the Secretary of State for Employment had written to the Secretary of State for Education saying that she intended to amend the Employment Bill to make industrial action by public sector workers unlawful? That letter was copied and sent to Sir Robin Butler.
    Either Sir Robin Butler is so inefficient that he does not even read letters from the Secretary of State for Employment which are copied and sent to him or he is deliberately covering up for the Government by misleading civil service unions. Which is it? Did the Department know about that? If so, did it consent to it?
    Mr. Forsyth: The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that when he scrabbles around in dustbins reading bits of paper, he ends up misinformed. The position that the Cabinet Secretary set out—which is that the Government have not considered introducing, nor do they have any plans to introduce, legislation to prevent industrial action in the public sector—remains the case. The hon. Gentleman is at a disadvantage in that he has relied for his information on scraps of paper that were based on leaked information.
    Mr. Evennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that the training and enterprise council network is improving the quality and effectiveness of his Department's training programme? Does he agree that the job seekers charter is improving the service throughout the Employment Service? Both schemes are to be welcomed and encouraged, and show that his Department is doing a good job for people seeking jobs.
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. Since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took charge of the Department, the number of opportunities for the unemployed to obtain help in getting back to work or to obtain help with training has increased from around 1 million to 1,600,000. That dramatic record of achievement has been thanks to the efforts of the Employment Service, the training and enterprise councils and Ministers across the Government. I should have thought that that would be welcomed by everyone in the House.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress is being made to reduce discrimination against disabled people in the context of employment; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures she is taking to promote employment opportunities for people with disabilities.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: We aim to raise employers' awareness of the abilities of disabled people and to provide practical employment help and advice where necessary.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that, either deliberately or inadvertently, a significant number of employers discriminate against disabled people in terms of employment? Does he accept that the overwhelming majority of organisations working with and on behalf of disabled people want anti-discrimination legislation? What is the Department's latest thinking on how to make that a reality?
    Mr. Forsyth: I know how much time the hon. Gentleman spends on this subject, especially in his role as vice-chairman of the all-party disablement group. I accept his point that we need to do even more to encourage employers to take on disabled people and to make use of their skills. Disabled people certainly find it harder to obtain work when unemployed, especially during a recession.
    I am sure that we must look at ways to reduce discrimination and to encourage opportunities for disabled people. Although it is easy to look to legislation as the answer, the hon. Gentleman needs to address some of the difficulties that arise because of the legal complexities and the costs it would impose, which may not be to the advantage of disabled people. I am happy to continue the helpful discussion going on with the hon. Gentleman and others in the House on how some of the problems may be addressed.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the private sector has a much better record than the public sector in employing people with disabilities? Will he recruit more disabled people in the civil service? Will he expand the successful sheltered placements scheme? Is not privatisation in the best interests of everyone, not least the disabled?
    Mr. Forsyth: The answers to my hon. Friend's questions are: I am not sure, yes, yes and yes.
    Mr. Galbraith: Can the Minister say why, despite the fact that only 23 per cent. of employers adhere to the quota, there have been no prosecutions whatever under the Government? Is it not time that the Government reviewed the quota system with a view to enforcing it properly?
    Mr. Forsyth: We are certainly examining the quota system. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the 3 per cent. figure relates to registered disabled. The number of people who are registered as disabled is less than 3 per cent. of the work force and, therefore, it would be mathematically impossible for all employers to meet the quota. We take seriously employers who are not meeting their obligations. We try to ensure that they do so by persuasion. The policy of not having had prosecutions reflects the conduct of every Government in the past 40 years.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the end of the recession and the extremely welcome recovery in the labour market make it an especially appropriate moment to introduce legislation to prevent discrimination in employment against disabled people? Will he reflect that the fears that have been expressed about the cost implications of such legislation are invalidated by the immense contribution that disabled people could make to

    835
    the economy and that experience shows that nothing less than anti-discrimination legislation would enable that contribution to be released?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend that enlisting the talents of disabled people is a key element in ensuring that we maximise the performance of our economy as well as meet the needs of individuals. I would want to discuss my hon. Friend's specific ideas for legislation and its form before jumping to the conclusion that he reached. I would point to some of the difficulties that have arisen in other countries as a result of perhaps not thinking the matter through as carefully as it should have been. I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss his ideas in detail.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were unemployed for 12 months and longer in May 1979 and at the latest available date.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): The figures for January 1993 show a reduction of almost 10 per cent. in the number of people who have been unemployed for 12 months or more, compared with January 1983—the earliest date for which equivalent figures are available.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is perfectly understandable that she has not given the figure for 1979, which is 366,700? I have just obtained that information from the Library. Is it not a fact that three times as many people have been unemployed for longer than one year than when the Labour Government left office? Is not the Secretary of State ashamed of the misery and heartbreak of so many of our fellow citizens who are long-term unemployed, many of whom work on the assumption that, even with the slow recovery which is taking place, they will never be able to work again? They are the victims of the Government's economic policies.
    Mrs. Shephard: I would not want in any way to minimise the difficulty for people who suffer long-term unemployment. The simple fact is that the number of long-term unemployed people is almost a quarter—24 per cent.—lower than at its peak in 1986. It is obvious from the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question that, like so many of his colleagues, he would have liked, and perhaps he was expecting, a more gloomy reply. I shall add to his all-too-obvious discomfiture by inviting him to welcome the fact that in his constituency the reduction was 21 per cent.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only jobs provided by the Government are the jobs of those who are directly employed by the public service or the quangos and other organisations set up in the public service area and that the jobs that are provided in the economy come as a result of the Government creating low inflation, low interest rates and competitive prices, thanks to white Wednesday? Consequently, we can look forward to improvements in the United Kingdom because we are more competitive than any other country in Europe.
    Mrs. Shephard: I would not want to build too much on the improvement in unemployment that we have seen for the past two months. Of course, my hon. Friend is
    836
    absolutely right. It is not the Government who create jobs; it is business, industry and commerce. It ill behoves Opposition Members to pour scorn on the good economic news, which is good news for unemployed people.
    Mr. Grocott: Does the Secretary of State recall that throughout the past 14 years we have had repeated assurances from the Secretary of State for Employment, two Prime Ministers and others that all the dreadful unemployment statistics were nothing whatever to do with the Government? Now that Ministers claim that there is some marginal improvement in the unemployment statistics, will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to reaffirm to the House the Government philosophy that if there is any improvement it is nothing whatever to do with the Government?
    Mrs. Shephard: What is absolutely certain is that only when Opposition Members express a commitment to keep Britain competitive, reject support for the national minimum wage and, in the case of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), support employers can their much vaunted and so-called support for unemployed people be taken seriously.
    Mr. David Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that of the 1 million long-term unemployed, probably half have no intention of working again and, therefore, can be termed layabouts? Do the long-term unemployment figures include the lot opposite? They have been unemployed for 14 years.
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend's strictures on fraud among people who call themselves unemployed are well known. I understand his anxiety because any fraud within the unemployment or benefits system can only serve to make things worse for people who are genuinely unemployed. As for the present or prospective employment of Opposition Members, my hon. Friend has made his point.

    Workstart
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made in setting up the workstart pilot projects.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I have asked the Employment Service and the two training and enterprise councils in the pilot areas to submit plans by 7 May. I hope that the first employees to be taken on under the scheme will start work by June.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Secretary of State realise how dissatisfied I am, as someone who advocated a workstart scheme and supports its principles, that long-term unemployed people in Northumberland—where there are many long-term unemployed—are excluded from the scheme both in my constituency and in the constituency of Hexham, which was mentioned earlier? At what stage will she decide whether to continue the scheme and whether to extend it?
    Mrs. Shephard: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the 2 per cent. fall in unemployment in his constituency last month. I also hope that he will welcome the fact that long-term unemployed people in his

    837
    constituency and elsewhere will greatly benefit from the 1·6 million opportunities for long-term unemployed people that we now have on stream.
    As for the pilots, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that a pilot is a pilot. If the pilot projects succeed, we shall certainly consider extending them.
    Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the return in confidence, the recovery and the workstart pilot scheme will give new opportunity, new hope and great help to the long-term unemployed in Britain?
    Mrs. Shephard: I agree with my hon. Friend that the workstart pilots should be extremely useful. We will monitor them carefully to see what lessons can be learnt and, in particular, what special help, confidence and encouragement they can give to people who have been unemployed for a long time.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the Secretary of State nevertheless recognise that even though workstart is only a pilot scheme, people are worried that employers are being asked simply to give an undertaking that they will not make other people unemployed in order to take on people on workstart and, I assume, an undertaking that they will not simply dismiss people at the end of the scheme? In the same vein as the Secretary of State waxed eloquent about fraud among those who claim benefit, will she wax eloquent about fraud among employers who seek to abuse the system?
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The contracts with the participating firms will naturally stipulate that existing employees must not be displaced and that the workstart participants will be considered additional to normal recruitment. As he would expect, the scheme will be subject to close and careful monitoring.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new jobs have been created in the Brigg and Cleethorpes constituency since January 1992.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The information is not available in the form my hon. Friend requested. However, I am sure he will welcome the news that two American firms, notably Kimberly-Clark and Paramount Packaging, have chosen to invest in his constituency, bringing 800 new jobs to the area.
    Mr. Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the information he has just revealed suggests that the recovery in the United Kingdom is centred on my constituency? Is he aware that it is hoped that the Kimberly-Clark project will eventually employ more than 2,500 people once it is fully operational and that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade performed the topping-out ceremony at that factory just a few weeks ago? Is he further aware that a new power station was opened last week, which will employ 35 people, and that, in Cleethorpes, Allied Colloids announced that it will employ 90 people? Those jobs are in addition to those that my hon. Friend has just announced. Does he agree that the industrial recovery in the United Kingdom has begun in Brigg and Cleethorpes?
    Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend tempts me, but if I agreed with him wholeheartedly about Brigg and Cleethorpes I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) would have something to say about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has revealed that the changes we have made since 1979 to reform industrial relations have meant that a number of companies now find the United Kingdom the most attractive country in which to invest. Those changes have, of course, been opposed by the Labour party.

    Voluntary Work
    Mr. Thomason: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures she is introducing to encourage voluntary work among the long-term unemployed in the west midlands.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: We announced at the Budget the introduction of 60,000 voluntary work opportunities through community action.
    Mr. Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the Budget announcement of an additional 60,000 places for the long-term unemployed? Does she agree that that welcome new intitiative should be supported on both sides of the House and not grumbled about by Opposition Members, who are in the rut of opposing everything and who fail to put forward any constructive proposals?
    Mrs. Shephard: I hope that everyone will welcome the new programme. It will give unemployed people the opportunity to participate in a part-time work programme which will be supplemented each week by structured help with job search. That is a productive and useful way in which to help unemployed people and it deserves a welcome from the Opposition parties, although I doubt whether they will give it one.
    Ms Short: The Secretary of State will know that many unemployed people want to do voluntary work because there are not other opportunities for them. It is an outrage, however, that there is a mass of work that needs doing in our country when we have 4 million people unemployed. When the Conservative party came to power, there were 1·2 million unemployed people. I do not know how the right hon. Lady has the cheek to stand here today and constantly insult the Labour party as though the Conservatives' record on unemployment was good. The high levels of unemployment are causing poverty and high bills for benefits and mean that production rates are too low. The Conservative Government have failed dramatically on this issue and the right hon. Lady should not boast.
    Mrs. Shephard: I did say that the Opposition would not welcome this scheme and that turns out to be right. If the hon. Lady encouraged the Labour Front Bench to undertake credible economic policies, her remarks would carry much more credibility. I hope that she will at least accept that the Conservative party has introduced a vastly increased number of measures to help unemployed people and that those, combined with the vastly improved economic situation, mean that a great deal of help is available for unemployed people.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Although I welcome the Government's further measures for the long-term unemployed, does my right hon. Friend agree that the best scope for long-term jobs for unemployed people is provided by increased competitiveness in British industry? Will she pay tribute to the enormous efforts that have been made by British industry in the past 10 years, particularly in the past two years, to improve competitiveness? It has improved to such an extent that unit labour costs in this country have not gone up; that compares with the increase of 9 per cent. in Japan and 6 per cent. in Germany. Does my right hon. Friend agrees that that improvement in competitiveness will create jobs and that it is endangered by the social chapter of which the Opposition are so fond?
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is right when he speaks of the need to keep Britain competitive and to oppose the provisions of the social chapter, which would heap ever more burdens on the heads of employers. It is important for Opposition and Conservative Members to congratulate British business on its performance—exports are up; car production is up; manufacturing productivity is up. Everything is up except the spirits of Opposition Members.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: However welcome the increase in voluntary placements, does the Secretary of State agree that we should be aiming at satisfactory paid employment for as many people as possible? Will she comment on a young couple—he has a first class honours degree in history—who have escaped long-term unemployment by obtaining menial jobs in a burger bar? When will the Government ensure that young graduates in this country are able to find the jobs for which they were trained and stop committing them to the burger economy?
    Mrs. Shephard: That was clearly a much rehearsed question. However. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that, despite his exhortations, the Government will not espouse the cause of a national minimum wage.
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures she is introducing to encourage voluntary work among the long-term unemployed in East Anglia.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: In addition to the community action opportunities, I am making available further places on voluntary work projects in north Norfolk.
    Mr. Spring: Does my right hon. Friend agree on the importance of upgrading the quality of management in the voluntary services? Will she join me in congratulating the Suffolk training and enterprise council on undertaking a number of initiatives to promote good management in the voluntary sector? It sponsored 13 managers from the voluntary services to enrol on a course to gain a certificate in business administration. Does she agree that by raising the standards of management in the voluntary sector we can help improve services, both for the long-term unemployed and for our communities at large?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am very pleased to hear what my hon. Friend says about the work of the Suffolk TEC. No doubt both unemployed people and voluntary organisations stand to benefit from the new community action programme.

    Pit Closures
    Mr. Churchill: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is her estimate of job losses saved in consequence of the announcement of 25 March of the reprieve of 12 coal mines in respect of jobs (a) in the pits and (b) in related industry.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The number of jobs saved in the pits and related industries will depend on how much coal British Coal can sell and how successful it is at reducing costs and improving productivity.
    Mr. Churchill: While I welcome the reprieve of the 12 pits and the saving for the time being of 10,000 jobs, may I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that that will represent a saving of £400 million—one third of the £1·2 billion pledged in redundancy pay by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in his statement on 13 October last year? Does my hon. Friend agree that that figure equates almost exactly to the figure of £300 million to £400 million in subsidy pledged by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade? Therefore, there will be no additional cost to the taxpayer.
    Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend adequately explains the equations that result from the White Paper recently published by the Government and endorsed by the House. There are a number of related issues; we obviously need to discover the outcome, the growth in demand for coal and how that will help to protect jobs in British Coal.
    Mr. Enright: Does the Minister agree that British Coal Enterprise has so far totally failed to replace the jobs that have already been lost? Will he undertake positively to examine what British Coal Enterprise is doing, evaluate the information and see how many jobs are lost after six months and how many after one year? British Coal Enterprise creates false jobs and false hopes.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I regret the false and negative way in which the hon. Gentleman approaches the issue. All our efforts to help specific areas fail to find favour with the Opposition, which is a great shame.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend accept that despite the cuts in British Coal brought about by falling orders for British coal, the coal mining industry in this country remains one of the largest in the world, a fact which should not be forgotten?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is equally important to remember the great way in which British Coal has improved its productivity in the last few years, which will ensure that it sells more coal.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Is the Minister aware that it is a disgrace that miners' pension money should go towards policies that will result in the loss of jobs in the industry, not only in the north-east of England but throughout the country? When will he get off his backside and get something done to create work in those areas?
    Mr. McLoughlin: When it comes to getting off one's backside, I wonder what the hon. Gentleman was doing between 1964 and 1970, when 277 coal mines closed in Britain.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to consider employment in all the energy-intensive industries and in the oil and gas industries? Does he further agree that all such employment would have been hit had we listened to the Labour party and done nothing about the coal industry?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those points, which rightly sum up some of the questions that must be addressed by the President of the Board of Trade.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in the number of unemployed people in Greater London in the past three years.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: In the Greater London area, seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment rose by 274,800 between March 1990 and March 1993.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister recognise that in the past three years, the number of unemployed people in the London borough of Greenwich has doubled? Does he further recognise that unemployment is a corrosive force, particularly among the young, and that the unemployment level today is destructive of the social fabric? When will action be taken to bring down the level of unemployment at least to that which applied three years ago, and when will it be reduced to the level that existed in 1979?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman's constituency is famous for its observatory for looking into deep space. What an irony that the hon. Gentleman cannot see what is happening under his nose. Unemployment in London has fallen for the first time in three years, and he cannot even bring himself to recognise that fact.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Is the Minister aware that people in London welcome the fall in unemployment but remember in my constituency of Ealing the way in which we lost many jobs during the four years of the loony Labour left which had control there and which, at a stroke, increased local taxation by 65 to 100 per cent? That is how jobs are lost. Labour loses jobs. The Conservative party does not.
    Mr. Forsyth: The way to create jobs in Britain is to ensure that we are competitive. That means controlling public expenditure and keeping taxation, including local taxation, down, and my hon. Friend is right to point out how Labour authorities have destroyed jobs the length and breadth of Britain.
    Mr. Dobson: The census shows that in greater London, 28 per cent. more people were out of work and looking for jobs than the figure produced by Department of Employment officials. Which figure was right?
    Mr. Forsyth: When the figures were going up, the hon. Gentleman was happy to accept them. Only when they are going down does he cast doubt on them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer"] I will answer. The census figure for people not working includes people who are ill and people who are not working perhaps because they are going on holiday
    842
    —[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should not try to compare apples with pears, otherwise he ends up with results that are just bananas.
    Mr. Forman: Is the Minister aware that the policies of the Government for employment creation in the Greater London area will have a positive effect and that the co-operation that his Department is encouraging between further education, the training and enterprise councils and private employers can only be for the good? Is he further aware that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) would not recognise good news if it were staring him in the face?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right. The key to future employment in a competitive world market lies in improving our skills. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming the innovative measures that the Chancellor announced in his Budget to allow unemployed people to become involved in further education. Education and training are the key and the Government have done more to increase education and training opportunities than any other in Europe.

    Employment Action
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many previously unemployed people have been employed in the employment action programme in 1991–92.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Employment action ran for only six months in 1991–92. By March 1992, 19,300 people had started on the programme in England and Wales.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister appreciate that the scheme has been a failure and that many people who have taken part in it feel cheated and demeaned by the experience? Only one third of places were taken up in the first year and there was a 15 per cent. shortfall in the second year. Is the Minister aware that in my constituency last year there was a 16 per cent. increase in unemployment and there have been a further 200 jobs losses this month? Why do not the Government stop trying to stir up manic optimism and realise that in my constituency and many others all that has taken place is a phantom recovery?
    Mr. McLoughlin: What has happened in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is that in July 1986 unemployment was 5,986 and in March 1993 unemployment was 4,530. For the sake of the Opposition, that is 24 per cent. lower than it was in 1986. Yet again, the Opposition condemn any kind of moves that we make to attempt to help those people who are unemployed. It is not surprising that no one believes what the Opposition say these days.

    Workstart
    Mr. Gale: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on the workstart pilot scheme established for east Kent.
    Mr. Gillian Shephard: I have asked the employment Service for a detailed plan for the pilot scheme in east Kent by 7 May. I expect the first participants to be employed in June.
    Mr. Gale: My right hon. Friend will understand that in north-east Kent we very much appreciate her

    843
    Department's recognition of our real needs. We hope that this measure will be followed by other Government measures to enable us to compete on equal terms with northern France for inward investment. Does my right hon. Friend understand that my constituents and the businesses that I represent, together with those represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), are greatly looking forward to taking part in the scheme? Will she try to find time to visit it herself once it is up and running?
    Mrs. Shephard: I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall attempt to visit at an early stage all the pilot areas where workstart is to take place.

    Apprenticeships
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent discussions she has held with employers' organisations on measures to increase the number of young people undergoing apprenticeship training.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: The Government, working with TECs and other employers' organisations, is progressively extending youth credits to all 16 and 17-year-olds not in full-time further education.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that Britain's future is tied up with education and training together with the rebuilding of our manufacturing base and, alongside that, we face ever more intense competition in international markets? Therefore, will he tell those reluctant employers who are not training sufficient numbers of their employees that they are, quite literally, failing the nation?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I shall certainly tell employers who are already doing more to do even more for training and to encourage apprenticeships. In return, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell those people in the Labour party and the trade unions who opposed youth training, employment training and every other Government training initiative, to change their minds and give us some support.
    Mr. Streeter: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Devon and Cornwall the Government guaranteed training place scheme for 16 and 17-year-olds is working extremely well, with almost every youngster who has applied for such a place being accommodated well within six weeks? Does he agree that the Devon and Cornwall TEC is operating extremely successfully—[Interruption.] Does he agree that the Devon and Cornwall TEC is doing a great job and should be congratulated?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is because of the work that has been done by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the youth training guarantee scheme is being delivered despite the difficulties that were caused by the recession. It would be a matter of considerable support for the TECs if the House would acknowledge their splendid work, including that which my hon. Friend has outlined today.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister know that in many great manufacturing cities such as Leicester, there has been no decrease in unemployment? Over the years, there has been a vast increase among young people desperate for work.
    844
    As apprenticeships have dropped—and we know why—surely the Government could do much more to help young people to get jobs at the end of their training.
    Mr. Forsyth: As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know from his role as Chairman of the Select Committee, the youth training scheme has been remarkably successful in getting young people into jobs or ensuring that they get qualifications—indeed, it has helped some three quarters of them. It is particularly surprising that Opposition Members do not know that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about apprenticeships. Training in the workplace is second to none and we should encourage apprenticeships. What a pity it is that the trade union movement did so much to destroy so many apprenticeships in Britain.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 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. Gunnell: Now that there is optimism that the bulk of the Maxwell pension funding will be recovered over the next four years, is it not time to end once and for all the uncertainties felt by many of those lobbying us today? Will the Prime Minister authorise the availability of capital now, knowing full well that as funds are recovered most of that money will come back? Eighteen months is too long, for elderly people in particular, to suffer such anxiety. Will the Prime Minister end it now?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that over many months we have made a positive response to the Maxwell reservations. I believe that it was the right thing to do, not least setting up the Maxwell pensioners' trust, which has raised more than £6 million, and providing £2·5 million to ensure that pensions are paid. We continue to look sympathetically at the problem, but I have no fresh announcements to make today.
    Sir John Wheeler: In the wake of the bomb in the City of London on Saturday, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will bring forward the reinsurance scheme? Will he urge the Leader of the House to make time for legislation for that scheme as soon as possible?
    The Prime Minister: The Government scheme for insurance against terrorist attacks has been providing cover since 1 January this year and the Government will fully honour their commitment under the scheme. It is, of course, a matter for individual businesses whether or not they choose to take out such cover, but everyone who has done so, or has alternative policies, will have been covered against damage caused by the Bishopsgate bomb. The Government scheme is one of reinsurance for the industry, so those who have suffered damage will need to make claims to their insurers in the usual way.
    On my right hon. Friend's last point, legislation to provide for payments to be made to the insurance companies under the scheme will be brought before the

    845
    House as soon as possible. I hope that it will be possible to attract support from all parts of the House for that measure.
    Mr. John Smith: Now that all six teacher and head teacher organisations have appealed to the Secretary of State for Education to suspend this year's testing and assessment arrangements under the national curriculum, will the Government for once listen to the considered professional judgment of the whole teaching profession and suspend this year's tests?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows the importance that we put behind the principle of testing. He also knows—he will have heard the remarks of Sir Ron Dearing—that we need the experience of this year's tests to ensure that we are able to remove the unnecessary bureaucracy and make sure that the tests are right for the future. The implication of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question is that he now accepts the principle of testing. I hope that is now so.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister not understand that this increasingly bitter dispute is not about the principle of sensible testing but about the dogmatic insistence of an arrogant Secretary of State that his view must prevail against those of governors, teachers and parents? Why does not the Secretary of State recognise that which is recognised by everyone else—that he has lost the argument and that it is an insult to use £700,000 of taxpayers' money on futile propaganda?
    The Prime Minister: I notice again that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not indicate that he does not accept the principle. I assume that lie does accept the principle of testing. In view of his question, he may care to comment on the remark by the National Union of Teachers president, who said:
    "We should annihilate tests in the national curriculum."
    I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now condemn that particular comment. On his further point, I must tell him that I do not think it appropriate for teachers to take industrial action at the expense of those tests.
    Mr. John Smith: If the Prime Minister is so confident of parents' support, why does he not use that £700,000 to hold a ballot, to find out what parents really think? If the Government are sincere about parental choice, why not let the parents choose?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows as well as every other right hon. and hon. Member that two agendas are in play—that of the ordinary teacher who wants less bureaucracy, which we are considering and to which we shall respond, and that of the militants' opposition to any sort of testing or appraisal and to all our reforms. I note that the right hon. and learned Gentleman implies that he is favour of tests, but he does not have the courage to denounce the NUT and its comments about industrial action.
    Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend reconfirm the assurance that he gave the House unambiguously on 24 September last year, that if the Danes vote no in the second referendum it would be unacceptable for us and the rest of the Community to go ahead without Denmark, and that the Maastricht treaty could not go ahead?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps my hon. Friend has been misled by some of the reports that he may have seen this morning. The leader of the Progress party in Denmark, which my hon. Friend will know is the only Danish party opposed to the Maastricht treaty, said:
    "There was nothing new in the Foreign Secretary's remarks, and they were manipulated by the press."
    That was her comment, not mine. As to my hon. Friend's specific question, if he will study the transcript of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, a copy of which will be placed in the Library, he will find that my right hon. Friend made four straightforward points. First, we do not expect the Danes to vote no. Secondly, were they to do so the Maastricht treaty could not enter into force because it requires ratification by 12 member states. Thirdly, United Kingdom legislation to ratify the treaty could therefore not proceed. Finally, all 12 members of the European Community would need to hold urgent consultations about what to do next. Each of those points is self-evident. That was said by my right hon. Friend yesterday.
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McFall: In the right hon. Gentleman's first speech as Prime Minister, he spoke of a commonsense view of life from a tolerant perspective. Now that the Scottish Conservative party has joined the massive opposition to water privatisation in Scotland, will the Prime Minister display that tolerance by recognising the genuine and universal concern felt in Scotland, where water is regarded as being for the benefit of all—not for the profit of a few? At next month's Tory conference, will the Prime Minister state that the public interest will best be served by increased investment in the present water and sewerage system? Regardless of whatever the Tories have brought to Scotland in the last 14 years, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we shall not witness the return of the Victorian cry of "Gardyloos!" to the streets of Edinburgh and Glasgow?
    The Prime Minister: The future structure of water and sewerage services in Scotland is still under consideration. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want me to go further while that matter remains under consideration.
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Rathbone: Now that Britain is exporting television to Germany, lace to Brussels, cosmetics to the French and pizzas to Italy, as my right hon. Friend pointed out in Manchester last week, does he not think that all British companies now have the competitive edge to develop export markets everywhere?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right to praise our exporters and to point to the opportunities for further exports. We also export more per head than Japan and now have an excellent opportunity to break into new markets and win back old ones. It was for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor increased the amount

    847
    of Export Credits Guarantee Department cover both last autumn and in the recent Budget. Manufacturing matters; exporting matters. We seek to support them both.
    Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gerrard: Is the Prime Minister aware that very many people in London are extremely worried about the survival of the travelcard and concessionary fares after bus deregulation and rail franchising and that their fears are echoed today in the report by the Select Committee on Transport? Will the Prime Minister tell us what he intends to do to guarantee the future of the travelcard and concessionary fares schemes?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have to study the report of the Select Committee and then respond to it. That is what we will do.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating President Yeltsin on his outstanding personal victory at the weekend? Does he agree that, in supporting President Yeltsin, the Russian people have voted in favour of democracy built on market economics? Does this not represent by far the best chance for the future of Russia?
    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is right about the last point. I have sent my warm congratulations to President Yeltsin on the outcome of the referendum. The results are remarkable. They show that the Russian people maintain their personal trust in the President and, most important, that they wish him to carry his democratic reforms further. It is a remarkable result on the back of the sacrifices that have been made towards economic transformation. I believe that the Russian people are beginning to see the benefits of individual enterprise. Success for Russia is essential for its people and equally vital for the rest of the world.
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Eagle: Does the Prime Minister not find ironic that, as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the battle of the Atlantic, we are losing the battle for our shipyards without even a fight? Given his Government's refusal to create a strategy for defence diversification, what action does the Prime Minister intend to take in response to the petition handed to him today by the save Cammel Laird community group, asking him to save the yard from closure in July?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady knows, there is a problem for shipbuilding round the world as a result of the level of capacity and the level of demand. I understand the hon. Lady's concern about Cammel Laird and I know that it is shared by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter). The yard's future is primarily a commercial decision for Vickers Shipbuilding and
    848
    Engineering Ltd. which is having to respond to that worldwide decline, which is not just a problem for the United Kingdom but one for the rest of Europe and for countries in other parts of the world. None the less, I will study with great care the letter from the Cammel Laird support group and reply in due course.
    Mr. Batiste: Will my right hon. Friend reassess the case for identity cards to see whether they can give significant support to the police in their fight against crime and terrorism?
    The Prime Minister: That is a matter which from time to time we will need to review. It is one which has many difficulties. We have looked at it in the past and not found it a terribly attractive proposition. I know that a constituency is demanding it. It is not something which I would wish to rule out, but it is not on our immediate agenda.

    Shetland
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to pay an official visit to Shetland.
    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so at present, but my right hon. and noble Friend the Earl of Caithness visited Shetland on 29 and 30 March.
    Mr. Wallace: I know that that reply will dismay my constituents. They will be dismayed to learn that, some 16 weeks after the Braer went aground, the Prime Minister has neither visited the area nor indicated any intention of doing so. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Wallace: I shall resist the temptation to ask what would have happened if a ship had gone aground on the white cliffs of Dover. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order and hear the hon. Gentleman out.
    Mr. Wallace: If the Prime Minister came to see at first hand a community's remarkable, practical and vigorous response to the adversities that affected it on 5 January, he would be very impressed indeed. If, in the attempt to restore the economic fortunes of that community, it is necessary to embark on a marketing exercise to restore Shetland's good name for good-quality produce, will the Prime Minister repeat that the polluter should pay? If so, will he give the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund a nudge in the right direction?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly say to the hon. Gentleman that the response of the people in the area was indeed remarkable. That was noted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and by a number of my other right hon. Friends, all of whom visited the area in the period immediately following the tragedy.
    What the hon. Gentleman neglected to mention was that an economic impact study is being mounted under the direction of Shetland Islands council, and with the participation of Shetland Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. That will help to target resources where they are most needed, and I think that it is the right way in which to proceed for the present.

Fox Hunting (Abolition)
3.31 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make the hunting of foxes with dogs illegal.
Mr. Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your guidance on the tabling of the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)? It refers to the hunting of foxes with dogs. Given that anyone who knows anything about fox hunting knows that it takes place with hounds, is the motion in order? [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. That is a matter for dispute for the House. I want to hear what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has to say.
Mr. Banks: As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is absolutely correct. As it appears on the Order Paper, the wording is wrong. The hon. Gentleman will soon find out, however, that I am begging to move that leave be given to bring in a Bill to make the hunting of foxes with hounds illegal.
I last attempted to make progress with such a measure on 18 July 1990. That, in turn, was the first time that a ban on fox hunting had been tried since the second world war. Since my effort in 1990, a private Member's Bill has been presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). It sought, among other things, to give wild animals the same protection against cruelty as domestic animals. It would have banned fox hunting, and a number of other disgusting so-called sports.
My hon. Friend's Bill was narrowly defeated on Second Reading, following—[Interruption.]
Mr. George Foulkes: Order!
Mr. Banks: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend.
Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) that there is no vacancy in this job. He seems to have forgotten that it is just a year today since the House elected me.
Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend clearly has unrequited ambitions in that respect.
The Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North was narrowly defeated on Second Reading, following what I must concede was a spectacular whipping exercise on the part of that cross between Sir John Falstaff and Bertie Wooster, the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), who is sitting on the Government Front Bench.
I have detailed those various attempts to secure legislation as a clear indication that those of us on both sides of the House—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I am interested in hearing what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has to say. I hope that the House will come to order.
Mr. Banks: I am giving the background details of the attempts that have previously been made in the House to
850
ban fox hunting as a way of showing that those who oppose the so-called sport will never let the matter drop until this anachronistic, barbarous sporting activity has been declared illegal.
A few weeks ago, the British Field Sports Society sent out a video to every Member of Parliament in what can only be described as a desperate attempt to vindicate its wretched activities. The video was introduced by Ludovic Kennedy, a man of great reputation who, I am afraid, sullied it by agreeing to front such an obviously fraudulent presentation. I trust that his fee matched the scale of the attempted deception. May I inform those who discarded the tape unseen, or used it to tape a showing of "Blind Date", that the film has been reported to the Metropolitan police on the grounds of possible offences under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937.
The film shows a fox being seized by the stomach. It is then subsequently ripped to pieces, although the latter sequence has been edited out. Another shot is of a fox deliberately snared in order to demonstrate the cruelty of snaring. I certainly agree that snaring is cruel, but when the House considered a ban on snares, the Bill was blocked by Members of Parliament who support the British Field Sports Society. So to fraud they add hypocrisy.
It is difficult to understand how anyone can claim to derive pleasure from hunting another creature to death in the name of sport. I try to understand the psychology hut, for the life of me, I can find no point of contact whatsoever. For me, those who hunt foxes are no better, in the final analysis, than those perverts who bait badgers, course hares, hunt steers, stage dog fights and inflict mindless suffering on domestic pets and wildlife.
There seems to be a close correlation between those who take pleasure in hunting and hurting animals and those who inflict violence on other human beings. Those who ride to hounds would no doubt be outraged at such a linkage, but respect for life is indivisible. Anyone who derives pleasure from the pain and suffering experienced by a fox being hunted by a pack of hounds is on a continuum which, like it or not, ends up, in its most extreme form, with the hideous cruelties of a Bosnian massacre or a Nazi death camp.
There might be reasons for culling wild animals or controlling foxes, but to use such reasons to derive pleasure from killing them is pandering to a blood lust. To take any form of life dehumanises all of us. It lowers the threshold of our resistance to further and more objectionable forms of violence. In recent months, we have heard of appalling violence being inflicted by hired thugs on those seeking to protest against fox hunting, including the tragic deaths of two young men. Regrettably, fox hunting is still a legal activity, but protest against fox hunting is also legal, and the police have a duty to enable protest to take place without hunt-hired thugs assaulting protesters.
According to all public opinion polls, the great majority of people in this country—and, I dare say, all foxes—oppose fox hunting. It is not a town versus country argument, either. A clear majority of country dwellers also support abolition. Despite this weight of public opinion, the vile practice has survived and there is substantial, albeit declining, support for it in this House—and, no doubt, in the House of Peers.

851
The fact is that, although fox hunters are guilty of babarous behaviour, they are neither fools nor without political influence. Indeed, champions of the so-called sport are to be found at the very highest levels of influence and status in our society. I only hope that whoever encouraged the young princes to slaughter a few harmless rabbits recently does not go on to introduce them to the organised barbarity of fox hunting.
The fox hunters know that their days are numbered, and their arguments are becoming increasingly desperate. They say that people like me loathe the type of person who hunts. I readily confess that, in the main, they are not my favourite people, but who could loathe the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), however much one might detest the colour of his socks on Friday or discreetly laugh at his Mr. Toad wardrobe? It is not a campaign against middle-class people—[Interruption.] Obviously, no one could deny the middle-class antecedents of the hon. Member for Crawley, but one often hears the argument that there are hunts up in the north-east that are based on the old mining collieries. I do not know whether hunts continue in those areas—if they do, perhaps they would prefer to hunt the President of the Board of Trade—but I condemn those hunts as much as I condemn those in the south and elsewhere.
The use of environmental and conservation arguments by the fox hunters makes me reach for my sick bag. It is no argument for fox hunting to say that foxes sometimes kill livestock and are pests. The fox is a carnivorous predator and scavanger, but far more lambs die of hypothermia, for example, than are ever taken by foxes, and those the fox takes are usually either dead or unlikely to survive.
However, the great majority of foxes live largely on beetles, frogs, rabbits, wild birds and carrion, and they are
852
the most significant destroyers of rats and mice. They do not constitute a pest, but, if they did, there are more humane and efficient methods of controlling them other than having a bunch of yahoos on horseback, a pack of hounds and assembled motley villains charging over the rural landscape.
Of the estimated 300,000 foxes killed each year, fox hunting accounts for some 7,500 dog foxes, and cub hunting, which is especially despicable, for another 8,500. The final lie given to fox hunting as a method of pest control is that, in some parts of the country, foxes have been deliberately encouraged to provide a quarry for the hunt.
The hunting mob is running out of valid arguments and time. Only the Labour party is officially committed to banning fox hunting at the next general election. However, given the number of Tories in the House and the country and the number of Liberal Democrats, I hope that, one day soon, those two parties will also embrace the same policy of banning fox hunting. I ken we shall shortly welcome the day when we hear the last "tally-ho" and when John Peel will have to find something else to do with his horn in the morning.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Ms Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mr. Elliot Morley, Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Alan Meale, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Mr. Simon Hughes and Mrs. Maria Fyfe.

FOX HUNTING (ABOLITION)
Mr. Tony Banks accordingly presented a Bill to make the hunting of foxes with dogs illegal: 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 186.]
Orders of the Day

  Non-domestic Rating (No. 2) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.42 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. John Redwood): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill will freeze business rates in real terms for a further year. It honours the pledge given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech on 16 March to protect businesses from the most serious consequences of the 1990 revaluation. A similar measure, which we introduced last year, was welcomed by the House, and I hope that the Bill will be equally well received.
  Under the current law, business rates cannot rise each year by more than the rate of inflation if the property's valuation stays the same. The Government's success in tackling inflation means that the rises this year will be no more than 3·6 per cent. following increases of only 4·1 per cent. last year—and, of course, inflation is now lower again.
  For 30 per cent. of the businesses, however, the 1990 revaluation implied larger annual increases last year and this year. Although the increases were being phased in gradually, some businesses would still have faced real-terms increases of up to 20 per cent.
  Bearing in mind the effects of the recession, the Government decided last year not to add to the burden on businesses. The 1992 Act therefore froze all rates increases in real terms for 1992–93. Last year's measure was intended as a one-year respite. However, although the economy is now recovering, a full resumption of the transitional arrangements would be premature, so the Bill extends the freeze on transitional real increases for a further year.
  About 250,000 shops and offices, mainly in the south of England, will benefit from the measure to the tune of more than £190 million. About 85,000 factories and warehouses, mainly in the north of England, will benefit from reductions worth more than £30 million. A further 165,000 properties will gain relief worth £120 million. Businesses in Wales will save about £9 million. The total savings for business will be £350 million this year and £225 million next year.
  Mr. John Maxton: I am aware that the Bill does not cover Scotland, but can the Minister tell a good Scottish Member such as myself what the Scottish Office is doing by way of an equivalent to the Bill?
  Mr. Redwood: I am happy to oblige the hon. Gentleman. As he says, there are different arrangements in Scotland. Through regulations, a comparable reduction of 2·6 per cent. in rates bills overall—the English level—will be achieved in the 1993-94 rates poundages, at a cost of £32 million. Derating has not been adjusted in line with reduced poundages, so the ratepayers will get the full benefit. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
  The benefits in England come on top of the benefits of last year's freeze, which was worth £1,250 million over the years of its impact on its rates hills.
  854
  Many of the businesses that fared worst as a result of the recession were those facing the largest increases following the 1990 revaluation. In the six months following that revaluation, 633,000 ratepayers appealed against their valuations. I want the backlog of appeals to be cleared, as I am sure the whole House does. Of the initial 633,000 appeals, more than 525,000 have now been settled, and I am told that valuation tribunals are well on target for clearing the remainder by the end of the current year. I am sure that the House will welcome that.
  In 1995, a new revaluation, based on the property market at 1 April this year, will come into effect. Rental values in depressed sectors are likely to be significantly lower than they were at the time of the previous revaluation. If that is so, the rateable values concerned will fall. That means that, as I promised last year, some businesses still in transition may never have to face the full rates liabilities implied by their 1990 valuations. I am sure that that will be most welcome to many businesses, especially the small businesses that faced the largest increases.
  Mr. Michael Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am sure that many businesses in my constituency will welcome what he has said. However, does not what he has said reveal one of the difficulties of the present non-domestic rating system, in that what a business pays effectively depends on the general economic situation, and therefore on the value of the property in which it operates, rather than on anything to do with the nature of the business itself?
  Not immediately, but at some time in the future, will my hon. Friend examine the basis of local taxation of businesses to find out whether there is a fairer way of assessing what they should pay for local services?
  Mr. Redwood: I am afraid that I cannot promise any immediate action along those lines. We are happy with the basis of property taxation for some element of businesses' tax bills. Of course, businesses also contribute to the national exchequer through VAT and through the income tax and national insurance that their employees contribute, which businesses originally pay in employee remuneration. We feel that there is a balance in the taxation affecting businesses, their employees and their turnover. That is Parliament's and the Government's chosen method of taxation to support local authority expenditure.
  However, my hon. Friend has a good point when he says that problems were caused by the 1988 valuation. The main problem arose because that valuation took place at the peak of an extremely active property market, especially in the south, and especially for shop and office properties. We trust that the valuations based on 1993 values, which do not allot such extreme relative values as between different types of properties, will remedy that.
  I hope that the results will be more acceptable across the country than the results were when they were based on the high values of certain properties in 1988. A further pause in increases this year should help to smooth any changes to bills resulting from the 1995 revaluation.
  We believe that the Bill will provide another valuable fillip for many businesses, and will give a further boost to

  855
  our economic recovery. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be happy to deal with any issues that arise in the debate when he winds up. I have great pleasure in commending the Bill to the House.
  4.9 pm
  Mr. Doug Henderson: The Opposition support the general thrust of the Bill, and we shall not oppose Second Reading. However, we are concerned that businesses are becoming dependent on artificially held-back increases in rates.
  Since the revaluation in 1988, which was implemented in 1990, businesses have, in addition to the original transitional limitations in 1990–91 and 1991–92, been protected by a further limitation in 1992–93. The Bill proposes another limitation in 1993–94. Businesses potentially face a large hike in business rates when the transitional arrangements expire and the next revaluation takes place in 1995.
  The late Lord Ridley, who was Secretary of State for the Environment at the time, announced in 1989 the terms of the original transitional arrangements which were intended to be self-financing.
  Mr. Roy Thomason: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in referring to the 1995 revaluation as potentially increasing the liability of the business rate payer, he is assuming a continuing increase in rental values, because the rates are based on rental values? In fact, most business rents have been stagnant over the past few years; consequently, the increase in valuation which is likely to take place in 1995 should be quite limited. The hon. Gentleman's point therefore has a limited validity.
  Mr. Henderson: I do not accept that. If I replied at this stage, I should have to do so at some length. I shall give the hon. Member a flavour of what I propose to say later. Whether businesses face a hike after the implementation of the 1993 revaluation in 1995 depends very much on what happens elsewhere.
  It depends on whether the real level of local authority expenditure is maintained. It depends on whether the rate poundage, as originally outlined in the Local Government Finance Act 1988, is maintained in relation to inflation. It also depends on what happens to businesses that have already had their rates bills artificially held back—I support this—because of the recession over the past two or three years.
  The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that it very much depends on what the Government do between now and 1995, and on whether the revaluations in 1995 are based on what people actually pay in rates or on what they would have paid if there had been no transitional arrangements. I shall develop that point at a little more length later. If more hon. Members had wished to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, I might have restrained myself a little on the matter. In the circumstances, it may help the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to be a wee bit more appreciative of some of the difficulties that they may face in the near future.
  I return to what the late Lord Ridley said. He believed that the original transitional scheme would be an incentive to many businesses to flourish in the late 1980s. I realise that he had no more access to the future than any of the rest of us had. He said:
  "The Local Government Finance Act provides for a uniform business rate in England and in Wales and for a
  856
  revaluation of non-domestic property … This will provide a welcome incentive for businesses to expand in the currently less economically buoyant areas."—[Official Report, 15 February 1989; Vol. 147, c. 315.]
  It is clear that he did not anticipate the economic events of the post-1989 period. Indeed, he predicted the opposite of what has transpired: he argued that northern business would be helped by rate reductions that could stimulate the more depressed parts of the country. The late Lord Ridley did not foresee the depth and length of the recession that would sweep through the country at the time that the business rate was introduced.
  The year 1990 was a bad one for the economy, with 28,935 businesses collapsing. In 1991, the position was even worse, with 47,777 business failures during the year —an increase of 65 per cent. on the previous year. The pace of collapse quickened in the last quarter of 1991: from 900 collapses a week to 995, or 199 business collapses each working day.
  All parts of the country suffered. The south-east recorded 9,722 business failures that year—an increase of 68 per cent. The east midlands recorded 2,189 failures—an increase of 79 per cent.—and the south-west had 5,415 failures—an increase of 76 per cent.
  The position grew even worse in 1992 as the recession deepened, with business failures reaching an all-time high. A total of 62,767 businesses failed—a 31 per cent. increase on the previous year. London and the south-east were the areas worst hit by the hurricane of collapsing business. The south-east recorded 14,000 business failures during 1992— a 46 per cent. increase. In 1992, 9,132 bankruptcies took place and liquidations increased by 20 per cent. to 5,000 plus.
  The eastern region also recorded a dramatic increase in business failures—a 22 per cent. increase on the previous year. In London, there were 9,121 business failures in 1992–15 per cent. of the total for the country.
  Despite all the self-congratulation from the Government Front Bench, 1993 has continued to be a disastrous year for business. In the first quarter, 15,444 businesses collapsed—a rate of almost 1,300 a week. A total of 5,297 limited company liquidations were recorded, and there were 10,000 individual insolvencies, compared to 9,200 in the same quarter last year.
  Dun and Bradstreet pointed out that the latest overall figures represented a 4 per cent. increase in business failures on the same period last year. London and the south-east are still suffering the worst. But beyond this region, the record of failures has also worsened, despite the soothing words of Ministers on this matter. For example, in the west midlands, there was an increase of 5·5 per cent. in the number of business failures compared to last year. In the south-west, there was an increase of 9 per cent. compared with the same period last year. In my own region, the north-east, 1,176 business failures were recorded—an increase of 3 per cent.—but bankruptcies increased by 8 per cent.
  Not only did the late Lord Ridley get wrong the level of aggregate demand in the economy: he and the Government completely failed to predict that the 1990–93 recession would hit the southern parts of the country worse than the north. Yet many areas in the south face the largest increases in business rate bills arising from the introduction of the national business rate in 1990.
  The original transitional release scheme was therefore wholly inappropriate in the economic circumstances of the

  857
  country. The limitations and reductions of rate bills in the north acted against northern-based companies holding on in the recession because they needed the full stimulus of any reductions. Even with the original limitations contained in the original transitional arrangement scheme, the increases in the south served to put great pressure on many companies which faced extremely serious problems and could ill afford even the limited increase.
  I want to be fair to the Minister by saying that, during the Second Reading of the Bill on non-domestic rates which was before the House last year, he recognised that the Government had allowed the country to sink into a deep recession and that, as a consequence, the original transitional scheme was wholly inappropriate and therefore had to be modified. He told the House on 19 May:
  "I know that the recession has created difficulties for many businesses and some of those that would have faced the largest increases this year have been particularly hard hit in the recession. The Government have therefore decided that their costs this year should not be worsened by any real increases in the business rates."—[Official Report, 19 May 1992; Vol. 208, c. 204]
  The Minister's proposals to limit increases in rates to inflation will be welcomed by businesses throughout the country. Businesses look to that assistance to help them recover from the battering that they received from the recession. They also recognise that the net cost to the taxpayer will not be as has been suggested in the accompanying papers, for every business that is saved by the measure will continue to contribute rates and other taxes on which the Exchequer depends. The multiplier effect in local economies will help other companies.
  The Minister's proposals might excite the ashes of John Maynard Keynes. However, to save the hon. Gentleman's blushes among his erstwhile friends and colleagues, I shall not press the point too far. I would hate to be responsible for any provocation that might compel the hon. Gentleman to renege on his conversion or to make his task of getting the Bill through another place more difficult, even if it receives the support of the House of Commons.
  As the Minister knows all too well, some noble Lords and at least one right hon. and noble Lady in the other House currently delight in opposition to Maastricht but might re-focus to delight in opposition to the Non-Domestic Rating (No. 2) Bill. I am sure that the business community, the Government and the Opposition would not want to incite such opposition to the Bill.
  Another worrying impact of the recession is the general and projected decline in business rate revenue. That partly addresses the point raised by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason). The aggregate business rate revenue fell from £12·4 billion in 1991–92 to £12·3 billion in 1992–93. In 1993–94, according to the Government's figures, it will fall to 11·6 billion. Does the Minister agree that that has serious consequences for Government revenues in general?
  Does the Minister acknowledge that, if local authority resources are to be maintained, one of several things must happen? The shortfall must be made up by central Government grant, by raising more revenue from council tax or by increasing the poundage beyond the rate of inflation to compensate for the impact of the narrower
  858
  business tax base—that avenue might create additional problems—or the books will have to be squared by forcing a cut in local authority resources.
  Does the Minister agree that there are, indeed, severe potential major problems ahead? Does he agree that, if there is to be stability in the business community, it is important that the Government state their future policy well in advance, so that business can plan accordingly?
  In his statement on local authority finance to the House in November last year, the Secretary of State said that there would be no cuts in services if councils were run efficiently. The Minister and I discussed the matter at some length only a week last Friday in a debate in the House. There were arguments about whether services were cut by councils which were efficient or only by councils which were inefficient.
  Setting aside that argument, I said in that debate, and I repeat today, that cuts were made by councils in many parts of the country, and severe cuts were made by some Conservative authorities. Even if the Minister has been unable to meet his stated policy this year, can he give us some assurances for the future?
  Mr. Redwood: Clause 2 makes similar arrangements to those last year, to ensure that the rates pool does not suffer from the decision to forgo the extra increases on properties suffering from the revaluations. So we have made our position clear. The rates pool will be compensated through that mechanism. But is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is Labour party policy not only to support that compensation but to urge higher real rates increases for businesses in order to allow higher local authority expenditure? That would be interesting, and the House should know.
  Mr. Henderson: It is always interesting to be questioned about Labour party policy. I do not intend to detain the House all afternoon, but I shall mention Labour party policy later, and I shall consider the local determination of rates—a method which, as I shall demonstrate, is supported by some Conservative Members.
  The basic issue is what the Government's policy will be if cuts are made. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will maintain the real level of local authority expenditure as a proportion of our gross domestic product? If so, will he assure the House that, if business rate revenue continues to fall, as the Government's own figures predict, the Government will increase their subventions to local authorities in one way or another to compensate for that shortfall?
  If the Minister cannot give that assurance, is he prepared to commit himself to making that argument to the Chancellor, with a view to a relevant announcement in the joint Budget and expenditure statement in the autumn? Will he stress to the Chancellor the need to maintain the real level of local authority resources?
  If there is a shortfall as a result of the existing way in which revenue is gained and as a result of a fall in business rate revenue because of the recession, will the Minister make proposals to allow the Government to compensate for any subsequent losses?
  On the question of the transitional arrangements covering business rate increases, will the Minister give a commitment that there will be no sudden elimination of

  859
  the limitation on increases? Does he accept that, if that were to happen, many companies, especially in the south, would face a sharp hike in their rates?
  If the Minister accepts the case for a stable and predictable business rate, which is especially important to the small business community, is he prepared to say how the 1995 revaluation in the business rate will be approached? The small business community considers such stability to be crucial to its economy, and I hope that the Minister will accept the strength of its argument, which is frequently presented to politicians and others, and rightly so.
  I hope that the Minister will recognise—if he does not, his officials certainly will—that, even if the transitional arrangements had been allowed to work through, about 160,000 businesses would still have had the increase in their rates deferred until the end of 1994–95. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities estimates that, following the two-year freeze in real increases, which the Labour party supports, about 350,000 businesses will not even pay full rates under the 1990 revaluation when the new 1995 revaluation comes into force. The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry has stressed that point, and noted:
  "The Uniform Business Rate still presents enormous problems for London businesses, particularly when the new valuations are brought in."
  Can the Minister tell us whether there will be transitional arrangements after 1995? Are the Government prepared to contribute additional funds to the national business rate pool to assist businesses that face sharp increases? If transitional arrangements are intended after 1995—this relates to what I said in answer to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove—will they be based on the actual rate payments made under the various schemes in 1994–95 or will they be made on the basis of what the bills would have been had the full effects of the 1990 revaluation worked through the system?
  That also relates to the point that the Minister tempted me to discuss when he intervened, and what was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who is sitting to the rear and left of the Minister—perhaps that hon. Gentleman is to the left of the Minister in all senses: he certainly used to be when he was on the other side of the border.
  Is the Minister prepared to review the system? Is he prepared to consider giving local councils full responsibility for setting the business rate? Over the past two or three years, it has sometimes been suggested that anyone making such a proposition must be off his head and would not receive the support of the business community. But that is not really what the business community believes. It recognises that there is considerable advantage in. the business rate being determined by local councils.
  I do not want to detain the House for too long, but I have quotes from two representative business organisations. I do not necessarily concur with their views on other matters, but I think that they speak much sense on this issue. In its recent submission on local government affairs, the Institute of Directors said:
  "We consider that on balance there is more to be gained than lost by reverting to non-domestic rates being determined by the individual local authorities".
  In its submission on local authority policy, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry states:
  "The Chamber would like to see a return to local revenue raising and accountability for at least 50 per cent. of all local
  860
  government expenditure. This could be done if both the council tax and business rate were controlled locally. The voice of business could then be heard, and in a real sense accountability could be reintroduced … Changes along those lines would ensure that locally raised rates were spent in the areas of need, and reflect the local economy … the Chamber strongly recommends that the Government includes a fundamental reassessment of the present arrangements as part of its overall view of local government finance."
  It is not only Opposition Members who subscribe to the cause of determining rates at local level. Conservative Members who are closely associated with such organisations make the same submissions, and many in the business community have made it clear that they do not want to be determined by central Government, but want to allow reasonable local discretion.
  Does the Minister agree that it is advantageous to allow local councils to make decisions, as they know more about their business community, and they know how much the business community can afford to pay in rates? It would be extremely stupid of them not to take that into account when setting the rates. It would be counter-productive in economic terms, as, if they made the rates too high, companies would run into difficulties, which would produce a lower net revenue. That would be a pointless exercise, and local government would be stupid to make such a mistake—indeed, it is not doing so.
  Not long ago, the Minister was praising the way in which local government approached many issues. He has done so at political conferences, in press releases and elsewhere. Some of us have sometimes been tempted to question the authenticity of his apparent conversion to local government. Setting that aside, the Minister—and, indeed, the Prime Minister—have made the case for local government.
  The Opposition support the measure, but would it not be wise to consider the longer term to discover whether there are better and more flexible ways of determining business rates, so that local communities and local business needs can be taken into account? The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry also referred to democracy. If local democracy is to mean anything, local people must have the ability and right to determine the level of services they want, and how much the business community should contribute to them.
  It is clear that the Government are intent on pressing on with seemingly endless changes in the rules governing local authorities. It is no surprise to me that the business community is still subject to the unstable business rate levels caused by the Local Government Finance Act 1988. It is also clear that the House will face further requests to support further legislation to change the rules relating to the business rate.
  I am clear that a return to the local determination of business rate is a more democratic policy and will, in the long term, reduce the involvement of the House in such matters. But until then, business will need assistance in shielding itself from severe hikes in business rates. If the Bill gives a measure of support, it has our general approval.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Roy Thomason: I had not intended to participate in the debate until I heard the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) say that Opposition Members intended to support the Bill. I was immediately filled with suspicion, bearing in mind their

  861
  long history of changing policies, but always opposing the present rating system for businesses. I was minded to intervene on hearing that change of tack emerging from the Opposition.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North referred to the former Secretary of State for the Environment, Nicholas Ridley, and compared the differences between the rates charged in different parts of the country and the adjustments that would take place between north and south. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman forgot the horror that many business people felt when they saw their rates bills before the new legislation was introduced.
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman forgot, for example, that in Conservative-controlled Kensington and Chelsea, the rates for a business similar to one in Labour-controlled Sheffield would have been 117p instead of 347p in the pound. There was by no means a level playing field. A considerable additional burden was placed on businesses in a Labour-controlled authority such as Sheffield compared with businesses in Kensington and Chelsea and that situation could be replicated throughout the country. There was a wide variety of business rates.
  The reason for that was the old valuation. The difference of two, three or even four times the amount of rates in the pound charged was related not to the ability of a business to make payments in relation to its turnover or profit. It followed that there was gross unfairness between businesses in different parts of the country as to what they were paying in local authority business rates and the amount that they were reasonably able to pay as a proportion of their gross profit. The issue had to be resolved.
  Labour Members have said in the past that they wished to introduce a form of property tax and that they did not want the sort of measure that is now before the House. They said that their new property tax would be based on capital values and would be handed over for local government to determine levels of payment. For many years, as a former chairman of the Association of District Councils, I defended the role of local government and viewed with concern the removal of its right to determine business rates. But I concede that the change, made necessary by the wide discrepancies to which I referred, has been a success.
  Under the old system, in many Labour-controlled authorities the majority of ratepayers were in receipt of benefits, which meant that they were cushioned from the charge, so the business proportion of the community bore a much heavier part of the rate charge. Would the Labour party advocate a return to that system?
  The Liberals suggest that we could overcome the problem not by adopting the type of measure that is before the House, but by introducing site value taxation. How would that work? That question cannot adequately be answered because site value taxation is a totally unworkable proposition. For example, take a corner sweet shop and a large tower block adjacent to it, value the site of those two units, which per square foot might be identical, and charge a rate based on that site value. The little corner shop might be occupying an old building of limited capital value in total, whereas the office block
  862
  might be a substantial and expensive block. But under the Liberal scheme they would both pay an identical amount of business rates on a square foot basis.
  That is nonsense. It bears no relationship to ability to pay or to the use of the land and it often bears no relationship to the potential use of the land. The corner sweet shop may be occupied by a lessee who cannot redevelop the land and thereby release the capital values to justify the payment of a higher business rate.
  It follows that there is no easy solution to the problem of business rates. There is no quick answer to the problem of how businesses should contribute, justly and equitably, to the costs of the local community. We need to find a fair and reasonable solution. The one before us is the best to date.
  I am concerned that the Labour party's proposals will go back to the bad old days of greatly varying charges according to the accident of a local authority's political control. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North quoted with approbation various business organisations which had said that they wanted to participate in local government and saw the payment of locally based taxes as the answer. I question that because there is no connection between the charge and elections. There is no proper accountability if it is not electorally based.
  A business man or woman may have business premises in one local authority, but be a council tax payer in a different authority, so the local authority in which his business is based will not be democratically accountable to him or her. The proposal to charge a business rate on their premises gives them no say or opportunity to participate in the decision making of the council of the authority in which their business premises are situated. That is a grave weakness of the Labour party's present position.
  I welcome any proposition that will allow businesses to participate in local government. That must be a way ahead. But I am worried that democratic accountability may no longer be maintained through the ballot box. If the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North was proposing that business people had some business vote and that councillors received their franchise by virtue of the business rate, that might be an argument to be listened to, if not in the end supported. But he has not pursued that to its proper conclusion.
  I am therefore left with concern that some authorities that have clearly shown themselves to be anti-business would use any new proposal to weaken the economic strength of businesses within their community.
  It is true that some in the Labour party have belatedly appreciated the importance of a thriving business community. Sadly, that is not always reflected on Labour benches in council chambers throughout the country. A movement away from the present system must therefore be undertaken with great care.
  I started by describing the important link between the rate paid by businesses in different parts of the country. I mentioned in an earlier intervention that the 1995 revaluation was not a factor that should be taken into account in assessing to any great degree the levels of business rates. We had to assume that there would be no substantial difference between the 1990 and 1995 values put on properties owing to stagnant rent levels.
  There is of course the question of how much the Government should properly contribute to local government expenses by virtue of the lower yield that that will

  863
  produce from business premises. It would be of assistance to those in local government if, in replying to the debate, or, more appropriately, on some future occasion after consultation, my hon. Friend the Minister could let us know the Government's long-term views on creating a balance between the yield from the council tax, grant and the business rate in supporting local government services.
  There is no doubt that the yield from the council tax is excessively small as a proportion of local government income. Therefore, the gearing can create distortions and the element of democratic accountability to which I referred earlier may be weakened when such a large part of the total local government income is generated by resources outside those determined by people elected to their council. However, those are wide issues and perhaps it would not be appropriate for me to spend long on them this afternoon, although there may be some who would prefer it if I did.
  In joining colleagues in all parts of the House in supporting this measure, I hope that in future the Opposition will take a more realistic and fair approach to businesses and their relationship with local government. We commend the Government for once again protecting the interests of businesses this year at a time of critical importance to them. I trust that the measure will receive universal support.
  4.26 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I, too, am glad to welcome the measure, but I am particularly glad to welcome the terms in which the Minister introduced it. Unlike some of the cuckoos of spring from whom we have heard so much in the past 24 hours, who have been bawling the fact the whole economy is now on the road to recovery, the Minister was frank enough to say that a full resumption of UBR increases would be premature. He made it quite clear that, as far as the universal business rate and its impact on businesses were concerned, recovery has not taken place, is not taking place and is not likely to take place in the near future. I welcome the more realistic, if slightly more pessimistic, way in which the Minister introduced the measure.
  This is our annual occasion to take stock of where the uniform business rate has led us and I shall touch on three aspects, the first of which is accountability. That was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason), who was a notable leader of the Association of District Councils.
  I recall a criticism of that body, the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities at the time of the introduction of the non-domestic rate, the uniform business rate and the poll tax in 1990 in the interests of accountability. It was claimed that the link to the electorate was destroyed because so much of the decision-making was centralised in London and so little was left to the council chambers of which the hon. Gentleman was such a spendid ornament. That argument must bring us to the test of how the average elector, an individual or from a business, actually influences the UBR for his or her area.
  Next week there is to be an election in all the shire counties of England and Wales. Can the elector, by putting his cross against a particular candidate, influence the level of UBR?
  864
  Of course not. He cannot make any difference to the way in which that particular council approaches the problem of raising revenue from the business community. The only thing that he can do next week—the Government may regret this—is to demonstrate his contempt for that inelastic system by voting against the governing party. If the elector considers that the system is unfair or is being misused, that is the only way in which the elector can fight back.
  The system was introduced because of the ludicrous antics of a small minority of loony left Labour councils. The idea was that businesses needed to be protected against a minority elected under the first-past-the-post system, which then abused their majority position.
  The accident of political control mentioned by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) is entirely the product of low turnout and an inefficient, non-proportional election system, but to use the UBR and centralised control as a way of getting back at the vast majority of conscientious local authorities which are run by Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, or the saner parts of the Labour party—or a combination of them—seems an extraordinary way of using a sledgehammer to crack a particularly cracked nut.
  Mr. Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a vote for his party is a vote for site value rating, which means slaughtering our high street greengrocers, bakers and butchers by forcing them out of business by inappropriately high levels of tax, because their sites would be more valuable for other uses? What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about that? Does he agree that our proposals are much better for the business community, which is why people will vote Conservative?
  Mr. Tyler: That is patent nonsense, as the Minister knows full well. I wish that it were possible next week to change the Government of the day, but we shall not be able to do that. I do not know whether there is an election in the Minister's area next week.
  Mr. Redwood indicated assent.
  Mr. Tyler: There will be in my own. As an elector, I shall have a clear choice between electing representatives of the three main parties. One party's candidate supports the status quo, as represented by the measure before us, but we have no way of amending, altering ameliorating or changing the application of that policy in our area. My party is prepared to fight for more local accountability —not just for businesses but for the whole community. I will not be drawn into the argument about site value taxation. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove—who has left the Chamber—knows full well that he was talking nonsense when he said it was impossible and impracticable. He denied not just the evidence of professional local authority valuers who have made sure that it would be possible to introduce the scheme, but the experience of many countries, including New Zealand and parts of the United States, which operate it most effectively. It is nonsense to suggest that the system would have the effect he claimed.
  Mr. Redwood: If the Liberal Democratic party is interested only in local issues, why does its manifesto for the county elections devote a great deal of time and energy to making the case for proportional representation and local income tax—which are clearly national issues that

  865
  the hon. Gentleman's party is trying to influence? Why will not he come clean about the Liberal Democrats' proposals for small businesses which would be deeply damaging to many small firms that provide excellent services in the high streets of this country?
  Mr. Tyler: If I launched forth on a restatement of our manifesto, I would be called to order. We have made it clear on successive occasions in House and outside that the main basis for local authority funding at local level should be based on a local income tax.
  We do not believe that the current system—be it the council tax, or the wholly discredited poll tax that the Minister and his colleagues foisted on the country on a minority vote—is appropriate. Our system would be much more appropriate. In addition, land value taxation is a much more effective system for identifying the benefit given to the individual, commercial ratepayer by the council services and planning consents given. If there is no outstanding planning consent giving an enhanced value to a particular property, it does not release that value and engage the land value taxation at a higher level. It is nonsense to suggest that the system would squeeze out small shopkeepers.
  I also wish to refer to the anomalies in the present system. I am especially concerned with the holiday industry, having some responsibilities for the matter in the House and in my constituency. It is extraordinary that, since the introduction of the uniform business rate, the inflexibility of the system has meant that hotels and guest houses which have been pushed by the recession into reducing their months of opening find that there is no change in their rate burden. If an hotel in Newquay was operating on a 12-month basis in 1988, employing people and letting its rooms all the year round, but has now, as a result of the recession, had to cut back and close for perhaps eight months of the year, such is the absurdity and inflexibility of the UBR system that the hotelier still pays the rate for the full 12 months' opening.
  The argument, in case the Minister thinks that I have not heard it, goes thus. Because the hotelier is in theory sitting beside his telephone in January waiting for a booking to be made for July, August or September, it is suggested that the whole hotel is therefore in business and must still be rated at the full valuation set in 1988 and introduced in 1990. It will be obvious that in such circumstances the relationship to his ability to pay—his profitability, turnover or whatever may be the test—is absolutely nil. There is no connection whatever.
  The hotelier's attempts to appeal against the system, based on experience in our area, seem doomed to failure. The only way in which some change may be made is if there is a material change of business. I know of a case in my constituency of someone who has had a tea room in the front room and, in days gone by, was able to operate it every week of the year has now decided that, because of the recession and the consequent reduction in the disposable income of visitors, the room will be used for domestic purposes during the winter months. There is then a possibility of some form of appeal. Otherwise, the inflexibility of the system is extraordinary.
  Another anomaly has been brought to our attention by the Confederation of British Industry, usually very
  866
  supportive of Government policy. It points out in its current brief that the setting of half rates on empty shops and offices in England and Wales is absurd. It says:
  "The rationale behind this practice is flawed, going against the principle that rates are a tax on beneficial occupation. Moreover, in current market conditions its application is penal. Many businesses, in all sectors, are facing empty rates bills amounting to about £450 million in addition to other onerous costs of holding properties which they are trying to rent or sell, hitherto with little success."
  Another cause for serious concern across all parties, as far as I know, is the arrangements for hardship relief. Last week the Federation of Small Businesses, whose policy chairman hails from Torquay in the south-west of England, pointed out that huge numbers of smaller businesses have been badly affected by the uniform business rates that they have been called upon to pay and that the response of local authorities has been exceedingly patchy, to say the least, because the system is not fully funded by the Exchequer, is not fully understood and, as a result, is not fully operational.
  The Minister will agree, I think, that section 49, on hardship relief, is not being adequately used by local authorities largely because, in very constrained times, when all their resources are restricted, even the limited contribution that they must make—which they must get from their council tax payers or by some other means—is considerable. As hon. Members know,
  "remission … on grounds of hardship should be the exception rather than the rule".
  I quote from the Department's "Non-domestic Rates Discretionary Rate Relief- practice note on the subject. As hon. Members also know, not only must the individual ratepayer prove that he is suffering hardship; but if the uniform business rate were imposed in all its rigour, the wider community—council tax payers in the area—would also suffer hardship. The example often quoted is that of a post office which, if the uniform business rate were imposed to the full extent, would disappear—and perhaps the only shop would go with it—and the whole community around it would suffer. That is a valid case, and I will come back to it in a moment.
  At present, the hardship restrictions are being so narrowly drawn that many local councils are not using them at all. I note that authorities of all political colours include both the best, at the top of the league, and the worst, at the bottom. This is not a party political point and I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at how the hardship relief can be more effectively defined so that all parties in local government can use it to better effect.
  The Minister referred to appeals. That is my next "A". The Department was able to give my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) some figures. It is a staggering fact that there are nearly half a million outstanding uniform business rate appeals. I was pleased to hear the Minister say in his introduction that he is determined to remove the backlog by the end of this financial year. I am sure that many hon. Members will want to hold him to that.
  The appeals system is extraordinarily cumbersome and very narrowly defined. I do not know if I am alone in the House—I suspect that I am this evening—but, just before the general election, I fought an appeal, not on behalf of a constituent but on behalf of a postmistress who ran a tiny post office at Trekenner, which is in Lezant, just outside my constituency. The experience of that appeal is

  867
  one that I will never forget. I have never been subjected to such an extraordinary surrealist exchange of non-information.
  Let me illustrate it for the benefit of the House. The valuation officer produced a splendid tabulation of a number of comparative premises—post offices and shops from different parts of Cornwall—and it was on the basis of those calculations that he was proposing the entry in the rating list of some £300 for one room. The room had previously been the dining room of the postmistress and her husband. They had decided, in the interests of security, that it was no longer sufficient to use the dining room table and that, for obvious reasons, they should have some form of protection. They therefore decided to erect a screen and a counter, although the room still had in it the deep freeze, their records of dog and sheep breeding, and parish council minutes and other information. It was still, to all intents and purposes, part of the domestic premises.
  Because there was a screen that could not be taken down at night, and therefore they could no longer have a dinner party there even if they wanted to, it was suggested by the valuation officers that that one room was effectively a business premise.
  Our first argument that a post office which opened only for limited hours was hardly a business, but rather a social service, was kicked out by the tribunal—not because it was unsympathetic, but because of the inflexibility of the system. Our second argument was that, despite the position of the counter, the premises were still largely for domestic use and could be used for domestic purposes when the post office was not open. That, too, was thrown out.
  I am shortening the long proceedings in the interests of brevity—I know that many Conservative Members wish to speak. The final session of the tribunal hearing was devoted to the actual figure to be applied to the premises and a schedule of different figures for similar premises was produced in evidence. I noticed in one column of the criteria to be used the magic initials "SPOT". I am not a professional valuer or an advocate—I am a mere politician —and I wondered whether I should draw attention to this form of description. I imagined that it meant "scientific and professional objective test", or some such.
  I screwed up my courage and said to the chairman of the tribunal, "I do not understand what SPOT means. No doubt you and the other members of the tribunal fully understand." The chairman took counsel from his clerk, as was appropriate, and from other members, and they said, "Mr. Tyler, we have to confess that we do not know either." After a great deal of humming and ha-ing, the valuation officer admitted that SPOT meant that he had made it up on the spot. Nevertheless, I obtained a reduction.
  The basis of the valuation and the inadequacy of the appeal system causing tremendous anxiety, confusion and anger in the business community. The fact that it is still taking so long to get a hearing and an answer—despite the Minister's assurances—makes the position worse.
  To show that I am by no means parochial, I shall refer to an example from another part of the country, arid go from north Cornwall to Newbury. It is a random example, but it may be of interest to members of other parties.
  Newbury was an area of considerable economic success, but small businesses in Berkshire are suffering, as in many other parts of the country, from the delayed reaction to the effects of the recession. As a result,
  868
  registered unemployment has risen from 861 in February 1990 to 4,033 in February 1993. It is clear from the continuing business failures in the area that a large number of newly unemployed come from the small business sector. We cannot be sure of the exact numbers of small businessess that are now failing in the Newbury constituency, but the local chamber of commerce reports no let-up whatsoever in the recession in the past few weeks. Its monitoring suggests that 16 local firms went under in February this year, compared with an average of 10.5 in 1992.
  Councils throughout the country have been trying to mitigate the worst effects of the uniform business rate and I am delighted to note that Newbury district council—which, like my own in north Cornwall, has a strong Liberal Democrat presence—has used the hardship relief to the full. But how much more could be done if it were more effective than it is at present?
  We all look forward to the revaluation and the effect that it will have on the 1995 figures, but unless the three As— accountability, anomalies and the appeals system—are addressed, we may end up with just a revamp of the present system. Meanwhile, the lack of local flexibility, the lack of willingness to tackle the sort of anomalies I have described and the continued lack of realistic assessments in the valuation and appeals procedure are doing great damage to small businesses throughout the country.
  4.48 pm
  Mr. James Hill: I have taken on board much of what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said about how the business man should be represented in local authorities. In the mid-1960s, there was a local government vote for business men. It seemed to work very well and I have no criticism of it. I fought a ward in which local business men voted. I was not elected. Nevertheless, they exercised their democratic right to pay rates and at the same time influence the local authority. That influenced the local authority in many ways, although it did not disregard local business men completely.
  It is a totally different story now. My Labour-controlled local authority definitely disregards local business men. It has many schemes afoot. Behind closed doors, it formulates economic and planning policies without consulting the local business hierarchy. For years, the Southampton chamber of commerce has said that it would like more representation in the civic centre, but it just does not get it. However, there will come a day when business men rise up and say, "If we are expected to pay a considerable uniform business rate, we must have a voice in what is being planned by the local authority."
  As we know, the introduction of the uniform business rate came as an extreme shock to the business community. It came in at a very high level. Business men were shaken to the core. It was introduced halfway through the recession, so it was impossible for them to find the additional money. I am pleased that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has listened to the pleas of various chambers of commerce, the Confederation of British Industry and other bodies such as the Institute of Directors, with the result that, for the second year running, the uniform business rate has not been increased.
  That is very satisfactory for business men who run small businesses. I am not so concerned about the

  869
  multinationals that can open or close factories at the stroke of a pen on paper, but I am very concerned about the man who runs the local greengrocery or newspaper business. To him, the uniform business rate is another heavy burden of taxation.
  The Chancellor in his wisdom has relieved the burden on such businesses in England by £329 million. Taken together with the help in last year's Budget, nearly £1·8 billion has been provided to help to reduce the bills of business ratepayers. Much of the help, I am pleased to say, is going to businesses in the south of England, which has been hit particularly hard by the recession, for unemployment in the south is well over 10 per cent.
  Under the Bill and the transitional arrangements, the bills of 530,000 properties will rise by no more than 3·5 per cent. in 1993–94. When the Government decided to grasp the nettle, they found that the bone of contention was that the old rating system was unreliable. Councils used the business rate to subsidise increased spending, at no political cost to themselves, and obscured from voters the true cost of local authority expenditure.
  Business rates were also unfair. Neighbouring properties with equivalent rating valuations but in different authorities, found that their business rate bills were not the same. That led to the complete distortion of trading competition. Business rates increased dramatically year by year, often at short notice. Notice amounted to only a few weeks and the business rate bore no relationship to the services provided.
  I hate to say this, but Labour councils that set high business rates drove businesses and jobs from areas that could not afford to lose them. I have figures for Labour-controlled councils, but we do not want to get involved in that debate, because in this one we ought to congratulate the Government on ensuring that the uniform business rate is to be held at a level that businesses can afford.
  Businesses in England will, overall, pay £800 million less in 1993–94 than they would have paid if business rates had risen in line with council spending, as they did before the introduction of the uniform business rate. I hope that I have got that point over to the media. In 1990–91, savings amounting to £1 billion were made; in 1991–92 they amounted to £850 million. If business rates had risen in line with council spending—I must admit that my council is probably one of the worst councils to which to refer business bills since 1990 would have amounted to more than £2·5 billion extra. Business rates nationally rose by some 37·4 per cent., in real terms.
  Market rents and rateable values are inextricably linked. No one can get away with saying, "I can pay a high uniform business rate and a low rent." It is amusing to note that the Southampton, Test Conservative association headquarters paid far less in rent than it did in uniform business rate. That was the position at the beginning, but the two are now beginning to square up.
  As we have heard several times during the debate, local authorities have the power to reduce or remit rates when businesses face hardship but, dare I say it, some councils, or even individual councillors, have no great liking for business. They exploit the poor. They take money out of the pockets of those who earn and put it into their own.
  870
  The very smell of business makes them adopt a very poor attitude towards it. We must ensure that local councils implement the hardship provisions to the full.
  Today we have heard something about the policy of the Liberal Democrats. I do not know why, but there is an enormous burst of Liberal Democrat propaganda at the moment. I cannot understand it. The Liberal Democrats virtually go to sleep for four years between each general election, but they are wide awake again now. Site value rating was a nonsense. It was proved categorically, even to a Liberal Democrat council, that the Institute of Fiscal Studies and the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation have explicitly rejected site value rating as unworkable and have warned that,
  "as with rental revaluation, there may be little market information on site values in some areas."
  If a tobacconist's shop has a rather large garden, one can say with certainty that its site value is not the same as that of a factory that has a rather large garden alongside.
  The expansion of a business depends on the capital that the business can expend. A small business man cannot explain to his bank manager that, if he would only give him another £250,000, he could develop the land on the site, so the site value rating system is particularly unworkable and, after a short time, would be regarded as completely unfair.
  I have had strong dialogue with my local chamber of commerce, which is very aware that the difference between profit and loss could be in the rating system itself. It is not possible for businesses always to make profits of several hundred per cent. or, indeed, anything like that amount. Many small businesses could be teetering on the edge of bankruptcy simply because of high uniform business rates.
  We have made a good stab at solving the problem. The Chancellor has made an excellent effort to control it, and it must be controlled. Local authorities must use the hardship provisions available under their mandate and all councils, whether Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative, must appreciate the fact that chambers of commerce and business men should be involved in all dialogue about plans whether for the city centre or for the transportation infrastructure.
  The proposals are excellent, and I shall have no hesitation in voting for them.
  5.1 pm
  Mrs. Angela Knight: This is an appropriate debate for today, as the headlines in so many newspapers are telling us that the recession is over. Indeed, the figures for sales, output, productivity and growth all point in that direction. Unemployment is also down, not only in my constituency of Erewash but in Newbury.
  Mr. Simon Burns: Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to read the Newbury declaration of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) in which he states that the Liberal Democrats wish for honesty in politics, among other things? I am not sure whether the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) deliberately sought to mislead the House or whether he merely made a mistake. In his catalogue of gloom and doom, which was aimed not at the Chamber but down the road in Berkshire and Newbury, he quoted an unemployment figure of 4,033. It was typical of the Liberal Democrats because that was the figure for February. March's figures show a fall in

  871
  unemployment of 77 to 3,956 in Newbury, which is a bit of good news that the hon. Gentleman was not prepared to share with the House.
  Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I hope that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) will withdraw his remark.
  Mr. Tyler: I am sorry that the hon. Lady has been so misled by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). The change from March 1990 to March 1993 is almost precisely the same figure as that to which he referred, so my argument stands. If the hon. Gentleman makes the comparison, he will see that I am right. There has been a substantial increase in the past three years. The figure may have marginally decreased over the past month but, as Ministers keep telling us, one month does not make a whole year.
  Mrs. Knight: The hon. Member for North Cornwall has made it clear that he does not welcome a fall in unemployment, whereas my colleagues look forward to further falls in Newbury, Erewash and elsewhere.
  In the east midlands, companies, institutions and organisations—be it the Confederation of British Industry, the chambers of commerce or the businesses themselves—have quietly been saying for some time that the recession is over. In my constituency, lace manufacturers, car component and iron pipe manufacturers, and the retail and housing sectors are all improving. They now have fuller order books and they are anticipating continuing improvements in the economy.
  I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for North Cornwall and I was sorry that he did not elaborate on his party's site valuation proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) made it clear why the hon. Gentleman had kept quiet. It is very important to consider those valuation proposals carefully because, under the Liberal party's system of site value rating, smaller businesses could be charged the same rate for a one-storey shop as a multinational corporation will be charged for an office block. If the same rate is charged for an economically under-utilised site such as a garage as for an office block, which the Liberals propose, it will create a strong incentive to overdevelop land. That is not what I would wish to see, and I suggest that the Liberal Democrats re-examine their proposals more closely.
  I should like to consider UBR from another angle. I represent an area that has made substantial gains as a consequence of the introduction of the uniform business rate. Companies in the midlands and the north were very highly rated for many years because of the way in which their local authorities chose to levy excessive rates on local businesses. Often, companies in the midlands and the north despaired of anything being done to prevent such excessive rates being levied, and when the late Lord Ridley introduced the uniform business rate, they welcomed the fact that it would enable them to expand in the historically more depressed parts of the country. Last year, there were accelerated gains for the gainers, and companies in my constituency and across the east midlands welcomed the changes.
  I have a personal interest in these matters because of the many years I spent working in industry. I have a further interest because I come from the north and now represent a constituency there. It is not an exaggeration to say that,
  872
  for many years, businesses in that area were badly affected by high rates or that companies were leaving and taking with them the jobs that they would otherwise have created.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) gave some examples of the variations in rates between one authority and another. However, the problem was not only the rates themselves but the fear of what would happen next year. Local authorities would decide how much they wanted to spend and, once they had decided that, would levy a high rate, much of the burden of which would fall heavily on the business community. That meant that the business community was unable to plan ahead properly. Of course, the high-rated areas were Labour controlled, so the move to the uniform business rate was absolutely essential.
  I was very worried by the proposal by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) that the business rate should once again become the responsibility of local authorities. He presented his case in a moderate, reasonable and restrained manner, but many of his colleagues in local government are not reasonable or restrained individuals. Those people, whose actions penalised companies, cannot be allowed to regain control of the business rate and therefore over the economy of the local area.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall—[HON. MEMBERS "Where is he?"]—has sadly seen fit to leave the Chamber rather than listen to the debate on the rating system proposed by his party.
  Mr. Burns: Does my hon. Friend accept that, given the importance of the Bill and the impact that it will have on businesses, it is rather strange that the Liberals seem to care so little that they cannot be bothered to be in the Chamber for the whole debate?
  Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Liberals' absence shows the contempt with which they treat business.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall said that all local authorities should not be condemned because of the failings of a few. He has now returned to the Chamber, and I tell him that it was not just a few local authorities that failed. Too many failed their areas by levying too high a rate. In any event, what would the hon. Gentleman's proposals, or those of the Labour party, do for companies in areas where the local authorities continue to penalise companies in that way? They would leave companies to suffer the sort of interference and penalty through high rates, which would prevent businesses from expanding. It is essential that the business rate be kept independent of local authorities.
  I shall examine briefly local authority expenditure in my area.
  Mr. Tyler: Is the hon. Lady saying that the Conservative councillors elected next week—if any are elected—are not to be trusted to decide the level of the business rate in their areas?
  Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman has deliberately chosen to mislead the House by misrepresenting my argument. I shall return to the subject of local authority expenditure in my area.
  Mr. George Mudie: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Knight: If I may expand my argument for a moment, I shall give way later.
  What exercises my constituents and other residents of the county is their concern for the way in which the county council spends money on education or; in some parts it fails to do so. They are also worried about the way in which the local police force has been hampered in the excellent job that it does by the county council's failure to give it the funds that it requires. That is what is happening now, and that is why business rates should not be put back into local authorities' hands.
  There are many competent local authorities in this country but, sadly, there have been too many excesses and too much mismanagement.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the county council's policy of paying for nuclear-free zones is of no advantage to business men in Lancashire?
  Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We all know how well she speaks for Lancashire, how supportive she is of local people in that county, and how well she exposes the failings of Lancashire county council, as she has just done.
  In an ideal world, everyone would have a say in local government and in how money raised locally should be spent. However, we all know that that is not the reality. In practice there are low turn-outs at election time and many areas have been held year after year in the grip of the same group of councillors. I do not believe that the House could seriously propose to leave business to its fate under local authorities, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) has suggested.
  I do not think that there is any such thing as welcome taxation. Surely no one would put up his hand and ask to be taxed more heavily. But in local taxation as in national taxation, there has to be fairness, and there is fairness in the uniform business rate, which has been seen across the midlands and the north of England. If one talks to the business community and to business organisations, as my hon. Friends and I do, they tell us that their overheads must be kept down. They say that interest rates, too, must be kept down, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has achieved that over the past few months. Business men also want their rates bills to be frozen, which is what the Bill proposes.
  Mr. Mudie: Does the hon. Lady agree that those same business men are the first to criticise, vocally and in the press, the standards of the children coming through our education system? Are they not the first to say that those standards should be improved? Yet the same business men who criticise the education system are those who tell the hon. Lady that although they want standards to rise, not only will they not contribute more, but they wish to contribute less.
  Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the business community criticises education standards; that is why it is so important that tests take place this summer in our schools for seven-year-olds such as my son and for 14-year-olds. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support his business community and join my hon. Friends and myself in urging all the teaching unions to forget
  874
  about the boycott and to get on with testing those children. However, we had the education debate last week, so I must return to business rates.
  It is stability in the rating system that is so important to businesses. That gives them the opportunity to plan for their future. It is important to ensure that there are no big increases, and no big changes year after year in companies' business rates. The UBR and the changes proposed today make an important contribution in that respect.
  5.16 pm
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I am pleased to be able to say that the Opposition will support the Government on the Bill, and I am pleased, too, that The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), is present, as he was a year ago almost to the day, when we dealt with the Non-Domestic Rating Act. I suppose that this is his annual foray into matters Welsh. I shall not go too deeply into such matters, but I shall make one or two general points about what has occurred in this interesting if short debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), and the hon. Members for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) all, rightly, referred to the recession and to the fact that small businesses—and, indeed, other business —had been seriously affected by it over the past few years. The newspapers this morning all say something along the lines of, "Recession is over—official".
  However, in Wales there are still some 50,000 young people unemployed, we have lost 30,000 manufacturing jobs, unemployment costs us £1·2 billion and there are 17 claimants chasing every job, and businesses have gone under at an alarming rate—there were 2,425 business failures recorded during 1992, which represents an increase of 26 per cent. on the 1991 figure, and there were 1,728 bankruptcies, which represents a 38 per cent. increase. I fancy that, if the journalists came to Wales and wrote headlines saying that the recession was over, the idea would be seen to be nonsense.
  None the less, we welcome the Bill, as we welcomed last year's Non-Domestic Rating Act, because it will ease the burden on small businesses. But we must ponder the amount of money that will be made available. For example, the Government can now find £9 million this year and £5 million next year to make up the shortfall to local authorities. That contrasts significantly with the statements and debates that took place in the Chamber some months ago when we debated the revenue support grant settlement for Welsh local authorities.
  The counties and districts in Wales agree that that was the worst settlement ever. There have been cuts in education, in social services, in the police force and in all the services that are vital to the business community—and vital too, of course, for inward investment.
  The hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight)—[Interruption.] The name of her constituency is as difficult to pronounce as the name of my own. The hon. Lady mentioned stability. Businesses in Wales are yearning for stability in the local government system, yet stability is the very thing that we have not had in local government finance. In 1988, the Under-Secretary of State and I served

  875
  on the Committee that considered the poll tax during its three-month passage through the House. We agreed then on the issues—as, in a sense, we agree today.
  There have been enormous changes to local government finance in just a few years. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) referred to changes that my party might want to introduce in local government financial institutions. When we consider the huge change that occurred as a result of the fiasco of the poll tax, any change that we might bring about would pale into insignificance. Billions of pounds were squandered on having first to prop up the poll tax and then to replace it altogether.
  My fear is that the local government financial system in Wales, and in Britain generally, is becoming discredited. In Wales especially, but also in England, one aspect is the so-called "gearing" effect. It means that local councils can do virtually nothing unless they increase their local taxes dramatically. That has distorted local government finance, and has meant that local authorities no longer have a proper revenue-raising function. In Wales, a 1 per cent. increase in expenditure means an increase of about 9 per cent. in the council tax.
  Yesterday, for the first time ever in the Principality, the Secretary of State for Wales announced his ideas about which local authorities should be capped. Only one authority out of 45 in Wales has been capped and it is the authority of the Minister of State, Welsh Office. It is an authority that is not controlled by any one political party. The decision has meant that the whole subject of capping has been discredited in Wales, as has the fact that the Secretary of State is having to take Gwent county council to court over its budget. The whole thing is a sorry mess, and the sooner we get some stability in local government finance, the better for businesses and the better for our communities.
  In many parts of the country, business rate arrears are high. Local authorities find it increasingly difficult to collect business rates. There is an increasing gap between business rate payers and council tax payers. In Gwent, for example, business rates over the past three years have increased by 1·6 per cent., whereas local council tax payers have had to face a 53 per cent. increase.
  The chief question, which has exercised the minds of hon. Members who have contributed to this short debate, concerns the nature of the business rate and what we want it to be. It is not a local business rate; it is a national business tax. It bears no relation to the way in which rates used to operate, or to the way in which the council tax operates.
  I believe that there is a vital link between local businesses and the local community, and that the link has been broken by the new business rate. All local authorities provide for businesses an educated work force, roads and infrastructure. In Wales, local authorities play an especially important role in economic development and inward investment. All my experience in 15 years as a member of a local authority was that local authorities and the business community saw great advantages in that direct link.
  Large multinational companies in my own constituency agreed tremendously with what the local authorities were doing. They were very much involved in local authority matters, including the sponsorship of council activities. The sooner the link between business people and local authorities disappears, the worse it will be for democracy.
  876
  The business rate is no longer related to commercial activity or to a particular district. There may be a great steelworks or a massive factory in an area. It may provide employment, but it may also disturb the area. The fact that the business rate is now collected centrally in Cardiff or in London means not only that there is no link between business and the community, but that there is no link between commercial activity and the business rate.
  The business rate should relate to the ability of business people to pay it. There should be a system of rebates related to the profitability of businesses with an annual turnover below a specific level. We are firmly of the view—
  Mr. Simon Burns: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman speaking up for businesses. The Labour party speaking up for the interests of business is about as convincing as Herod being in charge of a nursery.
  Mr. Murphy: All I can do is describe my experience over many years, since local government organisation, of the relationship between my local authority, whether the county council or the district council, and the businesses in the area. I believe that the relationship has been healthy. That experience may not be repeated throughout the length and breadth of the country, but local government and local democracy are all about diversity. The great harm that has come from having a uniform business rate is that individual local authorities cannot determine their rate locally; they cannot set it, and they cannot collect it.
  I am not the only person who makes that point. Sir John Banham, for example, said recently that the present system
  "reflects neither the ability to pay nor the level and quality of the local services businesses receive."
  He has a role to play in local government reorganisation in the months ahead.
  Mr. Thomason: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was this Government who introduced a consultative procedure on local authority budgets with businesses, and that that procedure was opposed by many in the Labour party?
  Mr. Murphy: Opposition comes to different things in different ways. The Under-Secretary of State was a firm opponent of the poll tax when it was introduced in 1988. The Government saw the error of their ways and rightly appointed the hon. Gentleman to be a very good Minister. There are differences in view on all these matters across the country.
  As I said, it is healthy for a diversity of views to be held on these matters by local authorities in England and in Wales. That is what local accountability and local democracy are all about. Businesses play a vital role in our communities, and that is why we support the Bill.
  The Secretary of State for Wales acknowledges that belief, because he appoints many business people to quangos in the Principality. The White Paper on Welsh local government reform is the only indicator of how the Government intend to develop their ideas on the future shape of local government. They propose a system of unitary local authorities which will be responsible for raising their own revenue.
  When the Secretary of State for Wales reforms local government, he has a golden opportunity to set an example to the rest of the country, and to have another

  877
  look at the system of local government finance. I am not saying that the Government must change the council tax —they will not—but there are changes to be made. The simplification of the grant system would be something that hon. Members on both sides and members of local authorities throughout Britain would welcome.
  There is a case for the business rate to be examined, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said, and to be brought back into the local community. That opportunity should not be wasted. I urge the Secretary of State for Wales and the Government generally to rethink the whole question of local government finance when the reforms are introduced.
  We support the Bill, but we recognise that it is a short-term expedient. It does not answer all the problems that face the country and local government in terms of how to finance local government, and it does not explain what the relationship between businesses and local authorities should be. I hope that the Government will address those matters in the months ahead.
  5.29 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robin Squire): It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). As he said, we have followed each other for several years both in our previous role as Back Benchers and as "Box and Cox", or whatever the phrase is. It is nice to do so. He raised points to which I shall refer in my speech, as have other hon. Members.
  I shall start by reminding the House that the Bill will provide a further £350 million boost to businesses this year on top of the £1·25 billion package that was introduced last year. We calculate that it will ease rate bills for some 400,000 small business premises and 100,000 larger ones.
  As with the changes we made last year, local authorities will not suffer from the reduction in non-domestic rate income brought about by the Bill. The Government are committed to refunding the national pool to the extent of the estimated loss. We will also allow local authorities to net off their reasonable costs of re-billing from their national non-domestic rate payments.
  We will need a short period—about a month—after enactment to introduce regulations governing the adjustment of rate bills that have already been issued and to enable local authorities to recalculate their contributions to the non-domestic rating pool. We will bring the Act into force in parallel with those regulations. Once in force, the Act will have retrospective effect to 1 April and authorities will be required to give refunds to ratepayers who have overpaid instalments in the meantime.
  The debate was interesting, and I shall refer to some of the earlier speeches. The first Opposition speaker, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), highlighted some of the sad realities of the recent recession. There is no division between Conservative Members and Labour Members on that. The recession has had a terrible impact on a number of businesses and on many individuals.
  In the context of the Bill, let us not forget—as some of my hon. Friends rightly reminded the House—that before the uniform business rate, many businesses were being hammered year after year by Labour councils up and
  878
  down the country. The figures are clear. Between 1979–80 and 1989–90—the last year of the old system—locally set non-domestic poundages rose by 37·4 per cent. more than inflation on a compound basis nationally. Some of my hon. Friends who spoke today were councillors in opposition and saw that at first hand. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) immediately comes to mind.
  By replacing locally set non-domestic rate poundages with uniform national poundages which cannot increase faster than inflation and by pooling and redistributing the proceeds of the business rate on a per capita basis, it is no longer possible for authorities to increase expenditure, knowing that businesses will meet much of the extra cost.
  Mr. Dennis Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Squire: I shall willingly give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished this point. Although he has just come in, we would not like to disappoint him. If the uniform business rate had not been introduced, businesses would have paid £842 million more in 1992–93 and £797 million more in 1993–94.
  Mr. Turner: I shall simply make this point. It is the height of cheek and hypocrisy for Conservative Members and the Minister to blame Labour local authorities for increasing rates during the period to which he referred, when in fact it is a direct result of the Government's failure properly to fund local government. The Minister should tell us how much was lost to local government in rate support grant settlement over that period. Every year, your Government cut support for local government. When Labour and Conservative local authorities had to increase rates, it was a direct result of your Government's policy.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. It is the hon. Member's Government, not "your" Government or my Government.
  Mr. Turner: Indeed, I am referring to the Minister's Government. How can the Minister use such cheek to imply that it was Labour local authorities' fault that rates increased during the period he quoted, when he knows that it was a direct result of his Government's failure properly to fund local government?
  Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman was entertaining but not factually correct. I recommend that he go to the Library. He will find that the amount of support for local government during much of the period to which I referred increased rather than decreased. To help him a little more, I suggest that, if he looks under S for Sheffield, he will find a prime suspect in the area to which I was referring.
  Mr. Henderson: I refer the Minister to his figures about the savings to business as a result of the introduction of the business rate. Does he accept that those figures must be put in the context of a subsidy from central Government and taxpayers generally? During the debate on the Non-Domestic Rating Bill on 2 June 1992, the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities made it clear that the cost to the central Exchequer of protecting the business community from the introduction of the national business rate was £1,250 million, which is almost greater than the figure that the Under-Secretary of State claimed was saved by the business community. What has happened is that,

  879
  generally, the taxpayer has subsidised the business community. I do not necessarily disagree with that, but the figures must be put in that context.
  Mr. Squire: That is an interesting interpretation. I think other hon. Members will agree that there is a significant difference between the amount of Exchequer support which we are debating now, and which we debated on an almost identical Bill last year—the hon. Gentleman quoted the correct figure—and the tendency, until recently, for a number of local authorities to let rip as far as the private sector was concerned. That is the context in which I am speaking.
  Before I leave that aspect of the debate I shall refer to the democratic argument. I note that Labour Members want to revert to such a system and suggested that in some way it would bring greater accountability. Frankly, I do not accept that. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) has said that there is no such thing as a business vote—nor is there any intention of introducing one. In the absence of such a vote, the concept of accountability as I understand it would be sadly lacking if such a proposal were entertained.
  Mr. Murphy: It is important to understand the point that we made earlier about the gearing effect. Having taken control of the business rate away from local authorities, the amount of money that is left for local authorities to control is limited. That distorts the local government finance system.
  Mr. Squire: It is an arithmetical fact that there is a gearing effect in England, Wales and Scotland—I cannot deny that. That does not, in itself, deny the advantages which the concept of the uniform business rate has brought to businesses in general.
  I was referring to the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North. I welcome his welcome for the measure, which was echoed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. He rightly said that the measure would be welcomed by businesses across the country. He then tried to get me to estimate the national non-domestic rate for 1994–95. His tongue might have been slightly in his cheek at the time. He knows that it is unrealistic to estimate that rate at present. Obviously, we must continue to be guided by the state of the economy and the impact of residual increases on big and small businesses. The hon. Gentleman will know that, under legislation previously passed, the maximum will be limited to the inflation rate, rather than the impact of past revaluation.
  It is a little early to say what transitional arrangements may be needed to phase in the results of the 1995 revaluation. We have always said that we will examine the outcome of the revaluation before deciding whether transitional relief will be needed. By April 1995, many businesses will not have reached their full bills under the 1990 rating list, as the hon. Gentleman said. That is one factor that we will need to take into account, although many businesses may well find that their post-1995 bills are much reduced, reflecting relative changes in business rates between the valuations.
  I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on his specific point. If any business which faces an increase under the 1990 revaluation does not reach its full payment, any increases under the 1995 revaluation will be by comparison with the amount paid in 1994–95 rather than the amount that would have been paid if protection had not been available.
  880
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) referred to the fall in business rate revenue. The distributable amount of business rates has fallen since 1991–92. That is, indeed, partly the result of the recession, which has led to an increase in empty property relief. A second factor which is equally important is the effect of rating appeals. Increasing numbers of appeals are now being decided, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities said.
  Repayment of rates following appeals may relate to the whole period from 1 April 1990, but the entire cost falls in the year in which the repayment is made. Therefore, the yield of business rates is likely to rise again once the peak of appeals has passed. Any changes in business rate yield will, of course, be compensated for by revenue support grant pound for pound within the published plans for external finance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) spoke with all the experience of a former senior local authority councillor. I assure my hon. Friend that, notwithstanding his nervousness at the appearance of support from the Opposition Front Bench, he is right to support the Bill. He pointed out how much impact the measure would have and how welcome it would be to business ratepayers in general.
  My hon. Friend was the first hon. Member in the debate to highlight the failings of site value rating, which subsequently became almost a separate debate in itself. I wish to put on record just some of the reasons why site value rating would be a poor system and a poor substitute for the current system which is the subject of the Bill.
  Site value rating would be a tax on a small number of owners rather than on many occupiers. It would be a hidden tax on the latter through rents. We would need a register of beneficial owners. Site value rating would involve indentifying the development potential of each and every parcel of land. It would require detailed evidence of land sales and prices in each area. It would be unfair to owners if existing convenants and contractual arrangements meant that land could not realise its development potential.
  Perhaps as importantly, if site value rating was limited to where planning or zoning permission had been obtained, any competitor, other developer or business could apply for planning permission on someone else's site. The consequence could be to drive the business out. That seems a strange way to encourage business. I urge the Liberal party to rethink.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the Minister and his colleagues for paying so much attention to my party's policies. That is a new experience for me. I wish to pursue the Minister's last point because I know something about planning. Is he aware that it is now widely regarded as unacceptable for someone who has no interest in land to be in a position to make a planning application for it? If that is the Minister's main objection, as it seems to be, does he accept that there is in any case considerable anxiety about that feature of the planning system?
  Mr. Squire: I listed several reasons why site value rating was inadequate. On the hon. Gentleman's specific point, he will be aware that it is likely that more than one person will have an interest in any site, land or property. It could be a tenant, the landlord or a putative purchaser. A range of people could have an interest. The hon. Gentleman

  881
  described the existing law. I was simply interpreting his remarks. It was not clear whether in the event of a Liberal Democrat Government being elected—the House should not hold its breath—site value rating would be introduced.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Cornwall for welcoming the measure, in company with the other hon. Members who spoke. However, it was a bit rich, virtually in his first minute and the day after quarterly GDP figures were announced showing an increase for the first time in three years, for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that my hon. Friend the Minister had denied a recovery. It is simply untrue. My hon. Friend not only highlighted it, but put it in context, as a re-reading of Hansard will show.
  It is possible that the recovery is badly timed for the Liberal Democrats whether in the context of the county council elections or that of the Newbury by-election. However, the hon. Gentleman will understand if I say that the vast majority of people welcome the recovery notwithstanding any difficulties that it may give the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Gentleman said that it was interesting that, out of all the figures for Newbury, we mentioned the figures for only one month. But the figures have fallen for two months and Newbury's rate of unemployment at 7·1 per cent. is well below both the Great Britain and EC averages. I shall be delighted if the hon. Gentleman's speech is widely circulated in Newbury in the next two weeks. It will not add one vote to the Liberal Democrats' likely haul.
  Mr. Tyler: Of course we all welcome any reductions in unemployment, even if they are only in one or two months. I wish that we had a dramatic reduction in unemployment in my constituency, but sadly that is not the case. In my speech—I am sure that the Minister was paying careful attention—I compared the position of small businesses before the introduction of the uniform business rate in 1990 with now. That is why I picked 1990 and 1993. I made a comparison over a three-year period. I know that the Minister is an honourable, honest and fair-minded man. He will accept that over a three-year period there has been a substantial increase in business rates, whether one takes February, March or any other month.
  Mr. Squire: I am not sure whether I should continue with my modest, up-beat comments based on fact or look backwards to what has happened in the past three years. I judge that on balance most people prefer to look forward rather than back, so I shall keep going with my speech.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall made some comments about tourism. Seasonality of use is taken into account in rates assessments. If a holiday resort is open for only a limited period in the year, that will be reflected in rents and hence in rateable values. Any change in economic circumstances such as a shorter summer season is taken into account at revaluation. Any change made within the life of an existing list would cause a loss of revenue from rates which would have to be made up elsewhere in the tax system. That would be unfair.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall correctly pointed out that several local authorities under all forms of political control had been rather slow in applying section 49 and providing hardship relief. I underline from
  882
  the Dispatch Box that hardship relief is available where there is genuine hardship. I was not sure whether the hon. Gentleman suggested that because the take-up had been low, the Government should centralise hardship relief. I hope that he was not suggesting that. If he was, it runs counter to the actions of the Government in devolving decision making to local authorities. It also runs against what his party normally stands for.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way yet again. As he seems to be so interested in my speech, I hope that he will forgive me for interrupting. The point that I made was clear. If the Government were prepared, within the criteria, to fund hardship relief 100 per cent., clearly local authorities would feel a great deal less inhibited in providing the hardship relief which he and I agree should be available.
  Mr. Squire: The whole point of the system—I know that the hon. Gentleman knows this—is that it gives local authorities discretion to determine hardship. If we provided 100 per cent. support, we would do precisely what I thought that the hon. Gentleman would not support and take the decision into central Government. Hardship is better determined by a local authority. I join the hon. Gentleman in urging its wider use by local authorities.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Test and for Erewash made strong speeches, drawing on their experience of small business and local government. They correctly spelt out the gain that businesses will make under the measure.
  The hon. Member for Torfaen spoke, as I expected him to do, about the gearing effect and the relationship especially in Wales between central and local government support for local government expenditure. He will know that prior to setting the levels of total standard spending and aggregate external finance for 1993–94, the Secretary of State for Wales took account of the view expressed by Welsh local authority associations that the proportion of revenue raised locally in Wales should be increased. The lower level of increase in the additional aggregate external finance of 1·7 per cent., relevant to that of the total standard spending, means that Welsh local authorities are able, on average, to raise about 10 per cent. of their income from the council tax, which represents an increase of more than 1 per cent. on the figure for 1992–93.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised the spectre of further reform of local government finance. I beg the hon. Gentleman as a Minister and as an individual, although I am not allowed to hold a separate view, to ignore that siren call. The hon. Gentleman and I have sat on many Committees and we know perhaps better than other hon. Members just how difficult it is to reform that system. I believe that the system now in place for the collection of local business and personal taxation will last and will be welcomed by the overwhelming majority of people.
  The overall effect of the Bill is that no business will end up paying more rates in real terms this year than it did last. The Bill is important and worth while. It is well targeted on those businesses that have borne much of the brunt of the recession and I urge the House to support it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Non-Domestic Rating (No. 2) Bill [Money]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  5.51 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. John Redwood): I beg to move,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Non-Domestic Rating (No. 2) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable out of money so provided under any other Act.
  It gives me great pleasure to move the resolution so that the money is available to provide the relief that business is seeking—the relief that the House seems to favour.
  The Bill has two main financial consequences. The big one is the reduction in the amount of money to the rates pool, which the Bill will make good. The second is that there will be some additional expenditure to local authorities in implementing the Bill, and we are proposing to allow authorities to set that expenditure against the pool to adjust the rates bills. I hope that the House will welcome those two features, which are reflected in clauses 2 and 3.
  The cost of making good the shortfall for the pool in England is estimated to be £340 million in 1993–94 and £220 million in 1994–95. That is on top of the substantial relief that was made available last year as a result of a similar Bill to which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment has already referred. In Wales, which has separate pooling arrangements, the cost will be £9 million in 1993–94 and £5 million in 1994–95.
  The money issues were given prominence on Second Reading. It is interesting that the Liberal party in particular favours a different approach to the financing of local government—one which would be deeply damaging to many businesses. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) seemed to be particularly interested in Newbury and in Berkshire. He failed to tell the House, or the people of Newbury, however, about the impact of his proposals upon the butchers, the greengrocers and; the grocers of that town.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It would be disastrous.
  Mr. Redwood: Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. It would put such businesses under intense pressure. We are glad that Liberal policies are not threats but spectres, or their effects would be considerably more serious.
  We can always tell when there is a by-election, county council election or even a general election in the offing, because it is then, in spring time, that we begin to see the first "Focuses". They come out of the woodwork after a year of absence and a year of neglect and appear in Newbury or wherever else containing all sorts of claims about how the Liberals have done everything that has, in fact, been done by the Conservative party for the good of local people.
  The Liberals claim the credit, but they do not do the work, as is evident from the "Focus" publications. I am sure that another "Focus" will be issued to say that the Liberals were behind the money resolution, which is so instrumental in helping local business.
  Site value rating should be condemned by all men, and women of good will and by all sensible parties in the
  884
  House, because it would be extremely damaging. It is symptomatic of the Liberal party that it usually supports the Labour party in local government. Recently, I believe that the Liberals have encouraged the Labour party to withdraw candidates from the county elections in Berkshire. Obviously, they have struck some kind of deal.
  When we hear about Liberal party policies, they seem to be Labour policies in fiscal drag. They are dressed up in a new kind of style, with local income tax and site value rating on top of the other imposts that the Labour party would like to impose. As always, it is the Liberals who want other people's money. They may well vote for the money resolution today, but, secretly, they would like to impose far more taxes and to waste far more money.
  As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has already said, it is a curious paradox, some might say that it was a two-faced approach, that the Liberal party reveal. It claims that it wants much more devolution and local autonomy, but as soon as any measure offers such autonomy to Liberal councils, the Liberal party will not use its local discretion and gets its spokesman to come to the House to say that the Government must order councils to exercise such autonomy.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: The Minister's claims are erroneous, as is his interpretation of his colleague's remarks. The Under-Secretary said that parties of all colours in government in local councils throughout the country have used the hardship relief. In my speech on Second Reading, I was able to quote the impeccable record of Newbury district council and North Cornwall district council on their use of the hardship relief. The Under-Secretary was right to acknowledge that.
  Why is the Minister trying to stir things up? He said that election time was when "Focus" appeared, but that is not the case in my part of the country. It appears throughout the year. We always know when the Government are expecting a defeat at the hands of the electorate, however, because they attack us.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We are actually debating the money resolution.
  Mr. Redwood: I thought that a little circumlocution about the money might be appropriate at this stage. As I understand it, there is no great pressure on our parliamentary business, and I thought that it was important to elucidate these crucial—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair allows no circumlocution dependent on time. I am afraid that the Minister must stay in order regardless of the time factor.
  Mr. Redwood: I shall, of course, endeavour to do that —and with your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how can I fail?
  The money issues at stake are clear. The hon. Member for North Cornwall has said that more use should be made of hardship relief. He said that that should be incorporated in Government proposals in a Government mandate to local government. I am sure that he would like that proposal to be added to the money resolution, if that were possible.
  The answer to that request is that the powers are there, and councils can use them if they see fit. That is local judgment and local autonomy in action, and I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman wanted us to insist that that power be used. Now he is, as always,

  885
  backtracking on this very point. He now accepts that there is local discretion, and he is trying to claim that Liberal councils use it well.
  The money resolution is important for business and the continuing economic recovery. It is an important means of building on the improved figures and prospects that we have seen in recent weeks. It is important that the House now gives more stability to local authority taxation and expenditure measures. The resolution is part of that process, and it will mean that local government has the money for the job so that the burden on business is not unacceptably high. I have pleasure in commending the resolution to the House.
  5.58 pm
  Mr. Doug Henderson: We have witnessed a somewhat unorthodox approach to a money resolution. I did not intend to speak, but I feel bound to make some response to some of the Minister's remarks. I shall endeavour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to circumlocute; I am sure that, if I do, you will bring me back into line.
  A number of cuckoos have been flying around Westminster and Fleet street, and Wapping, I suppose, over the past two days, and it seems that one of them has got into the House. Claims are being made about the recovery from which the country is now beginning to benefit. The Opposition want to see the economy recovering, business pulling itself out of recession and output picking up. We want jobs to be created in our economy.
  The statistics announced by the Government yesterday —a 0·2 per cent. increase in output in the first quarter of
  886
  1993—have been mentioned. There has been a 0·2 per cent. increase in output in the first quarter of 1993, but does that constitute the beginning of a recovery? That is the question that businesses will be asking as they face business rates.
  It is interesting to note the way in which the Government claim that a 0·2 per cent. increase in output —if my arithmetic is correct, that means a 0·8 per cent. annual increase in output—constitutes a recovery in Britain. When Germany and France enjoyed increases in output of 1 per cent. and 1·5 per cent., the Government said that those statistics represented part of the world recession and constituted a recession in those countries. There seems to be some contradiction in the Government's position. I hope that the House will reflect on that when it considers the money resolution.
  The Opposition supported the Non-Domestic Rating (No. 2) Bill as a means of assisting the business community, and they also wish to extend their support to the money resolution. However, we wish that the Government—and, perhaps, the Liberal Members—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There is only one.
  Mr. Henderson: Yes, there seems to be only one Liberal Member. I wish that they would stick to the business before us, not squabble over one election that will take place on 6 May. The country and the business community will look to the state of the country on 6 May, and the verdict delivered in the other county council elections may be different from that given in one specific part of the country.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Non-Domestic Rating (No. 2) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable out of money so provided under any other Act.

Disability (Grants) Bill
Not amended (in Standing Committee), considered.
[MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair.]

Disability (Grants) Bill
  Clause 1

    GRANTS TO CERTAIN ORGANISATIONS CONCERNED WITH DISABLED PERSONS
    6.2 pm
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, leave out line 13 and insert 'to enable payments to be made to or for the benefit of people with disabilities for the purpose of promoting their independence and freedom of choice.'.
    In Committee, we were disappointed that we were not successful in amending the Bill despite the debate that we had on Second Reading and the obvious shared concerns expressed in Committee. When it came to the crucial act of voting, the Government were not flexible. On a Bill that covers many aspects on caring for the severely disabled, we hoped for some compromise and flexibility from the Government.
    The key words in the amendment are
    "independence and freedom of choice".
    I note that the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People agrees with me. In the foreword of the Greenwich personal evaluation scheme, which was published recently, he said:
    "This report on Personal Assistance schemes shows that as well as being cost-effective, some schemes offer disabled people a greater degree of independence."
    The Minister will know that the amendment is designed to reintroduce into the debate the important change in the way in which disabled people view the sort of help and support that they need and receive, and the way in which they receive it. That merely scratches at the surface of a fundamental change that has taken place in the sphere of disability in recent years. The debate is continuing, not only in the form of the Bill that we are discussing, but in another place, where a different Bill was recently debated which was designed to address the same subject: how people receive the help necessary for them to continue to live lives that are full and give them the opportunity to use all their potential.
    I do not wish to speak merely as the shadow Minister and say what I believe to be the main concerns of disabled people and those who support them. I prefer to act as a mouthpiece and tell the House the comments that have been made in favour of direct payments by the people affected by them. They have expressed their views far more eloquently than I could hope to do.
    Two disabled people were quoted in Anne Kesselbaum's report, "Cash for Care". They said:
    "It makes us feel in control of our lives; gives us back the feeling of being people and not a pathetic handicapped family …
    If you have a carer you feel safe with, you know your quality of life is better. It opens things up. Your personality changes, you laugh."
    Some of those comments go to the heart of the subject.
    Jane Campbell, a disabled person, said in conversation with Lord McColl:
    "Employing your own personal care assistants places negotiations on a very different plane. You are not asking for favours or desperately attempting to change the (statutory)
    888
    home carers rota so as to enjoy another hour at that party. Instead, you are setting your schedule for the day, which you know will be adhered to by your employee, with whom you have agreed a one to one contract of employment.
    Whereas my traditional form of help gave me no privacy, and was often loaded with what people thought 'best for me', I now decide my own priorities, and I feel I have an equal say in how my home and my family life is run."
    Those are moving words from disabled people who want the sort of care on which the amendment focuses. She concludes:
    "This is, I believe, fundamental to one's dignity and sense of belonging and contributing."
    A young lady, Maria, was interviewed by Jenny Morris for the Rowntree trust's report, "Community Care or Independent Living", and said:
    "It means I can get up in the morning when I want to, go to bed in the evening when I want to, and lead the kind of life that I want to."
    That is a true testimony of the power given to the disabled when they can receive money from the independent living fund. I should be out of order if I strayed too far, but that example shows the amount of power that is handed to disabled people when a local authority social services department can provide cash for disabled people to allow to make their own decisions and to draw up contracts of employment to meet their needs. In the same interview, Vicky, a disabled person, said:
    "Independent living means that I employ people, and basically that they are here to do the physical things that I can't do, which allows me to have the lifestyle that I choose."
    The important common factor running through all the quotations is that, given the money to employ their own care assistants, people with disabilities enter into a one-to-one, employer-employee relationship with their helper. They can specify exactly the sort of care that they want, and in what form they want it. They can specify the exact hours when they want that help. Last, but certainly not least, they can ensure that the person helping them, who spends much time in their house—and sometimes lives in it—and helps them to perform intimate functions, is someone with whom they feel happy and comfortable. Surely that is something that every hon. Member should want for the severely disabled people of our country.
    I do not wish to delay this stage of the Bill. I give a final quotation which illustrates the sort of horror story that can occur when a disabled person does not have full control over the care contract and those who fulfil it:
    "The home help came to me one day when my bed was wet and I asked her to change the sheets. She refused. She said, 'Today is not the day we change the bedlinen.' I asked if she expected me to go to sleep in a wet bed. She said, 'Well, I'm not changing it.'"
    Clearly, that is untypical. We appreciate that the vast majority of local authority carers are genuinely caring and compassionate people. I simply point out what can happen. When it happens, the disabled have fewer powers to seek redress and prevent the atrocity recurring than if they employ their own helpers.
    In a recent Friday debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) introduced a Bill that would have established a commission for disabled people to have their grievances inquired into and righted. That measure was voted down at the behest of the Government, so the disabled do not even have that avenue to pursue. When such a ghastly experience occurs and a disabled person is unable to have carried out by her carer the sort of basic task that I have

    889
    described, it is regarded by many of us as a minor atrocity, because it combines physical discomfort with personal humiliation to a quite intolerable degree.
    In his Second Reading speech, the Minister referred to local authorities being in the driving seat. As the Bill proceeded through its brief Committee stage—we did not prolong the proceedings; it went through in two very civilised sessions—we got the impression that the Minister made a slip of the tongue or, if that was not the case, that he regretted what he said when he referred to the need for local authorities to be in the driving seat.
    The thrust of our argument in Committee—unfortunately, we were not successful in getting it accepted—was that disabled people should be in the driving seat. The experiment conducted by the independent living fund showed that empowering people to make their own arrangements costs dramatically less than providing the service direct. In other words, when people can choose and draw up their own contracts with the people of their choice, the Exchequer can make a saving of between 20 and 50 per cent. of the cost. People make more sensible decisions than bureaucracy makes for them.
    The Minister has seen the evidence. He saw much of it in the debate on cash payments in another place. Apart from the case made by the Minister in that debate, the view was unanimous, on the evidence before the other place, that cash payments are effective, are empowering and save money.
    The argument adduced throughout our debates leads us to believe that, secretly, the Minister is on our side. Indeed, it is rumoured that some of his colleagues are on his side. Clearly, if they were not whipped, many Conservative Members would be with us—I have particularly in mind the all-party amendment that was voted down by the Government majority in Committee.
    We are willing to believe that, but for some evil power lurking in the Treasury, many Ministers and Conservative Members would be with us. I give the Minister the benefit of the doubt on that issue. But if that is not the case, we deserve a thorough explanation today. If I am right, and it is the fault of the Treasury, we are left to wonder what sort of people are making decisions in the Treasury under Conservative rule. What kind of Treasury official or Minister would consider the research and the figures and say, "This is not permissible because it would save money"? Let us be clear: as I have explained, it would save money.
    6.15 pm
    I am talking of an innovation that is tried and tested. The independent living fund tried it for five years, and local authorities have tried it to good effect. Suddenly the Government realised that some local authorities were giving direct cash payments, and said that that was outside the letter of the law. What sort of Treasury official, in this day and age, could look at the facts, which clearly show a saving to the Government of 20 to 50 per cent., and still refuse to make a change in the law that would bring about such a saving?
    Are we not, in the closing years of this century, enlightened enough to ask who the people are who are making such decisions behind the closed doors of the Treasury? Why are they allowed to be in the driving seat? This is not a question of local authorities or disabled
    890
    people being in the driving seat. Treasury mandarins are in control. That is why we believe that they are the evil influence. They are stopping the acceptance of consensus for an obvious sensible way forward.
    The amendment would give the Government at this late stage a chance to make a change. We hope that they will respond in a positive manner.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: I apologise for arriving late for the debate, which started earlier than I had expected. Even so, I hope that I may crave the indulgence of hon. Members and make a contribution because it is an extremely important subject and I hope that, as a result of the consensus that undoubtedly exists across the Floor of the House, the Government will find it possible to concede the case for direct payments, and will respond positively.
    The case for the amendment is well rehearsed and familiar. The arguments for it are so solid and the case against it so insubstantial that it seems strange that it remains necessary to debate it, but we must do so. The moral case is too important to neglect and the case in terms of practical efficiency and good value for money alone should be recognised and accepted by the Government.
    The moral case should be restated, being the most important part of the argument. The principle at stake is the dignity of the individual. The argument essentially is that direct payments by local authorities to severely disabled people would enable them to enjoy as much as possible of the autonomy that able-bodied people assume as a right for themselves. The point was eloquently expressed by Lord McColl, Baroness O'Cathain, Lady Darcy de Knayth, Lady Masham and others in the debate last week in the other place on the Disabled Persons (Services) (No. 2) Bill:
    The issue for us is whether we are to empower those of our fellow men and women who happen to suffer from severe physical disability to live as independently as they may and on terms as equal as possible with everyone else. What do we mean by policies of care? Is care merely to be an expression of an authoritarian and patronising attitude that says, "We who are in charge will take care of your problem. Indeed, we will take care of the problem that you are"? Or is care to be a manifestation of compassion, of a fellow feeling that impels us to act imaginatively to help someone who faces exceptional difficulties to meet his or her needs?
    To give the simplest instance, are we to enable a physically disabled person to make his own decision about when he gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night? Or are we to decide that for him? Or for her? In an impressive and moving account of the transformation rendered to her life as a result of direct payments, Jane Campbell recently wrote:
    "Almost overnight I gained full control over my physical and to some extent mental being. Can you imagine that until the age of 29 everything I wanted to do from getting out of bed to attending an important meeting had to be negotiated? … Employing your own personal care assistants places negotiation on a different plane. You are not asking for favours or desperately attempting to change the (statutory) home carers rota. … Whereas my traditional form of help gave me no privacy and was often loaded with what people thought was 'best for me', I now decide my routines and I feel I have an equal say in how my home and my family life is run. This is, I believe, fundamental to one's dignity".
    Ann Kestenbaum, in the case studies that she describes in "Cash for Care", quotes Mr. M's wife, aged 48, suffering

    891
    from rheumatoid arthritis, heart condition and leg fractures as saying that having control of their own resources
    "makes us feel in control of our lives. Gives us back the feeling of being people and not a pathetic handicapped family."
    Ms K, who suffers from a spinal injury, says:
    "Having the cash to pay for the things you need means you have standing."
    Jenny Morris in "Community Care or Independent Living?" quotes Jack as saying:
    "I am a husband, a father and a breadwinner. And 10 years ago I was in an institution where I could not even decide when I would go to the toilet.… You know you can't really understand it if you haven't done it.… Your whole life changes."
    Jane Campbell endorses Jack's point impressively. She says:
    "Contributing, of course, is the biggest gift that direct payments has awarded me.… I have been able to take up a demanding full-time job that is equal to my skills."
    She works as a training director and she chairs the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People.
    The moral, practical and financial arguments all reinforce each other. Jack and Jane contribute their skills to the betterment of society. They pay taxes. Jane attests that less stress as a result of less dependence on others and more control over her own body has had beneficial effects on her health.
    Lord McColl, whose view on the point must carry particular weight, observed in last week's debate:
    "a high morale directly enhances the body's defences against illnesses of all kinds. As a result, people have fewer illnesses and thereby save the National Health Service money."
    The arguments in favour of independent living are familiar to the Government. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People inaugurated the independent living fund, something of which he is proud, and justly so.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health, Baroness Cumberlege, replying to the debate in the other place last week was emphatic when she said:
    "We fully support the aim of enabling disabled people to live independently and to exercise choice. We wish to give local authorities freedom and flexibility to meet those choices in innovative ways and to see disabled people placed at the centre of decision making."
    That statement is consistent with numerous other ministerial utterances and, I believe, truly reflects the spirit in which Ministers have sought to establish care in the community. What, therefore, is puzzling and deeply unsatisfactory is that Ministers, who express enthusiasm for independent living and scepticism about bureaucratic procedures and solutions, continue to refuse to allow local authority social services departments to make direct cash payments to severely disabled people.
    I shall examine the objections that Ministers have put forward to direct payments by local authorities. The speech by the Under-Secretary of State in another place last Wednesday was the fullest and latest rehearsal of those objections.
    The Minister made the point that social services departments and the social security system have different roles. She said:
    "Social services departments arrange exactly that—services. The Benefits Agency provides cash benefits. It is the business of the social security system to provide cash to support individuals in need. It is not the business of local authorities."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 April 1993; Vol. 544, c. 1663–64.]
    892
    That seems to me a descriptive observation rather than an argument against change. Moreover, it is not entirely accurate as a description of the status quo. Local authorities make cash payments in certain instances and they do so under recent legislation—the Children Act 1989. Local authorities make payments to children leaving care. They make cash payments to foster parents. They also make cash payments to voluntary organisations. So, the Government cannot pray in aid as a principle of administration that local authorities should not make cash payments.
    The Government have themselves legislated to enable local authorities to make payments to children and to able-bodied adults. I cannot imagine under what principle of administration disabled people alone should be excluded from receiving cash payments from local authorities.
    In any case, even if the Minister's descriptive statement is broadly valid, that is not an argument for persisting slavishly with a fixed conception of the respective roles of different public service organisations. The Under-Secretary of State talked of the Government's fear of "imbalance", as if the existing bureaucratic structure were a thing of such beauty that its preservation had to be the paramount consideration, more important than finding better ways to help disabled people. Doubtless there were powerful reasons for that broad division of labour in the past, but society and its needs and our conception of how to meet them have moved on.
    Throughout the 1980s my right hon. Friends have encouraged us to think of Government as enabler rather than provider and have encouraged those in the public service to think in terms of outputs and value for money rather than inputs.
    Only yesterday, in an article in The Times, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster inveighed against the bureaucratic top-down model of governmental provision. He condemned the inadequacy of
    "rule-bound, hierarchical, uncompetitive old style service providers".
    He went on:
    "Any organisation that governs its employees by detailed rule books in the end will promote only the best operator of rules, not the innovator or the creator. Any organisation that believes it is accountable only upwards, to those who set the rules, will treat its citizen customers as troublemakers".
    My right hon. Friend is right. For corroborative evidence, he need only read "Squaring the Circle", a study of needs assessment by Kathryn Ellis of the university of Birmingham for the Rowntree Foundation. She demonstrates the procrustean approach of social services staff, fitting clients into rigid categories of need, defined by pre-existing bureaucratic structures and assessment categories. Disabled clients who did not fit in and who expressed views of their own were dismissed as "demanding", "fussy", and "manipulative".
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster went on to emphasise the need to delegate financial responsibility down and measure outcomes.
    In The Times today, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is reported as saying of the Government's review of the welfare state:
    "We will consider all options … which will have the purpose of meeting our objectives, one of which is to focus benefits increasingly on those in need … we want to ensure people have greater control of their own resources".

    893
    So Cabinet Ministers are actively repudiating the status quo which the Under-Secretary of State was briefed to pray in aid last week.
    The Under-Secretary of State went on to say that local authorities are providers, enablers and facilitators of care services. That is right and as it should be. But if local authorities are to be enablers and facilitators, the Under-Secretary of State undermined her own argument against them making direct payments to clients because enabling and facilitating is exactly what that process involves.
    As the House knows, the Association of Directors of Social Services is unanimous in its support for direct payments by its departments. It passed a formal resolution to that effect last autumn. It is keen to move with the times.
    I spoke yesterday to Mr. David Mason, director of social services for Warwickshire county council, who confirmed his urgent hope that the Government will change their mind on this subject. As he said to me,
    "choice and empowerment come through purchasing power".
    The Under-Secretary of State raised, however, another objection, which the Government have advanced repeatedly. She said that it would be difficult for local authorities to define eligibility for direct payments. I find that a singularly unpersuasive argument in the context of the Government's policy of care in the community. The essence and great virtue of the policy is that local authority social services departments are to lead in assessing the needs of individual clients. Their daily duty and activity, enjoined on them by the Government, will be to assess need and, therefore, eligibility for help of one kind or another.
    But the Government have another argument to show that it could not be done. The Minister said that it would be difficult for local authorities to manage a genera', system of cash payments. That is an Aunt Sally. We are not talking about a general system. We are talking about a strictly finite and relatively small number of cases. In "Cause for Concern", published in March, Pauline Thompson provides the number of clients of the previous independent living fund authority by authority.
    The largest number was in Birmingham, where there are 424; in my county of Warwickshire, there are 79; the smallest number was in Barking and Dagenham, where there are nine. Nor need the Treasury fear any opening of the floodgates. Mercifully, there are not large numbers of severely disabled people in this country and, of them, only a limited proportion want to handle their own budgets and employ their own assistants. When Kingston-upon-Thames social services department made inquiries as to how many severely disabled people might wish to take advantage of such an option, 12 said that they would.
    6.30 pm
    The Treasury continues all the same to fear that costs would run out of control. Last week the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said the local authorities would find it difficult to carry out the necessary monitoring to keep control over public funds. Again, that is an odd assertion. It would be easier for local authorities to monitor and control individual budgets assigned to clients than it is for them to keep control over the costs of their own in-house services. There is no problem whatsoever in requiring clients to keep funds provided by social services
    894
    departments and the ILF in a separate bank account and to be provided with regular statements, receipts and timesheets.
    If the Treasury did not spend its time inventing imaginary difficulties, it would see that direct payments enable a given level of care to be achieved at less cost than the cost of publicly provided services. Evidence for that has been impressively marshalled by Jenny Morris, Ann Kestenbaum and Victoria Phillips. I shall not elaborate that part of the argument except to make the obvious point that there is far greater flexibility in pay rates and job descriptions for people employed directly by clients than there is for local authority employees.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, in his foreword to the "Evaluation of Personal Assistant Schemes" in Greenwich by Mike Oliver and Gerry Zarb, endorsed their cost-effectiveness. That report suggests that, for its £5 million-plus home help budget, Greenwich council could have purchased 665,912 hours of work; for the same amount the personal assistant scheme could have brought 1,450,569 hours. Similarly, the personal assistant scheme could have bought twice the number of care attendant hours.
    Under the scheme that the Government are now introducing, there will be an incentive for councils to inflate their costs, to bring the cost of care packages above the £200 threshold for a contribution from the ILF 1993 fund.
    In the debate in another place, the Minister also raised as an objection to direct payments that they would be at odds with the idea of a flexible response to individual circumstances and that somehow they would entail the creation of a separate social security system within social services with its accompanying rigidity. That would seem to be a through-the-looking-glass argument. A wealth of evidence demonstrates that cash payments which enable clients to manage their own arrangements for assistance provide enhanced flexibility. It is one of the strongest arguments in favour of direct payments.
    Ann Kenstenbaum writes:
    "Some of these arrangements are very flexible. Although the ILF award is assessed on the basis of regular hours of need, clients very often see their care needs in much less rigid terms. This is certainly true where care is essentially respite, allowing a family carer to have a break and get out of the house. It is also the case where a client's state of health and therefore care needs vary from one week to the next, or where a client leads a relatively active life engaging in different activities for which different hours of help are needed."
    She goes on to describe the problems of rigidity in the provision of services by social services departments.
    Mrs. B, with rheumatoid arthritis, is quoted as saying:
    "Home helps are bound by too many rules.… You couldn't expect a home help to be so flexible because of the other people they have to see."
    Mrs. J says:
    "As a home help, she had to refuse to clean windows. Now (employed privately) if she is asked to do something, she just does it."
    Miss C sums up the problem of rigid practices among local authority employees:
    "They canna do this, canna do that".
    Those complaints take us into the arguments against yet another objection by the Government. The Under-Secretary of State said that cash payments by the social services department would be unnecessary because the new

    895
    scheme ensures that in future the two parts of the package, cash from the ILF and services from the local authority, will be brought together
    "so that the client receives a coherent package of care agreed jointly by the disabled person, the local authority and the new fund."
    But this could have been designed as a model of cumbersome, time-consuming and expensive bureaucracy. I do not believe that care packages can be most cost-effectively designed if they are made up of £200 of services and extra cash put in from the ILF.
    The Minister went on to emphasise that she would expect the disabled person to have
    "as great a say as possible as to who is to be employed to provide the care."
    She added:
    "There is no reason why a care assistant should riot be personally chosen by the disabled person."
    I find it hard to credit that disabled clients will actually decide who is to be employed by local authorities. But if they are to have a say, why not go the whole way to autonomy? Would it not be less costly, administratively simpler and morally better for disabled people to employ their assistants?
    The argument to which the Minister appeared to attach the greatest weight was that, while
    "in individual cases disabled people may be able to use money more effectively than certain authorities"—
    a grudging but useful acknowledgement—there is a risk that they will
    "adversely affect authorities' ability to match their resources to all local needs, not just those of people receiving direct payments."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 April 1993; Vol. 544, c. 1664–65.]
    That would be a powerful argument if it were true, but the Association of Directors of Social Services does not believe it to be valid. The truth is that many social services departments will find it extremely difficult to play their part in providing services to severely disabled people. To do so requires specialist resources and expertise.
    One of the most important and worrying findings in Pauline Thompson's recent survey is that only a minority of severely disabled people receive services from their local authority. The case for allowing severely disabled people who wish to do so to design and manage their own care arrangements becomes all the more powerful. To the extent that social services departments do not have to commit staff and time to detailed organisation of care for people with complex needs, so they will be able to address themselves more fully to the huge range of their other responsibilities.
    The Minister's one other argument was that it would not be right to expand authorities' "already very full agendas" by asking them to take on responsibility for cash payments. Would that the Government had always been so concerned not to impose on local authorities. But they need not be fearful of doing so in this instance. They would be easing the enormous burden that they have laid on local authorities with care in the community.
    I apologise for having dealt with these arguments somewhat laboriously. But it is an important issue, and they are the arguments that the Government have so far invited us to accept. I cannot accept them, because they disintegrate as one looks at them. I do not think that the Ministers who have advanced them believe in them either. Lady Cumberlege said that she was sad to have to reject the case made by every speaker in last week's debate. She
    896
    asked their Lordships not to shoot the messenger. I certainly have not meant to do that; she is held in warm personal regard.
    However, it is our duty to debate the policy. If parliamentary debate is to count for anything, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will heed the arguments that have been put forward from all parties and in both Houses. Early-day motion 1673 on independent living has been signed by 146 hon. Members of all parties. I hope that Ministers will respond positively to those arguments and views now because it is an urgent issue. My hon. Friend the Minister the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), has said that the Government's position is not irreversible. Care in the community and the new independent living fund must be established on a sensible basis. We cannot continue to defer to the obstinate obscurantism of a departmental tradition which dates from 1948.
    Ms Liz Lynne: I shall not detain the House for long, as the arguments have been well rehearsed by hon. Members on all sides of the House.
    Direct payments to people with disabilities will help them to lead individual lives in the same way as everybody else. We all know that, and I believe the Minister is well aware of it. I hope that the Government will change their mind about the amendment, as it will empower people with disabilities and help them to feel as if we treat them as normal human beings, because that is what they are. If we do not allow them to manage their own lives, we are saying that they do not have the same rights as us.
    One of the arguments was that it is not cost-effective, but it is very cost-effective. If people with disabilities do not stay in their own homes and cannot manage their own budgets, they will probably have to go into residential accommodation and that will cost a great deal more. I hope that the Government take that on board. If disabled people do not go into residential accommodation, yet again the carers will have to cope. The carers, who carry the burden all the time, will have to meet those needs. Under new community care legislation, much respite care will be cut because of insufficient Government funding. I urge the Government to change their mind.
    I do not accept that there would be a lack of accountability. It will be far easier for an individual to liaise with his or her local authority than for the local authority to liaise with the provider of services. The individual can be in constant contact with the social services department as to his or her needs and the services that it is buying in. That argument also goes by the board.
    Only a small number of people are involved, and for the Government to deny them a proper standard of living is extremely heartless. Cash payments are already made under the Children Act 1989, so a precedent has been set. I hope that the Minister will tell the Treasury that costs will not run out of control. There are too few people involved for that to happen. Disabled people should be able to enjoy their dignity and to manage their own lives. That is why I put my name to the amendment.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: There is unanimity on this issue on all parts of the House, and I will emphasise some of the points made with great force by other hon. Members in the belief that, as we say in Wales, "Dgtal donc a dgrr y garreg"—constant knocking breaks the stone. The stone that we have to crack is a strange and uncharacteristic stubbornness among Ministers.

    897
    Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State the power to make grants to the funds
    "for such purposes as the Secretary of State may determine."
    The amendment would define those purposes as
    "promoting … independence and freedom of choice"
    among the disabled. I am sure that we will share that aspiration.
    The importance of the disabled receiving cash payments wherever possible is that they can make their own decisions—something very much with the grain of Government thinking on so many other issues—as to how the money should be spent and the services needed can best be provided.
    The old ILF made payments direct to the person concerned, and that was a successful arrangement. The extension fund will continue to make such payments to those already receiving them, and the 1993 fund will make payments to the disabled and to third parties—and is likely to do so in most cases. The reason is that part of the money required will be provided by local authorities, which cannot make cash payments to the disabled but only provide services.
    The 1993 fund trustees will probably feel that it makes more sense to deliver the full package in kind rather than part of it being paid in cash and the rest in kind. The solution is to give local authorities the power to make cash payments, as they can in Scotland. Ministers virtually conceded that that will have to be done sooner or later but, for reasons that perplex us, they have refused to do it now.
    On Second Reading, the Minister of State said:
    "Whatever may happen in the future, at a time when local authorities are taking on so many extra responsibilities in relation to community care, it is surely a mistake to add to those responsibilities a duty to manage cash."—[Official Report, 15 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 42.]
    However, local authorities will have to "manage cash", whether they are making payments to their own employees, other organisations, or the disabled themselves. Making it possible for local authorities to pay money to the disabled where they think that is right will not add to their burdens. On the contrary, it will make their task easier if some people can organise their own services rather than rely on their local authority to do that for them.
    In Committee, the Minister was even more forthcoming:
    "No one who has stayed in close touch with the work of the independent living fund can be unaware of the importance of cash, as opposed to services, to empower disabled people to have control over their lives … current legislation does not enable local authorities to dispense cash ….I suspect that that argument will be pursued with vigour by my hon. Friends, as well as by Opposition Members, who hold strong views on the matter, which will not go away. I recognise that the provision of cash maximises the freedom, the choice and the empowerment of disabled people. Current legislation does not provide for that and the Bill does not deal with it. However, I have noted carefully the hon. Gentleman's remarks."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A. 25 March 1993; c. 52.]
    The Bill cannot deal with that point because of the narrow drafting of its long title—hence the amendment's indirect wording. However, there is nothing to prevent the Minister from giving an undertaking tonight that that point will be dealt with by suitable legislation at the earliest opportunity. We are only asking the Minister to confront the logic of his own persuasive arguments.
    6.45 pm
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I recognise the importance of debating this subject, which is in many ways central to community care. However, a number of problems confront me in respect of particular amendments. As the House will be aware, we are four weeks into the new care in the community arrangements. It would be unrealistic for the House to expect me to accept this evening amendments introduced at such an early point in those new arrangements.
    Nevertheless, I acknowledge the debate's importance and the powerful speeches made by hon. Members on both sides of the House in support of the narrower point—although I understand why the amendment was drafted in the way that it was—of whether cash alone, a mixture of cash and services, or just services should be the response to meeting the needs of disabled people.
    If I were tempted to accept the amendment and it were passed, that would involve changes to the activities of the trustees, who have all been appointed, and would involve the Charity Commissioners. That would not be an overriding consideration, but it would present problems, given that the trustees have held their first meeting and are deciding the way ahead. For those narrow reasons—I will come to the broader issues—it would be inappropriate to accept the amendment.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's point about the practical difficulties of altering the terms of the trust just after it has been established—clearly the new trustees and their staff want to get on with the job on the terms already defined. However, is not the important issue of parliamentary accountability in question, in establishing the rules of the fund by way of a trust deed? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that there should be accountability to Parliament for publicly provided funds and that there should be scope from time to time to change the trustees' terms of reference?
    Mr. Scott: There may be occasions during the life of the fund when, if there were strong and overwhelming feelings in the House, it would be necessary to alter the terms on which trustees settle matters. But it would be somewhat premature and untidy if, four weeks into the new arrrangements, we were to be persuaded to go down that route. Incidentally, I am not saying that I necessarily believe that the arguments being advanced at the moment will in due course be necessary, but at least for the time being I can rest on the fact that the timing would be singularly inappropriate at the moment.
    The main debate that we have had today, however, is on the question of cash. Illumination has been provided by the debate in another place and by debates in Committee and the debate this evening has brought home how cash delivered by the predecessor independent living fund empowered people to make choices about the care with which they were provided. I, too, have read the reports and views of Ann Kestenbaum, Pauline Thompson and others. Nobody can read them without being impressed by the power of their arguments. They are extremely moving as well as persuasive. But I hope that the House will be prepared to accept that, persuasive and moving though the arguments may be, we are at present in a new situation. with care in the community operating in its infancy.

    899
    The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and other hon. Members have made the point that, all too often in the past, the provision of care services by local authorities has tended to be inflexible. Sometimes, as in the example quoted by the hon. Member, it has even been uncaring and unresponsive to the varying needs of disabled people. I accept that such cases are in the minority and that many social service workers and carers employed by local authorities are immensely committed to their task and carry out their duties carefully and with flexibility.
    Overall, however, I believe that the attitudes of local authorities have been changing and will continue to move away from what one might call the rather authoritarian attitude that has characterised some provision in the past, with local authorities deciding the disabled persons' needs and how they will be met. That is not a total caricature of the attitude of some local authorities to the provision of care, whether it be because of budgetary constraints or because of attitudes among some professionals, who believe that they can say what is best for those in their care.
    We must recognise that, under the new community care arrangements, local authorities will increasingly become enablers rather than providers in the care business. They will be looking to organisations, private organisations, perhaps specially set up to provide care, perhaps voluntary organisations that can move into the business of providing care. We already know of some national organisations that are establishing schemes for looking after the group of disabled people in their particular remit; in some ways that could be a better path than local authorities seeking to provide all the services themselves. Local authorities becoming facilitators rather than providers will therefore be a very important part of this new approach. The fact that they must spend some 85 per cent. of the ring-fenced money in the non-public sector will be an important encouragement to move in that direction.
    As we discuss this matter today we share a common aim: that the people who need help and caring services receive them. I do not apologise for repeating what I have said before: my colleagues in the Department of Health and I, as Minister for Disabled People, are anxious to see that package of services are arrived at after proper consultation with the recipient of the care packages and that local authorities will assess the needs through their own social workers and will then explain to the disabled person what they feel able to provide, but ask for his views and offer to make such changes as they feel they can.
    Above that package of care, if the needs are in excess of the benchmark, the independent living fund, the 1993 fund, will be able to come in and provide the necessary extra cash. That will introduce the element of flexibility which has been so important.
    The cash argument is unlikely to disappear simply because I am unable to accept these arguments. I am trying to deal with the matter on its merits at the moment. I believe that we should give the new arrangements a fair and clear run-in. But nobody who has been involved in the workings of the independent living fund over the whole of its life could fail to understand the importance of cash in the lives of many disabled people. It is important that instead of the fund coming entirely to an end when community care was introduced a month ago, we were able to have both the extension fund and the 1993 fund, in order to preserve this concept.
    The Government will certainly monitor the impact of the new arrangements. Bearing in mind the strength of the
    900
    views expressed across the House this evening, I have a feeling that I will be constantly reminded of the arguments that have been put forward and that the Government will have to reconsider this from time to time to see whether the new arrangements are bearing up or what changes may be necessary.
    I thank all those who have contributed to the debate this evening. I end by reminding the House that although some examples have been put forward of local authorities being able to make cash payments, in general—Scotland is an exception—it is illegal for local authorities to make regular cash payments to individuals. They can make one-off payments in certain circumstances, but the concept of regular cash payments inherent in the arguments put forward this evening is at present generally illegal. If local authorities can devise schemes that are lawful, I will certainly not oppose their working with disabled people to work out innovative ways of giving disabled people more control over their care packages.
    I have tried to respond to the debate, but, because I am unable to accept the amendments or the idea of introducing changes so early in the life of the community care arrangements, I must ask the House to reject the amendments. I hope that I do so with some tone of sympathy in my voice and some understanding of the arguments that have been put forward.
    Mr. Sheerman: We are disappointed that the Minister has been unable to accept the amendments. Sometimes one listens to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman and one tries to decode them as he is speaking. I feel that what he has said this evening needs some decoding. There is a sense in which he seems to be saying to the House, in a very quiet voice buried somewhere in the speech, that he is convinced of what the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) said in a very good speech and that he accepts that the moral case, as debated here and in Committee, has been made for accepting the principle embodied in the amendment. So I am encouraged by that voice in the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
    However, we are not very impressed by some of the reasons for failing to act now. I am tempted to quote the immortal bard and say, "It's not our fault, guy," when the Minister points out that we are a month into community care and it is all too late. He could have prepared for this a year ago. He knew that the independent living fund was coming to the end of its five years and he had plenty of time to prepare. He has had a year since the general election. So he has no excuse not to have all this up and running, thought through and implemented a long time before now. He says that it is all very difficult because we are a month into community care and all the problems there.
    There is an argument to be made—I will not elaborate too much, because we will come back to it on Third Reading—that the independent living fund was seen pragmatically as a great success, a great empowerer of disabled people. The independent living fund ran with great success for five years and the principles embodied in it could have been part of the doctrine that has now been introduced.
    Another point about planning is that the Government —knowing that the independent living fund was coming to the end of its five-year life and that the community care package was coming in at the same time—could have extended the independent living fund for a short time until the community care package had bedded down. That is an

    901
    argument that we have heard time and again from professionals—allow community care to bed for a period and access the match or mismatch between that and the independent living fund. I know that the Minister has heard that argument many times from many quarters.
    The minister said that his imagination had been illuminated by the debate, but he has given a catalogue of reasons for not being able to implement any of the suggestions at the present time.
    7 p.m
    My final point concerns the changed nature of local authorities. It is interesting that a Minister in the present Government should acknowledge that local authorities actually can and do do a good job. The Labour party has been saying that for 14 years, long and hard. Local authorities believe that cash payment is the best way to enable and facilitate this group of severely disabled people.
    Consequently, local authorities, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of Directors of Social Services and all the other organisations that have been quoted by hon. Members on both sides of the house are telling the Minister that the most effective way for severely disabled people to be helped is by the provision of cash by local authorities. I was encouraged by the Minister's closing remark—and I will be reading his speech very carefully tomorrow—that if arrangements were made by local authorities, by way of a trust or whatever, which will facilitate certain kinds of payments, he would not wish to stop that.
    That is the only encouragement that I have been given, however, so we will be pushing this amendment to a vote.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 259.

    Division No. 250]

    [7.2 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Connarty, Michael

    Ainger, Nick

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Alton, David

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Cousins, Jim

    Ashton, Joe

    Cryer, Bob

    Austin-Walker, John

    Cummings, John

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Barnes, Harry

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Barron, Kevin

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Bayley, Hugh

    Dafis, Cynog

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Davidson, Ian

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Benton, Joe

    Denham, John

    Betts, Clive

    Dewar, Donald

    Blunkett, David

    Dixon, Don

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Dowd, Jim

    Boyes, Roland

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Bradley, Keith

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Eastham, Ken

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

    Enright, Derek

    Byers, Stephen

    Etherington, Bill

    Caborn, Richard

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Callaghan, Jim

    Fatchett, Derek

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Fisher, Mark

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Flynn, Paul

    Canavan, Dennis

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Foulkes, George

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Clelland, David

    George, Bruce

    Coffey, Ann

    Gerrard, Neil

    902

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Grocott, Bruce

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Gunnell, John

    Morley, Elliot

    Hanson, David

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Hardy, Peter

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Harvey, Nick

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Heppell, John

    Mudie, George

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Mullin, Chris

    Hinchliffe, David

    Murphy, Paul

    Hoey, Kate

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Home Robertson, John

    Olner, William

    Hood, Jimmy

    Pendry, Tom

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Pickthall, Colin

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

    Pike, Peter L.

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Pope, Greg

    Hoyle, Doug

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Prescott, John

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Ingram, Adam

    Raynsford, Nick

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Redmond, Martin

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Jamieson, David

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Rogers, Allan

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Jowell, Tessa

    Sheerman, Barry

    Keen, Alan

    Short, Clare

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Simpson, Alan

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

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

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Leighton, Ron

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Soley, Clive

    Lewis, Terry

    Spearing, Nigel

    Livingstone, Ken

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Stevenson, George

    Loyden, Eddie

    Stott, Roger

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    McAllion, John

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    McCartney, Ian

    Trimble, David

    Macdonald, Calum

    Turner, Dennis

    McKelvey, William

    Tyler, Paul

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Wallace, James

    McLeish, Henry

    Warden, Gareth (Gower)

    McMaster, Gordon

    Watson, Mike

    Madden, Max

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Mahon, Alice

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Marek, Dr John

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Wilson, Brian

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Winnick, David

    Martlew, Eric

    Worthington, Tony

    Maxton, John

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Meale, Alan

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Michael, Alun

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mr. Eric Illsley.

    Milburn, Alan

    Miller, Andrew

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Alexander, Richard

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Baldry, Tony

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Amess, David

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Ancram, Michael

    Bellingham, Henry

    Arbuthnot, James

    Bendall, Vivian

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Ashby, David

    Body, Sir Richard

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Booth, Hartley

    903

    Boswell, Tim

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Harris, David

    Brazier, Julian

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Hawkins, Nick

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Hayes, Jerry

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Heald, Oliver

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Burns, Simon

    Hendry, Charles

    Burt, Alistair

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Butler, Peter

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Butterfill, John

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Horam, John

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Carrington, Matthew

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Cash, William

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Churchill, Mr

    Hunter, Andrew

    Clappison, James

    Jack, Michael

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Jessel, Toby

    Coe, Sebastian

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Colvin, Michael

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Congdon, David

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Conway, Derek

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Key, Robert

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Cormack, Patrick

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Couchman, James

    Knapman, Roger

    Cran, James

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

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

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

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

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Knox, David

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Day, Stephen

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Devlin, Tim

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Legg, Barry

    Dover, Den

    Leigh, Edward

    Duncan, Alan

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Lidington, David

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Lightbown, David

    Eggar, Tim

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Elletson, Harold

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Lord, Michael

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Luff, Peter

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Evennett, David

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Faber, David

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Fabricant, Michael

    Malone, Gerald

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Mans, Keith

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Marland, Paul

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Marlow, Tony

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Forman, Nigel

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Forth, Eric

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Merchant, Piers

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Milligan, Stephen

    Freeman, Roger

    Mills, Iain

    French, Douglas

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Fry, Peter

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Gale, Roger

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Gallie, Phil

    Moss, Malcolm

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Garnier, Edward

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Gill, Christopher

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Norris, Steve

    Gorst, John

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Paice, James

    Hague, William

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    904

    Pawsey, James

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Pickles, Eric

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Thomason, Roy

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Richards, Rod

    Thurnham, Peter

    Riddick, Graham

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

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

    Robathan, Andrew

    Tredinnick, David

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Trend, Michael

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Trotter, Neville

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Walden, George

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Waller, Gary

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Watts, John

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Wells, Bowen

    Sims, Roger

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Whitney, Ray

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Whittingdale, John

    Soames, Nicholas

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Wilkinson, John

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Willetts, David

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Wilshire, David

    Spring, Richard

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Sproat, Iain

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Wolfson, Mark

    Steen, Anthony

    Yeo, Tim

    Stephen, Michael

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Stern, Michael

    Stewart, Allan

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Streeter, Gary

    Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Robert Hughes.

    Sweeney, Walter

    Sykes, John

    question accordingly negatived.
    7.15 p.m
    Mr. Keith Bradley: I beg to move amendment No.2, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—
    '(2A) Any grant made to the Independent Living (1993) Fund shall be subject to the condition that the secretary of state shall have exercised his power under Clause 15 of the deed establishing that fund to revoke Clause 4(1)(d) of that deed.'.
    Mr. deputy Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following amendments: No. 3, in page 1, line16, at end insert—
    '(2A) Any grant made to the Independent Living (1993) Fund shall be subject to the condition that the relevant maximum sum referred to in Clause 4(1)(a) of the deed establishing the Independent Living (1993) Fund shall be not less than £500.'.
    No. 4, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—
    '(2A) Any grant made to the Independent Living (1993) fund shall be subject to the condition that the secretary of State shall have exercised his power under Clause 15 of the deed establishing that fund to revoke Clause 4(1)(c) of that deed.'.
    Mr. Bradley: I am pleased to explain amendments Nos. 2,3and 4, which have been grouped together. As with amendment No. 1, it will be noted that these amendments command all-party support. Because of that, I hope that the government will yet again listen carefully to the arguments on the amendments and that they will view their consequences sympathetically, with a view to accepting them and incorporating them in the successor funds to the independent living fund. [Interruption.]

    905
    The three amendments cover three important areas of consideration, which—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. A few sub-committees seem to be taking place throughout the Chamber. I am having difficulty in hearing the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley). Will those hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber please leave quietly, and will those who intend to remain here please listen to the hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Bradley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendments are extremely important for disabled people. I hope that those hon. Members who stay in the Chamber intend to make a contribution to the debate and to support the needs of disabled people, since the passing of these amendments would improve their lives in the future.
    The amendments cover three different areas, but they have been linked because of the detailed debate in Committee on these issues. At this point, we should pay tribute to the many organisations that represent disabled people. They have done an immense amount of work in support of the amendments. I must also thank the Committee and those who spoke on Second Reading. I pay tribute to Age Concern, the Alzheimer's Disease Society, the Carers National Association, Caring Costs, The Spinal Injuries Association, the all-party disablement group and many other organisations that have worked so hard to ensure that there is detailed and informed scrutiny of the legislation, in particular these amendments.
    The amendments cover three crucial matters. The first is the outrageous fact that the successor 1993 fund will not apply to anyone over working age, which basically means anyone over 65. The second is that a £500 limit is to be set on the total package of care from the local authority and the independent living fund together. The third is the important fact that, if the total package of care exceeds the £500 limit, the total burden of care falls back on the local authority. The problem is that there is no opportunity for the local authority to top up the care package above the £500 limit, and I shall deal in more detail with that issue later. I want especially to talk about the important concept of the sandwich, which was introduced in Committee.
    Amendment No. 2 deals with the appalling situation identified by all the groups that represent disabled people in any way—that the successor fund will not apply to anyone over the age of 65. There is absolutely no justification for excluding older people from help with the extra costs of disability. The Government's decision amounts to unwarranted discrimination and penalises people for being old and for being disabled.
    Statistics relating to the old independent living fund show that one in three—or 34 per cent.—of people who received help from the fund were over 65. Therefore, under the old fund the Government recognised the needs of people over 65 but are now denying them future help from the successor fund. That must be severely condemned on Report.
    Disability should not be considered an inevitable part of aging. The majority of older people are not disabled. The Office of Population Censuses and Survey's disability study showed that only a third of people over 60 have a disability and that many older people live full and active
    906
    lives into their 70s and beyond. For the minority who are disabled, their special needs and extra expenses do not decrease as they grow older.
    The Government have made their own estimates of the cost of extending the fund to the over-65s. It is staggering that they estimate that extending the successor fund to new cases to cover people over retirement age will cost only £2 million in 1993–94, £6 million in total in 1994–95 and only £9 million in total in 1995–96. That information was provided in a written answer on 5 December 1992. In the context of the overall needs of disabled people, they are extremely modest sums in terms of the Government's total expenditure, and I urge the Government to think again about extending the scheme to the over-65s.
    Again on their own estimates, the Government are expecting a total of only 1,500 cases a year to benefit from the fund. Extending the fund to the over-65s is hardly going to take public expenditure through the roof. I know that the Government have had to reign in public expenditure but, surely, the modest sums that I have mentioned could be included in that expenditure and the total package of care for disabled people.
    On Second Reading and in Committee the Government argued that they thought it right to target resources on those who had become disabled earlier in life, who have higher care costs than older people and who have not been able to build savings or acquire pension rights. The Government have repeatedly stated that pensioners have had large increases in average incomes and that more people have had an opportunity to build sufficient income for their retirement to be able to afford the extra costs of disability. That is why the Government believe that they should not extend the fund to the over-65s.
    However, many older people have not had that opportunity or the opportunity to benefit from the state earnings-related pension or the growing availability of occupational personal pension schemes. Many older people have been unable to acquire significant entitlement for their retirement because of unemployment, low pay, caring responsibilities or illness, so the evidence refutes the Government's argument that people over 65 have extra resources and will be able to look after themselves. That is clearly not the case. The Government should think again and try to include the over-65s in the successor fund.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is ironic that, because of the recent reduction in interest rates, some elderly people who have made personal provision by way of savings are finding that their savings are generating much less income and that they are now in difficulty? Does not that support his argument?
    Mr. Bradley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is ironic that, as inflation comes down, the amount of money on which people have become used to living also falls dramatically. Many elderly people have come to my advice surgeries recently, asking how they will manage on a reduced income which they have no way of boosting. They have their total capital on which they can receive interest and they have no other resources to help them with the escalating costs of disability as they get older. I hope that the Government will listen carefully to our arguments with a view to extending the fund to the over-65s.
    As we made clear in the debate on amendment No. 1, we believe that the decision to limit the fund to the

    907
    under-65s was Treasury-led. The Treasury has limited the amount of money and told Ministers that they must find a way of fitting the number of claimants into the pot. I do not believe for a moment that Ministers have done so with any great optimism or welcome, but they have used age as the cut-off mechanism for reducing the money involved. I hope that Ministers will put pressure on the Treasury to allow them the meagre extra resources to extend the fund to the over-65s.
    I deal briefly with amendments Nos. 3 and 4, which would avoid the arbitrary limit of £500 being set on available care. We believe strongly that such a limit flies in the face of the purpose of the successor fund, which is to allow people to live independently. If there is a £500 limit and if it is exceeded, local authorities will obviously have to consider the relative and comparative costs of independent living and residential care. If it is found that the latter is cheaper than the costs that exceed the £500 limit, there will be pressure on local authorities to push people into residential care which flies in the face of the philosophy behind community care and any continuation of the independent living fund.
    There was absolute uproar about the comments by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People In an Adjournment debate on the independent living fund, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 25 February. The Minister said:
    "I do not believe that … there is anything offensive in our setting an upper limit beyond which it is not unreasonable that people who need help should have to look to other sources to maintain their independence in the community, or to decide, sometimes reluctantly, that the time has come for them to go into residential care."—[Official Report, 25 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 1126.]
    The Minister may regret his words because of the outrage expressed by many groups representing disabled people. They know that those resources do not exist and that residential care is probably the only option. We should be doing all in our power to ensure that that is not the consequence of limiting to £500 the amount that can be spent.
    7.30 pm
    It is crucial that we consider how the allocation will operate within the £500. There was much debate about that in Committee, but I believe that there is still confusion among local authorities, care groups and disabled people's groups about how things will work in practice.
    As I understand it, the £.500 care package is split into two key elements, one of which consists of £200 worth of services provided by the local authority. The previous debate has thrown a little light on that matter, and it may now be possible for local authorities to translate that £200 into cash. We shall work closely with local authorities when we have carefully read the report of the debate, to work out how the arrangement will operate. The second element is a top-up of £300 in cash from the fund.
    However, if the total package of care assessed for an individual will cost more than £500 the whole cost of that care falls back on the local authority and no contribution will be made from the independent living fund (1993) We believe that the concept of the sandwich that the Government have introduced is not real. As we said in Committee, it may be a Danish sandwich—an open sandwich with no slice of bread on the top. It will certainly not be a good British sandwich with a piece of bread, a
    908
    filling and another piece of bread on top. I know that we are all moving into Europe, and that Maastricht is almost behind us, but there is a limit on how far we shall push our European credentials tonight.
    I want the Government to be clear about the fact that the sandwich concept does not exist, because there is no opportunity for the local authority to come back and put a top layer on to the £300 element from the independent living fund. There is no opportunity for the local authority to top up the bread base—the £200—again. It is absurd not to allow the local authority to top up the sum to £600 or £700 if the cost goes beyond £500.
    I emphasise again that, if that does not happen, the real consequence may be that the individual—we are talking here about the most disabled people, whose care packages may be the most costly—and indeed the whole group will be forced into residential care because of the comparison between the costs of the package of care put together by the local authority and the costs of residential care. Because local authorities are working within cash-limited budgets they will be forced to consider seriously the residential care option rather than the option of real independence, which we should all strive to bring about, and the empowerment of the individual—that is a phrase that we have heard many times—to ensure that he or she gets the best care possible in the community.
    We have advanced strong arguments both in Committee and on Report about why the Government should think carefully again about the amendments. When we discuss the future of community care and how the independent living fund relates to it we all have the interests of disabled people and their carers at heart. I hope that the Minister will respond in the spirit in which the amendments were tabled, and according to the spirit in which the Government are shifting rapidly towards agreement on cash payments. I hope that he will recognise that, within the assistance provided by the local authority, there should be a cash element and also an opportunity for the local authority to come back and top up the total package, while the £300 contribution from the independent living fund continues to be made. Most crucially, all those arrangements should be extended to cover people over 65.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: For the severely disabled people they seek to help, every one of this group of amendments is profoundly important. They are all about protecting independence and freedom of choice for people whose claim to the attention of this House should be the priority of priorities.
    Amendment No. 2 gives the House an opportunity to debate again an upper age limit which the organisations that work to help severly disabled people over 65 condemn as discriminatory and in conflict with natural justice. The Alzheimer's Disease Society, of which I am an honorary officer, says:
    "We believe the age-limit for applications to the successor bodies of the ILF penalises people for being old".
    It makes that sad comment by reference to the cases of elderly disabled people of very high dependency which the Bill, as drafted, will totally exclude from the help they need, and the Society adds:
    "Such age discrimination is a crude example of a Government minimising public expenditure at the expense of an extremely needful group of people".
    Some of the organisations that speak for elderly disabled people of high dependency feel so strongly about

    909
    the age limit imposed by this Bill that they are already said to be thinking of involving the European Court of Human Rights if the Bill reaches the statute book in its present form. That must be of deep concern to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that it will also persuade the Government to think again about their stance on this issue both at Second Reading and in Committee.
    Ministers will know that there is equally strong feeling in the voluntary sector about the maximum sum of £500 imposed by the Bill on help for personal assistance services to enable severely disabled people to live, as they undoubtedly want to live, in their own homes instead of being shut away in institutions. The Government have been told by the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People, for example, that it is actively considering a reference of this further issue to the European Court of Human Rights if the Bill goes unamended into law.
    In the Adjournment Debate I initiated on the future of the independent living fund on 25 February, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said—I make no apology for recalling his words again—that in cases where severely disabled people need more than £500 to retain their independence, there is nothing
    "offensive in our setting an upper limit beyond which it is not unreasonable that people who need help should … decide, sometimes reluctantly, that the time has come for them to go into residential care."—[Official Report, 25 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 1126.]
    All the major organisations of and for disabled people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) said, have reacted with anger and disbelief to that statement. The Spinal Injuries Association, for example, which is held in the highest regard on both sides of the House, has described the statement as "most shocking" and asks whether "£500 is now the going price for freedom in this country?"
    Mr. Scott: That has been quoted twice, but the fact is that that is not the only option available at that juncture. It is still possible for the local authority that would resume responsibility for the provision of care at that stage to decide, taking account of the needs and of the finances available, that it still wishes to retain the independence of that person within the community rather than making provision for residential care. That is still a choice open to the local authority at that stage.
    Mr. Morris: I have heard about the "sandwich" concept and even more about the resource constraints on local authorities. They put it to me, as they do to other right hon. and hon. Members, that they are already finding it extremely difficult to meet their legal duties under existing law. I shall come in more detail to the difficulties of local authorities as I proceed.
    The Spinal Injuries Association is not alone in bitterly criticising the imposition of the £500 limit. Other organisations have described it as "forced incarceration" and "imprisonment without crime". At the very least, I hope that the Government will accept that it will be demeaning not only for them, but for this House as well, if the question of what is permissible treatment of severely disabled people in this country has ultimately to be decided not here but in the European Court.
    910
    There is widespread concern and dismay not only about the ceiling of £500 which the Government are imposing, but also the effects of this policy for severely disabled people who have been receiving direct payments from their local authorities to buy in the personal help they need to remain living in their own homes. Again as the Government must know, some authorities have been making direct payments for this purpose over a long period. Will they be allowed to go on doing so? If not, will they be required to provide personal assistance themselves or to arrange for a third party to do so in lieu of the direct payments they have been making to disabled people?
    If provision by the local authority is to continue, will disabled people be able to select their own personal assistants as they do now under the existing ILF arrangements? If they are not to have this right, then ipso facto the Government are seeking to create two classes of disabled people. That local authorities overwhelmingly support direct payments, the House should be in no doubt. In a recent survey by the Disablement Income Group of 68 directors of social services, it was found that 58 supported the principle of direct payments.
    There is, however, an even more fundamental objection to the Government's apparent determination to end the direct payments that local authorities have been making to disabled people. It is a legal one of which the right hon. Gentleman, if no one else here tonight, must be fully aware. I say this because he will have been advised, as I was as the Minister, that when a local authority has identified and accepted a disabled person's need, it is the legal duty of the authority to meet that need. That is the legal advice given to me as the Minister, as I informed the House in the debate on the Second Reading of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill at column 1923 on 2 February 1979. I have checked, on several occasions since then, that identical legal advice has been given to all my successors as Minister since 1979, including the Prime Minister when he was Minister for Social Security and the Disabled in 1987.
    The direct payments made by local authorities have been made, in each case, after identifying and accepting need. Moreover, for them now to reduce or withdraw that help could put them in conflict with the law. This is because, like me, all my successors as Minister have been legally advised that for a local authority to withdraw, or even to reduce, help it has been giving a disabled person is unlawful if there is no diminution in his or her needs.
    Yet this is the position into which many local authorities may be forced by what the Government are proposing. Indeed the trustees of the independent living fund (1993) are being asked to participate with local authorities in the taking of decisions that could be legally challenged. Their- power to provide financial assistance is strictly prescribed as follows:
    "The Trustees will negotiate and agree the financial assistance they provide pursuant to the Power (in the Deed) on the basis that:
    if the relevant local authority ceases to provide the Threshold Sum (as defined in the Deed) the Trustee will cease to provide such financial assistance … the Trustees may cease to provide all or any such financial assistance without notice if they think fit."
    So if a local authority fails to provide at least £200 a week, the trustees will cease to provide assistance and the need the local authority has identified, and for which a disabled person has been assessed, could go unmet, in straight conflict with the legal advice given to me and all

    911
    my successors as Minister. I am not being hypothetical but addressing an existing difficulty for many local authorities, and the legal implications are extremely serious. Indeed, in a recent survey of directors of social services, who were asked how confident they were that their local authorities would be able to provide help at the £200 level for everyone who was assessed as needing at least that much, only one director was "very confident", 25 were only "fairly confident" and 32 were "not confident".
    7.45 pm
    Thus, many local authorities could find themselves in legal difficulties through no fault of their own. For this I do not directly blame the Minister; indeed, I was very kind to him at Second Reading in saying that this is, in truth, a Treasury and not a DSS Bill. It is incontestably a Treasury Bill in the sense that it was the Chancellor who decided how much would be spent on independence and choice for disabled people. He decided what Peter Large, speaking for the Disablement Income Group, has described as the "beggarly" sum of £4 million to be allocated to the ILF (1993); and it is the Chancellor who must take main responsibility for what the Bill proposes.
    It is, however, for the Minister for Disabled People or his nominee to reply to this debate tonight and I trust that he will address the very real concerns of disabled people and their organisations. as well as those of local authorities, that I have raised. I commend the amendments to the House.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: The House will be relieved to know that I do not intend to speak on this group of amendments at anything like the length I spoke on amendment No. 1. However, there are one or two arguments to which I wish to draw attention and others that have already been put forward which I wish to reinforce.
    Amendment No. 2 concerns the ineligibility of people over 65. I appreciate my right hon. Friend's concern to provide better help to younger, severely disabled people. The whole House must endorse that objective. However, I say with respect that it is not clear to me that that provides an argument for excluding people over 65 from becoming eligible for receiving support from the new independent living fund.
    After all, if the argument for supporting younger people is that they will not have had the opportunity to build up savings, we should remember that elderly people who would be eligible for support from the independent living fund would not have been able to amass substantial savings. As I understand it, they must be eligible for income support, and they would not be eligible for income support if they had accumulated substantial personal capital. I do not quite follow my right hon. Friend's argument on this point.
    I find it hard—indeed, impossible—to see how we can justify denying people who become severely disabled after the age of 65 the opportunity for independent living. The Government's continuing insistence that they are not prepared to allow social services departments to make direct payments is relevant to this. I contend that independent living in the proper and full sense involves having control of one's own resources.
    Although, as my right hon. Friend said during an intervention in the speech by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), it would be possible for social services departments to support people
    912
    to live in the community, my fear is that if those severely disabled people who were so supported did not have control of their own budgets and were not able to design and manage their own care packages, they would be in danger of being effectively institutionalised in the community. That is not care in the community in the sense that any of us understand it.
    I do not understand why the Government want to create two categories of people over 65: those who might in some sense—it is a strange use of the term—be regarded as "fortunate" because they became severely disabled before 65 and are, therefore, eligible for financial support from the fund, and the rest. It seems to be an arbitrary distinction and I cannot imagine any satisfactory defence for it.
    If the argument is about cost, it does not seem to be a sufficiently powerful one because, on the Government's figures, the cost of extending eligibility to people over 65 to become recipients of grants from the new fund would not be exorbitant. On the Government's figures, it will be an extra £2 million in the first year, rising to £9 million in 1995–96. While I fully appreciate the importance of firm discipline in controlling the costs of the massive social security budget, the figure of £9 million of 1995–96 is effectively invisible in the context of a Department of Social Services budget of £80 billion.
    Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 relate to the £500 limit. I put it to my right hon. Friend the Minister that he and his colleagues, especially those in the Treasury, need not fear the cost of lifting that limit because the numbers in question are small. In the context of total public expenditure on welfare, we are talking about something that will be hardly discernible.
    Indeed, while we must always seek to find solutions that are cost-effective as well as humane, domiciliary care is cheaper and therefore more cost-effective than residential care in almost every instance. I cannot understand the argument for setting the limit, which seems to be an arbitrary one, on £500 with the combined value of the package of services from the Department of Social Services and grant from the independent living fund. On the contrary, it seems to be a waste of public resources effectively to drive people into residential care.
    The most important argument is a morale one. Surely, if anything, there is a greater moral imperative to enable the most extremely disabled people to live independently in the full sense that I described earlier. I ask my right hon. Friend this question: has any similar ceiling been set for any other category of clients? I am not aware that it is so. If no such ceiling has been set, why do the Government propose to set a ceiling on the package of support from those two sources which would be available to severely disabled people?
    Mr. Wigley: I shall intervene briefly because, unfortunately, I have had little opportunity to take part in this debate, not having been on the Committee. I support the amendments which have been tabled. I shall refer to a few points that have been made and perhaps elaborate on them.
    The argument against an arbitrary cut-off at the age of 65 is strong. There is a growing concern among elderly people and those organisations campaigning on their behalf that there appear to be more instances of this approach—a cut-off at a certain age, at the age of 65 or thereabouts. We are familiar with a cut-off on age with

    913
    regard to the mobility allowance in the past and the mobility element in the present disability living allowance. Such a cut-off causes considerable rancour. All hon. Members will have had constituents coming to them and saying, "I am aged 67 or 68. I have identical circumstances to another person who is a few years younger who has suffered a disability. He or she gets a mobility allowance: I do not."
    A cut-off based on age can be unfair. We know, from the representations that we have received from organisations on behalf of elderly and disabled people, of the feeling that there is discrimination in the national health service against older people. There is an assumption that when people reach a certain point they are bound to start disintegrating and may well have to live with worse circumstances than would have been acceptable at a slightly younger age. That is causing concern.
    For a cut-off at the age of 65 to be built in merely to make a modest saving of less than £10 million a year, the Government must re-examine the matter. After all, the policy relates to care in the community and the changes are meant to take into account the needs of individuals. Packages are meant to be tailored to individual needs and enable people to stay in the community. That should be equally applicable to a large number of people over the age of 65, as it is to people below the age of 65. Sixty-five is not an age at which one should expect life to come to an end or a significant deterioration to take place thereafter. Many people over 65 have an active life and a major contribution to make. The fact that some disabilities may impinge on some aspects of those lives should not mean that they are regarded as needing less support than those at a slightly younger age.
    Reference has been made to the cost of disability in general. Certainly, it is a significant cost. However, many aspects of life cost more as people get older—for example, the cost of heating—and, inevitably, people of a greater age face a greater burden. That will not be helped by the imposition of VAT on fuels that the Government have introduced, which will hit elderly people especially hard. I had hoped that the Government would take on board the need to ensure that there is no unnecessary demarcation against people above a certain age threshold. The cut-off seems to be an unnecessary demarcation. I put it to the Minister that, perhaps in another place, the Government can re-examine the matter if they cannot accept the wording of the amendment tonight.
    I was impressed by the argument put forward by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) with regard to the possibility of legal cases. The last thing that local authorities need is to be tied down with fighting legal cases. They have enough on their hands in ensuring that client groups get the necessary services and attention and the full focus of their attention, rather than being sidetracked into such cases. We seem to be spoiling this specific ship for a penn'orth of tar. I implore the Minister to re-examine the matter.
    Mr. Flynn: The three fine amendments deal with many aspects of the Bill, which has been discussed at various stages. The Government's view is unclear. It is difficult to deal with this uncanny situation in which hon. Members
    914
    from four parties are saying the same thing in remarkably similar speeches and only the Government are opposing them.
    Amendment No. 2 provides an opportunity to remove the indefensible age limit. In Committee, the Minister of State defended the age limit on the ground of priorities, arguing that, first, younger disabled people were more likely to need longer-term care and, secondly, those who were disabled early in life had lost the opportunity to earn or save, have occupation pensions or provide for their own retirement. For the reasons given eloquently in previous speeches, I will not go into much detail about the faulty thinking behind those two conclusions.
    The implication of the Government's thinking is still not clear. Is it that local authorities, in deciding what needs will be met, will give lower priority to those over 65 so that funding from the independent living fund is not required by that age group because their needs will remain unmet? If it is implied that local authorities will discriminate against those over 65, it makes a mockery of the whole community care strategy for elderly people.
    There is an alternative interpretation—that local authorities will give equal priority to those over 65 but will bear the whole cost, rather than sharing it with the independent living fund. If that is the implication, it is unrealistic: it will not happen. In deciding what services local authorities can provide, they are bound to be influenced by the availability or non-availability of grants from the independent living fund. Therefore, in practice elderly people will receive less adequate services than younger people with precisely the same needs. That cannot be fair or just.
    Where part of the domiciliary service is met by the independent living fund, the local authority will have less incentive to remove people from their home and place them in institutions. So the age limit on ILF payments will make elderly people more likely to be offered institutional care than younger people with similar disabilities. Can that be what the Government intend? Is it their view that institutions are a bad thing, but that they are good enough for the over 65s? I look forward to the Minister's reply to that question.
    Amendment No. 3 deals with clause 4(1)(a) of the trust deed, which says:
    "No candidate shall be paid more than the relevant Maximum Sum in respect of any week".
    The maximum sum is £300 or a larger sum fixed by the Secretary of State. That is on top of the £200 threshold sum paid by the local authority. That makes in total a maximum of £500 per week that can be spent on any individual.
    8 pm
    In Committee, an amendment was tabled requiring the Secretary of State to rescind clause 4(1)(a) of the trust deed, thus removing the maximum sum altogether. Sadly, the amendment was defeated. Hence we have tabled this more modest amendment, which would raised the maximum sum to at least £500, making a total of £700 when the local authority's £200 contribution was added.
    The Minister of State told the Committee that there would be only a handful of cases in which the total cost would exceed £500. So the number of cases in which the total cost would exceed £700 would be very small.

    915
    Therefore, the effect of amendment No. 3 would be virtually the same as if there were no maximum sum. The consequences in monetary terms would be slight.
    As all payments from the 1993 fund will be made at the trustee's discretion, doing away with the maximum would not mean that every application, however large, would be met in full. It would simply mean that the trustees would be allowed to decide each application on its merits. It would give them a little more flexibility, taking into account the size of their annual budget and the number of applications received. Amendment No. 3 is an eminently sensible amendment.
    Amendment No. 4 deals with the concept that the Minister of State introduced in Committee. It would be helpful for the House to consider what happened on the two days of the Committee. During the first day, the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman moved an amendment to remove the £300 maximum sum. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) concluded his speech at five minutes to one. The Minister of State proposed that the debate be adjourned so that he could give "a considered response" at the next sitting. Between that sitting and the next, the Minister had the vision of a sandwich which he introduced to us at the beginning of the proceedings at the next sitting on 25 March.
    So the concept of the sandwich was not an off-the-cuff reaction but a carefully prepared response. He assured the Committee that the effect of the maximum payment would not be to force people into residential care. In introducing the concept of the sandwich, he said:
    "I shall give the Committee a concept, which should be easily understood, of how the new system will work. The independent living (1993) fund will, in a sense, be the filling of the sandwich, with bread on both sides, which will be provided by local authorities, Below £200, the local authority will have the responsibility to provide the services that disabled people need in order to maintain themselves in the community. Once the £500 maximum is reached., the responsibility will again revert to local authorities, which will have to decide whether domiciliary or residential care would be the most appropriate support." [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 25 March 1993; c. 36.]
    Later in the debate, the Minister had to amend his concept. Perhaps it is fair to say that he admitted that there had been inaccuracy in what he had said. Certainly, he had got the concept wrong, even if it was not inaccurate. He said that if the total cost was more than £500, far from the ILF providing the filling in the sandwich, it would not be allowed to make any contribution. Instead of a sandwich there would be two slices of bread with nothing in the middle.
    That is very different from the concept of the open sandwich—the rather non-communautaire suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Withington. It would be a vegetarian sandwich, a dieter's sandwich or a Chelsea sandwich. It would be an entirely unsatisfactory sandwich, because it would have no filling. That is the' effect of clause 4(1)(c) of the trust deed, which amendment No. 4 seeks to remove.
    It is not surprising that the Minister got it wrong. The sandwich concept is a revealing visual aid. It not only makes sense but it is the only way in which the fund could operate fairly and effectively as a support to the most severely disabled people and to the local authorities responsible for providing them with community care.
    Amendment No. 4 would not affect the £300 maximum payment. If the total weekly cost of care was more than
    916
    £500, the ILF could still pay only the £300. But the local authority would be able to decide whether to provide the top slice of the sandwich or alternatively to offer institutional care. The Minister told the Committee that there would be only a handful of cases in which the total cost would exceed £500. So the sums of money involved are relatively small. The money would be spent on enabling a handful of severely disabled people to live independently. The view that they should be able to do so is shared by hon. Members in all corners of the House.
    One hopes that the amendments, which are supported by all parties in the House except the Government—or one might say that they are opposed only by the Treasury—will be accepted.
    Ms Lynne: Like other hon. Members, I shall not speak for long on the amendments. I cannot understand the reason for the age limit. There seems to be no rhyme or reason for it. The Government's figures, which have already been quoted, show that extending ILF to people over 65 would cost £2 million in 1993–94, rising to £9 million in 1995–96. That is hardly an enormous sum of money when one considers the budget with which the Government are dealing in the Bill. It can be classed as peanuts.
    The Government argue that they should target resources on younger people. They argue that older people have had time to save. I argue the reverse. Many people with disabilities have not had time to save. Many of them have been unemployed. Many of them have not been able to work for their living, or they have been on low pay. Many have had caring responsibilities. It does not necessarily follow that someone who is older has been able to save a great deal of money, or even any money.
    The income of older people with disabilities continues to be lower than that of people below pension age. Surveys have shown that the income of single disabled pensioners is 88 per cent. that of younger disabled people. Furthermore, older people have already suffered discrimination in the benefits system. For example, they cannot claim disability living allowance. They cannot claim invalid care allowance for the first time after reaching 65 and are thereby excluded from claiming carer premiums. Therefore, I urge the Government to change their mind.
    I also urge the Government to change their mind on the £500 limit. Again, I cannot understand the reason for it. It would not cost the Government a great deal of money to remove it. The fund will assist only if local authorities provide £200 worth of services. I should like some clarification of that. It appears from Government guidelines that if the cost of meeting needs goes beyond £500, the ILF will not provide any money and the disabled person will have to rely on the local authority.
    I see no justification for that. How was that £500 limit decided upon? Was it an arbitrary figure plucked out of the air? It certainly appears to have been. In an article on 4 February in Social Work Today, a Department of Social Security spokesperson was quoted as saying that fewer than 1 per cent. of current ILF clients claimed more than £500. The Minister has agreed that the number of claimants is small, so it would not cost the Government a great deal of money to remove the cash limit of £500.
    Is there any evidence that residential accommodation will be a cheaper option? I doubt it very much. The

    917
    Minister also appears to believe that it will not be cheaper, so why will the ILF be cash-limited? I hope that the Minister will answer those questions.
    In terms of caring for people with learning difficulties, the ILF client costs, on average, £140 a week. Those in residential care cost, on average, £272. Once again, no saving is involved. Surely the savings made in the vast majority of cases will more than offset the extra costs of a few exceptional cases.
    I do not believe that people's civil rights should be cash-limited, but I fear very much that that is what the Government will end up doing unless they accept the amendments.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): I am glad to have the opportunity to reply to the debate, which has, once again, been characterised by contributions from a succession of speakers who have a knowledge and understanding of disability and matters related to it.
    Those hon. Members are beguiling in their different ways. I particularly enjoy the speeches of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). He sets up such outrageous false premises about what the Government intend to do that no reasonable individual could gainsay what he said if there was a ha'penny of truth in the case that he set out. That is why he is so beguiling. I shall seek to reassure the House that there was not a scintilla of truth in what he suggested were the Government's proposals. There is no need for us to be beguiled by his arguments.
    A variety of hon. Members have spoken with their usual care and passion. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), who moved the amendments, has good knowledge of this subject and we had good debates in Committee. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) is well known for his experience in this subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who made a significant contribution on Second Reading, also spoke, as did the hon. Member for Newport, West, to whom I have already referred. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), my constituency neighbour, speaks well on these matters for her party.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister has forgotten the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).
    Mr. Burt: I am a doctor's son and bad handwriting is hereditary. I did not see that I had written the name of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). I apologise to him. He always speaks with knowledge and great integrity on this matter. I enjoyed his comments.
    I preface my remarks by repeating what I said on Second Reading, because the idea that community care does not exist tends to lie behind all the amendments. It is felt that the ILF is the only thing upon which people may depend when they are in need. I stress, once again, that the ILF is a sandwich—I shall talk about that in detail later —which is additional to care that is now provided in a different way.
    Community care will provide individual, specialised care for those who need it. It will be based on an assessment of need. It does not imply residential care beyond a certain financial limit, but that local authorities and those responsible for the care of the elderly and the
    918
    disabled will be able to consider people individually in a way that was not possible before. The ILF is a useful adjunct to that process, but the arrangements for that fund cannot in any way be considered as independent of community care. I sometimes feel that the misapprehensions about the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 are based on that basic misunderstanding of Government policy.
    Although the three amendments under consideration could be taken together, I shall deal first with amendment No. 2. That amendment would extend the eligibility of the 1993 fund to those over the age of 66. I am unable to accept that amendment. Once awarded, payments for the fund will continue until they are no longer needed. There is no cut-off to those who have been awarded that payment once they reach the age of 66 and they will continue to receive the payment for as long as it is needed.
    The community care reforms which have been made since April 1992 are designed to ensure that the care needs of all disabled people, including those who are severely disabled, are catered for by local authorities. Those authorities have been adequately resourced to meet the needs. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe made some disparaging comments about the amounts in the ILF budget, but it is wrong to look at that budget in isolation from the community care provisions.
    8.15 pm
    As well as the £4 million for the 1993 fund, we will spend a further £120 million on the extension fund and an extra £26·8 million on local authorities. That amounts to spending of more than £150 million, a significant increase on current estimated expenditure on the ILF of under £100 million. In addition, the £565 million allocated for community care, once added to that total, creates a significant package. I do not believe that it is fair to isolate a small amount for the new fund and to say that that represents total funding.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and I shall intervene briefly. My main point is that local authorities have said that in very many cases they will find it difficult to find the sum of £200. If they cannot find it, the process of helping many severely disabled people does not even start. It is only what local authorities tell me and other hon. Members on both sides of the House about their resource problem that makes us speak as we do in debates such as this.
    Mr. Burt: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, but, like me, he has some experience of local authorities and what they say to a Government when they ask for funds. I maintain what I have already said: that the total amount that has been put into community care is considerable. I have already cited the figures. All local authorities constantly wish for more. Recently, I listened to a radio programme in which the director of social services in Newcastle said that local authorities would always want more but that they would work with what they have. The Government have made a substantial commitment to community care and I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman's concerns will come to pass.
    Given the limited resources that remain available, we believe that it is reasonable to limit the scope of the 1993 fund to people aged between 16 and 65, because people in that age group are the most likely to have longer-term care needs. Those disabled early in life have often lost the

    919
    opportunity to earn and save. We believe that the highest priority for independent living must be given to those for whom the usual pattern is to live and work in the community. That does not mean, however, that those over the age of 65 are abandoned in terms of receiving help or being given the opportunity for independent living.
    There is no suggestion that, simply because an application to the ILF cannot be made after the age of 65, the sort of domiciliary care that might be needed or requested cannot be made available by a local authority. It can and will be. That is the raison d'être of community care. The care will be tailored more neatly to the requests of an individual. That will apply to someone who asks a local authority for care and assistance at whatever age, including beyond 65 years. The mere fact that the ILF is not available does not disqualify those over that age from the individual care and provision that they would want.
    The hon. Member for Caernarfon said that he was concerned about parameters and the 65 age limit creeping in. There are good reasons and historical precedents for setting age limits. When mobility allowance was originally introduced by a previous Government, an upper age limit and a cut-off point were set, after which the allowance would not continue. This Government changed that rule to enable the allowance to continue beyond the upper age limit. There is nothing unusual or wrong in a Government setting upper limits or parameters. Bearing in mind the support mechanism that community care provides in itself, our policy of making the fund available before the age of 65, and allowing it to continue beyond that age for those who needed it, provides an answer to those who are worried about the age limit and eligibility.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: My hon. Friend said that the independent living fund was a useful adjunct to the resources of social services departments to enable them to provide the necessary help to severely disabled people. Why is it a useful adjunct for some people over the age of 65, but not for others?
    Mr. Burt: It is simply that there is a requirement to set parameters for the fund. For the reasons that I have given, we believe that it is right to target the resources between the ages of 16 and 65 for applicants, but we want the availability to continue, which is perfectly fair. The trouble with an adjunct is that, once set up, people see it, not as an adjunct, but as an integral part of the system. The basic system is community care, and we have produced something extra to help those who qualify.
    Mr. Bradley: Part of the difficulty of denying the fund to those over the age of 65 is that they will be denied access to £300-worth of cash, which could be tailored to their own needs. That reinforces the argument and I hope that the Minister will reconsider the argument for allowing local authorities to provide cash so that there is no discrimination between under-65s and over-65s.
    Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman seeks to reopen a previous debate on cash, and I cannot respond to him. However, I stress that we see the best of community care provision coming in the independent care package, which will be available to those of all ages, with or without the independent living fund. The necessity of limiting the age of eligibility in no way denies the opportunity for local
    920
    authorities to provide just as individul, just as caring and just as home-based a package for those over 65 as for those under 65.
    Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 deal with finance, the parameter of £500 and the sandwich of care. Amendment No. 3 would place an unreasonable restriction on the fund's operation. In the past, the ILF used to relax or restrict the rules according to budgetary constraints. It is quite proper that that flexibility should be available in future to the trustees. Trustees have a legal responsibility to ensure that the fund's resources are appropriately distributed in a manner consistent with the trust's purposes. The £500 limit is one of the parameters that has been set around the new scheme to help to focus the trustees' attention on the client group targeted by the 1993 fund. To remove their ability to reduce that limit would effectively remove some of their discretion. I cannot imagine that the trustees would want to reduce that limit, but it would be wrong to take away their power to do so.
    Amendment No. 4 aims to undo the main feature of the new fund: the partnership with local authorities. Nothing stands still, but some hon. Members seem unwilling to acknowledge that, in the sphere of independent living, the world has changed and we have to move with the times. The old independent living fund had to work independently of local authorities, but now we have the new community care arrangements in place.
    One of the problems that the old ILF faced was the fact that its existence provided an incentive to local authorities to offload their responsibilities on to the fund. At that time, local authorities were not ready to provide flexible and personalised care services and severely disabled people instead looked to the independent living fund for help. Now local authorities have been given a special transitional grant for community care, which in Great Britain includes an extra £27 million—rising to £100 million in 1995–96—to meet the costs of those clients who would have gone to the ILF under the old arrangements, and the costs of meeting the first £200 of services for those who receive help from the 1993 fund. That last point answers the question of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe.
    Mr. Sheerman: I know that the Minister may have a pressing engagement, but the Opposition take the new arrangements covered in the Bill seriously. The Minister should not gabble through his speech as though he had an important engagement. We want to listen to the arguments. It is not good enough for the severely disabled people in this country for the Minister to rattle through the speech with no feeling. It gives no hope for disabled people.
    Mr. Burt: Every time I am tempted to give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt and presume that underneath that extraordinary exterior lies a reasonable man, I am proved wrong.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was appalled at the intervention of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). The only passage of his speech through which my hon. Friend the Minister rattled was that giving the terms of the deed. The rest of his speech was given at a perfectly normal speed. We understood it, and if the Opposition did not, that is their bad luck.
    Mr. Scott: Ignore the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
    Mr. Burt: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and perhaps I would do best to take the advice of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People and simply ignore the intervention of the hon. Member for Huddersfield.
    Local authorities have been properly resourced for their responsibilities and it would be wrong for the 1993 fund to find itself taking on the full burden of a task which is the primary responsibility of the local authority. The key feature of the new fund is the partnership arrangement with the local authority. The visiting social workers of the ILF have built up expertise in the assessment of needs for people with severe disabilities which is rightly admired. But it is the local authority's social worker who is best placed to identify the resources and services available locally to translate that assessment into a viable care package. The requirement for the local authority to pay for the first £200 of services ensures that the care package is one that reflects the best that can be provided for the particular client in his or her locality.
    Clients coming to the old ILF had to take as given whatever the local authority was willing to provide, and the ILF social worker would suggest a package of care to fit around and supplement those services. Under the new system, the whole package of care will be designed as one, from the start, by the fund and the local authority working in partnership.
    I was asked questions about the sandwich. I do not know how the hon. Member for Withington recognises a sandwich, but we in Bury recognise a butty when we see one. The butty that we are discussing is straightforward. It has a bottom layer—the local authority provision of care up to £200, which is the basic threshold—then the independent living fund, which can be included as a discretionary element, and the top slice of the butty is the local authority's responsibility to take on statutory responsibilities for the elderly over the £500 limit. The middle element consists of the provision that can be made up by the independent living fund.
    Mr. Bradley: If a butty in Bury consists of two pieces of bread and a filling that is removed if it goes above the £500 limit, the people of Bury will be disappointed that their Member of Parliament does not feed them better. Clearly, if the ILF element goes beyond £500, it is removed. Someone cannot eat that element and then eat another part of the local authority provision. The Minister must recognise how the system will work. We cannot pretend that someone can pass through the £500 limit and still retain the £300 from the independent living fund. Everyone, including the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, has made that clear, and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is trying to confuse the issue yet again.
    Mr. Burt: Culinary expertise is better in Bury than in Manchester. I always thought that a butty contained a bottom, a middle and a top. The bottom layer here up to £200 is covered by the local authority. The top layer, above £500, is also provided by the local authority. The independent living fund can be used in the middle and that is the middle of the sandwich. The care sandwich is made up of what the local authority provides top and bottom, with the ILF in the middle. That is as clear a definition of a sandwich as I have heard.
    8.30 pm
    Mr. Bradley: Is the Minister now saying that one can have £200-worth of services from the local authority, plus £300 in cash from the ILF, plus an element of service on top of that from the local authority? Is that the butty he has in mind?
    Mr. Sheerman: That is a good butty.
    Mr. Burt: What a Yorkshireman knows about a butty nobody can guess. The situation is as clear as I have explained. Whatever sort of concoction Opposition Members are trying to create, I have presented a straightforward sandwich of care—[Interruption.] The layer of care up to £200 is wholly local authority money. The layer over £500 is totally local authority. The middle of the sandwich is money available from the ILF. That is the care package.
    I am referring not to an individual case, but to the total package of care. That involves local authority assistance below £200 and local authority assistance above £500, with the ILF working in the middle. That is the definition of the sandwich which came through in Committee and it is that which the hon. Member for Withington is seeking to distort.
    Mr. Morris: I have some experience of living within reach of Bury. Is not it a fact that butties from Bury are usually filled with black pudding?
    Mr. Burt: And they are grand. I am describing the package of care in the form of a sandwich and I am not relating it to an individual—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Flynn: The Minister is making a meal of it.
    Mr. Burt: I am talking about—
    Mr. Bradley: A Bury sandwich?
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We must have fewer sedentary interruptions, or it will be a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth.
    Mr. Burt: The case being made by Opposition Members is based on their perception that the failings of the new ILF, because of a failure of community care, will discriminate against those whom they wish to protect. I am describing where the ILF fits into the community care package for local authorities. It is only when the two are taken together that what the Government are doing becomes clear and that is the best way to reassure those who are concerned.
    It is in that area that the analogy of the sandwich came into play in Committee. When it is viewed in that light, one appreciates that below £200 the cost is dealt with wholly by the local authority. Above £500 the cost is again, right the way through, dealt with wholly by the local authority.
    Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman is wrong.
    Mr. Burt: I am not wrong. It is clear that we are at odds over the concept of the sandwich. I suspect that we shall not make progress on that front, even though I have described it as clearly as I can.
    Mr. Bradley: I do not want to labour the point, but it is important for organisations outside to understand how the systems will work. Let us deal—this is the crux of the

    923
    matter—with an individual disabled person. An assessment is made of such a person. That assessment in total of the care required is, say, above £500. Will the Minister confirm that the total package will have to come from the local authority and that there can be no element of ILF? In other words, there will be no sandwich for that individual. The filling of the ILF is removed, with the total having to come by way of services from the local authority. Is that correct?
    Mr. Burt: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman now understands the position. What he says is exactly right. Over the cost of £500, it is dealt with wholly by the local authority—
    Mr. Bradley: That is not what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman must read the Official Report tomorrow to see that I said that the whole total for those who need care over £500 is dealt with by the local authority, in exactly the same way as those who need care under £200 have their care needs met totally by the local authority. In the band in the middle, between £200 and £500, the ILF comes into play. That is the filling of the sandwich.
    I see no reason why we should be at odds over the matter. My description of the way in which the sandwich concept fits into community care is right and I have explained it to the point where we have made progress, to the point where the hon. Member for Withington understands the position. In any event, if his concept of a sandwich does not include a bottom, middle and top, I do not know what sort of sandwich he has in mind.
    Mr. Malcolm Wicks rose—
    Mr. Burt: I suspect that I should move on and not continue to give way. Does the hon. Gentleman have something substantial to say?
    Mr. Wicks: I rise simply to suggest that, when the Department makes the training video on the ILF, it does not use the sandwich analogy, in the interests of clarity, because, like many sandwiches one buys that look good, they often fall apart in the hand.
    Mr. Burt: I know that that intervention was kindly meant. I will just draw a veil over it.
    The place of the ILF in the whole area of community care does not leave those about whom we are most concerned without support. It has been suggested on several occasions that the mere fact that there is a limit of £500 necessarily places those who need care above that level into institutional care. That allegation has been made by a number of Opposition Members. It is absolutely not the case.
    When individuals are in the care of a local authority, it has primary responsibility for the community and residential care of disabled people. Local authorities will make the decision whether to opt for domiciliary or day care, bearing in mind the needs of the client and the costs of the option. If the disabled person would prefer domiciliary care and it is cheaper than residential care, that is surely what the local authority will provide. Where domiciliary care is more expensive, the local authority will need to decide whether it can afford to spend more to help that individual to remain in the community.
    There is no logic in the argument that, because of insufficient funding, people will be forced into residential
    924
    care. A recent report confirmed that caring for people in the community often proves the most cost-effective way of providing for their care needs, and that applies just as much above as below £500.
    Ms Lynne: Is the Minister aware that, on discovering that it will cost more to keep people in their own homes, many local authorities will opt to put them in residential accommodation, whether or not the disabled person chooses that course? That will happen because of the cash limits on community care and the fact that the Government have not provided enough money for community care as a whole.
    Mr. Burt: As the hon. Lady pointed out earlier, only 1 per cent. of current ILF grants are in excess of £500 per week. That shows that the majority of people who require that size of award are not living independently. But they can do so. Where it is cost-effective for a local authority to use its money to keep someone at home, it will do so. But, naturally, a local authority will come to a decision about whether it is cost-effective. Bearing in mind its own position and that of others whom it has to look after, it may be impossible to provide domiciliary care. But the sheer fact of a cut-off point at £500 can in no way be taken to imply that merely because a person is above that limit he must be in residential care. Time and again, the Opposition have implied that or expressed it directly. It is not correct and it is not fair for them to do so.
    This has proved to be a more lengthy debate than was originally expected. It has taken us down a road that I suspect I shall remember for many years to come. I have tried to deal with why the amendments cannot be accepted by the Government. As I have sought to make clear, we do not believe that the age limit is detrimental to those who would not be eligible for the independent living fund. They will be covered by community care in a manner too often and shamefully neglected by Opposition Members.
    The £500 limit and the need for local authorities to contribute up to £200 is not wrong. Taken in the round with the other aspects of community care that the Government have introduced, it is the right way for the independent living fund to proceed. This should be recognised as a package of individual care which is a considerable advance and improvement on social security care in the past. The independent living fund will continue to provide a more than helpful and useful adjunct to community care in Britain. Accordingly, I ask the House to reject the amendments.
    Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, although I am clearly disappointed that he is not prepared to accept our amendments. I have listened to the excellent speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House and from all political parties who support the amendments and it is a great disappointment that the Government do not see their merits.
    The amount of money involved in accepting the amendments would be so small in terms of the total social security budget and so beneficial for disabled people that I find it difficult to accept that their rejection is not Treasury-led. The Minister's heart is in the right place, but he has clearly been overwhelmingly constrained by the Treasury tonight.
    We shall not seek to press the amendments to a vote because it is important that these matters should be taken

    925
    up again in the other place in order to clarify how the fund operates in practice in relation to the local authority. Their Lordships will read the proceedings of this debate with great interest and will take up the matters in their own inimitable way when they discuss the culinary delights of the independent living fund.
    I am disappointed with the Government's response, but the quality of debate has made its own points. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    8.43 pm
    Mr. Scott: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    We have covered a great deal of ground this evening and I do not want to reiterate those comments in my closing remarks. The Bill fulfils a manifesto commitment which we gave at the general election to maintain a fund to meet the needs of disabled people. The Bill builds on the tremendous success—which has been acknowledged in all parts of the House—of the independent living fund, which operated under the arrangements pre-community care, in the new context that has now been provided from 1 April this year.
    I am happy to report to the House that the new funds are now operational with a full board of trustees. The handover from the independent living fund to the extension fund went smoothly, with all clients continuing to receive their payments, as I undertook to the House when we discussed the matter earlier. The case load of nearly 22,000 people is now being operated by the new extension fund. The new director is in post and the director and staff are now building the bridges towards the relationship with local authorities which will allow the new partnership between the 1993 fund and local authorities to work smoothly in future.
    I hope that, whatever differences there may have been between us in Committee, on Report, or now on Third Reading, we can all wish the trustees, director and staff well in the work that they will be undertaking to improve the quality of life of disabled people in Britain.
    The Bill also seeks to put motability on a firmer statutory footing. The motability scheme, as we all recognise—I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) who launched the scheme in the first place—is an extremely successful joint enterprise with the Government, the voluntary sector and the clearing banks. It has served and continues to serve to increase the quality of life of an ever-increasing number of disabled people and commands widespread support throughout the House. I know that both sides of the House will wish to support the provision that puts motability funding on a statutory footing to ensure its continued financial support. Many hon. Members will remember my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently handing over to the recipient the keys of the 350,000th motability car, and that is a measure of the scheme's immense success and popularity.
    The Bill is part of the Government's overall strategy for improving quality of life for disabled people in our society. I think that anyone would recognise that an immense amount has been done in the past 10 years. I do not
    926
    disguise from the House, and never do, the fact that we have a long way to go. There is still much work to be done, but any fair-minded person recognises the improvements that have been made in terms of benefits, delivery of services, accessibility of our buildings—we still have a long way to go—and the growing opportunities for employment of disabled people as new technology, in particular, enhances their ability to acquire the independence that employment can give them.
    The funds that the Bill provides are an addition to the overall provision—an important one. It is a small Bill, as I said when I launched it on Second Reading, but it is very important for a considerable number of disabled people. I commend it to the House.
    8.47 pm
    Mr. Sheerman: I, too, have no wish to delay the House long. We have had a good debate this afternoon and this evening. The Minister has just described the Bill as small. It is small, but it is also vital because, as the Opposition have tried to show, it goes to the core of how we treat severely disabled people in Britain—and moreover, how we treat disabled people.
    Before saying anything controversial, I want to pay tribute to those who have so successfully run the independent living fund during the past five years. As a slight criticism, I would say that they have not been as well treated by the Minister as they should have been, because many of them should have been offered the chance to continue that success. However, we wish the new people running the two new funds well. We want them to do the job that has to be done for severely disabled people. There is no alternative.
    I also add my voice to the praise for my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) who, single-handedly, did so much to get motability off the ground all those years ago. Perhaps, when we reach a really big number, such as the 500,000th, we will have someone important—not just the Prime Minister, but the initiator of the scheme—to hand over the key.
    I shall end on a note that my right hon. and hon. Friends and Ministers will understand. It has been an important Bill and an important debate, but we consider it a missed opportunity. It was one of the few occasions when we tried something that worked. The Government introduced the independent living fund and it worked. In Committee and throughout the Bill, with no ideological preconceptions—indeed, we had cut off some of our shackles of previous years—and using only one criterion, we were asking the Government to consider how good it was for severely disabled people. The experience of the indpendent living fund left us with one important message.
    Some of us have said that there are two things to which we shall never allude in any debate for the rest of our careers: we shall never talk about sandwiches—I think that the Under-Secretary of State will learn that lesson—or about empowerment. I shall mention empowerment one last time and say, yes, we have learnt through the independent living fund that we need to empower and to provide the enabling and facilitating role to which the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) referred in his excellent speech in Committee. That role is so important in the lives of individual severely disabled people.

    927
    In the last few minutes of the Bill, let me say what we would have accepted, what would have quietened our voices and our criticisms: if the Minister had come to the House with a different Bill, learning from that experience and building it into the new arrangement for community care and said that the Government had learnt their lesson and would empower people in a different way and that, having learnt the lessons of the independent living fund, they would now allow local authorities to give cash payments.
    In other words, they should have taken the essence of the independent living fund and spread it like the mediaeval physic throughout local government social services departments, which would then have become mini independent living funds. If the Government had learnt from the lessons of the independent living fund and clone the job for disabled people in our community—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. This is Third Reading. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would speak on what is on the Bill. That is what a Third Reading speech should be.
    Mr. Sheerman: Absolutely. It was my peroration—the last gasp at the Dispatch Box— just to say that we opposed many aspects of the Bill constructively, we offered alternatives and tried to ensure that the Bill left the Chamber improved, having learnt the lessons of the independent living fund. We are disappointed that the Government missed their opportunity, because disabled people in the community will be less well off than they were under previous arrangements.
    At the end of the day, we have had a constructive debate. Some of us learned a great deal about the opinions of the people that matter—the severely disabled people who increasingly are telling the country and the House that they want to be the vital essence in all legislation that affects their lives.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    ESTIMATES
    Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 131 (Liaison Committee),
    That this House agrees with the Report [22nd April] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. MacKay.]
    Question agreed to.

    Maltby Colliery
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]
    8.54 pm
    Mr. Kevin Barron: I raise the issue of Maltby colliery for the third time since the announcement last October that the British Coal Corporation had different designs on the coal mine than those that had been planned for many years.
    I should like to make it clear that, in raising the question of Maltby colliery I am in no way seeking to affect the future of any other colliery that has been either a victim of the recent review or is currently working without knowing where its market will be in the not too distant future.
    Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that in recent months the Government have treated the British coal industry with contempt. Last October, the President of the Board of Trade, under pressure from what seemed to be the majority of the British public, promised a thorough review of the British coal industry and its markets. Those deliberations and that review took many months but produced what I and many others can describe only as a shabby compromise with no increase in the market for coal.
    Now the Government hide behind the cloak of the British Coal Corporation to cover their failure to do their duty and carry out the wishes of the country. Through that lack of political will, thousands of miners and their families are bitterly disappointed and deeply concerned about the future. In Maltby colliery, more than 800 miners are still unsure about their future.
    The colliery has been known for many years as a British Coal showpiece. It was sunk in 1907 and has extensive reserves. It was reconstructed between 1951 and 1961, the main features being the deepening of the shafts and the construction of a new pit bottom to serve the Barnsley and Swallow Wood seam. Production from the Swallow Wood seam replaced that from the Barnsley seam in 1969.
    The current major project, the Parkgate project, was finally approved in 1981 and it is designed to increase the capacity of Maltby colliery to 2·5 million tonnes a year. The project is currently scheduled for completion in December. It has involved some major development work on a scale usually seen only at new coal mines. It included the sinking and equipping of a new shaft which has the biggest capacity in Europe, the deepening and equipping of existing shafts, the construction of a new pit bottom to serve the Parkgate seam, drivage to establish two faces in the seam and the installation of all the necessary equipment, the construction of a new coal preparation plant and all the associated surface works. The estimated total cost of the project is about £180 million.
    The first phase came on stream in April 1992, and the second, retreat, phase was scheduled for completion in December this year. People working at that mine and at other coal faces were looking forward to moving to the new Parkgate seam, to begin retreat mining.
    The colliery currently employs 1,300 people, including contractors. The threat to jobs is obviously felt deeply by them. The colliery is situated in the Rotherham and Mexborough travel-to-work area, which encompasses Maltby and has unemployment of more than 16 per cent. and male unemployment of nearly 26 per cent. There are

    929
    already 42 people chasing every vacancy recorded at job centres. Many vacancies are located in Doncaster and Sheffield, which have serious economic problems of their own without a further threat of redundancies at Maltby colliery.
    Since 1990, my constituency of Rother Valley, which covers one third of Rotherham metropolitan borough, has lost nearly 2,000 jobs either in coal mining or at a local coke works. One mine closed in 1991 was Thurcroft. Rotherham metropolitan borough council undertook a study last year, when Thurcroft miners were involved in an unsuccessful initiative to restart Thurcroft colliery as a mineworker-owned company. That study revealed that only one quarter of miners had found work outside the industry, and one half had not worked since becoming redundant after the colliery's closure in December 1991.
    Mr. Peter Hardy: My hon. Friend will be aware that Thurcroft is just outside my own constituency, and that many men from the eastern part of my constituency have long been employed at Maltby colliery. Many miners from the western part of my constituency and further afield moved to Maltby colliery in the past three or four years, having worked at as many as half a dozen other pits. Will my hon. Friend confirm that they moved to Maltby in the belief that it would do superbly well for a very long time? Does my hon. Friend agree also that every time that people glimpse from a great distance, as they can, the headgear of Maltby colliery, they and many others in South Yorkshire regard is as a monument to one of the most foolish and profligate decisions made by the Government for a long time?
    Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I visited the colliery last Friday and spoke to one young coal miner with a young family. He thought that he was moving to that investment to work there for the rest of his working days, in a trade that is exclusive in our particular region. He felt very let down and disappointed. No matter what happens to Maltby in the future, many families will feel that it is a monument to a disastrous decision.
    The Minister will be familiar with the attempt to reopen Thurcroft colliery, because I corresponded with him frequently last summer on that subject. The study of ex-mineworkers from Thurcroft found that the average period of unemployment for miners was seven months—and the higher the job losses, the longer that period will become.
    A study by Rotherham training and enterprise council was also made. After last October's statement, local TECs were asked to play a major part in finding employment for those likely to be made redundant from the coal industry.
    A study commissioned from Sheffield Hallam university business school of total job losses resulting from pit closures, which was updated after the publication of the White Paper, estimates that in addition to 950 job losses in mining at Maltby, there will be 600 supplier jobs losses and more than 400 redundancies resulting from reduced local and national consumer spending—making a total of 1,950 local job losses.
    That estimate does not take into account a possible further 1,000 job losses if the work force at Kiveton
    930
    colliery, which is also in my constituency, do not secure markets for their coal and the colliery closes within the next couple of months.
    Mr. Jimmy Boyce: Is my hon. Friend aware that on top of these particular job losses, which narrow the field of employment for people in the whole of the metropolitan borough of Rotherham, the figure that he mentioned of 2,000 in his own constituency is probably multiplied by more than 300 per cent. when the whole of the metropolitan borough is taken into account? Is he further aware that this narrowing of employment opportunities in the borough means that there are people who have never had a proper job and who now have teenage children who have no opportunity of ever having a proper job as a result of the loss of jobs not only in mining but in the associated industries of steel and mining engineering—skills that have almost disappeared for ever as a result of the profligate policy of this Government?
    Mr. Barron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right. In the past decade the job losses, not just in mining but in steel and engineering, in South Yorkshire as a whole and in our borough have been colossal. The major point that my hon. Friend rightly made is the loss of skills. We had exchanges at Question Time today about apprenticeships. They have disappeared from an area that was known to have some of the finest industrial apprenticeships in the country. My hon. Friend is also right to point out that such job losses always go a lot wider.
    Last October, in announcing the Government's coal review, the President of the Board of Trade said in a written answer:
    This review will consider views and evidence on the future of each of the pits in question".
    He appointed consultants to report to him on the viability of the pits,
    "including any alternative markets that may exist for coal". —[Official Report, 26 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 522.]
    The consultants were J. T. Boyd, a firm of independent consultants. They ranked Maltby colliery as one of the top five mines in the country, with the potential to achieve consistent profits of over £12·5 million each year. That is not just the top five of the 31 collieries under review but the top five including the 19 which were not in the review and which were to remain open.
    That is not surprising. The coal that they have now opened up the roadways to get is, in the J. T. Boyd report, some of the best coal in Britain. the consultants ranked Maltby coal 14th for low sulphur content which, in an age of debate on the environment, is very important. It was eighth in low ash content. If Members want to know the value of that, they should talk to the electricity generators or anyone who burns coal in bulk. It was sixth in low chlorine content. It was second in high calorific value out of the 51 collieries studied. In other words, some of the best coal in Britain is being left under the ground, at least in the short term.
    In its two tables of economic ranking, Boyd listed Maltby as first in both case 1 and case 2. These were of the 21 pits under review. Case 1 showed that 25 collieries had higher estimated costs—these included the 19 that stayed open—and 25 had lower projected profits. Case 2, if we put the 20 along with those under review, showed 31 collieries with higher costs and 36 with lower profits. Boyd

    931
    reported that the colliery was primarily a producer of power station coal but also produced a minor amount for domestic use.
    They are debating at the moment in the Department of Trade and Industry, I am sure, the question of energy in Northern Ireland. Maltby colliery supplies house coal there. West Burton, Thorpe Marsh, Drax and Cottam power stations all receive Maltby coal. There are never any problems in selling this coal. It is used as a sweetener for Selby coal. Everyone says that the great complex at Selby represents the future of the British coal industry. On occasion, it uses Maltby coal so that it can sell coal of the required quality to the available market.
    Recent tests in relation to the coking market have proved positive. According to those tests, in March this year production costs in the coal faces in the Swallow Wood and Parkgate seams amounted to £1·20 per gigajoule. The Minister must have examined the markets to which Maltby sells its coal; he must know that no coal sold on the world market can be brought to the point of use more cheaply than the coal that is currently being produced at Maltby, given the transport costs involved.
    Maltby also has a new, state-of-the-art coal preparation plan. It was the first in the United Kingdom to gain the British Standard 5750 quality assurance accreditation, which increased its potential for steelworks and other premium-price non-power station sales. The report prepared by the Government's own advisers gave Maltby a glowing reference, but that testimony to its future seems to have been ignored—certainly, in the short term.
    In his statement on 25 March, the President of the Board of Trade announced that Maltby would be given "development status". He spoke as though a new plant would be involved. The investment programme was begun as a result of the Labour Government's plan for coal; as I said earlier, it is scheduled for completion in December this year. It is not a new invention of the current Government's review.
    I am not sure how much the investment programme will cost. Last week, the Minister said that £29 million would be invested in the development phase of Maltby; the President of the Board of Trade mentioned £30 million, and, according to British Coal's Coal News, £40 million is to be spent on completing the programme. That, however, is not new money; it is money committed a long time ago to development of the reserves for retreat mining of the Parkgate seam.
    The Minister shakes his head. Let me tell him that I spent 20 years working in that coal mine. I left it in 1983 to enter the House of Commons, but I had a vested interest in its future, and I know exactly how much was invested. I know that, in 1981, it was agreed that the Parkgate seam should be developed for retreat mining by the end of this year. I emphasise that no new money was involved in that agreement.
    The most interesting feature is that, over the past two years, the colliery has been paying back from its profits some of the capital investment. It made more than £10 million in 1991–92, and more than £7 million in 1992–93. Now that production is to end, no revenue will be available for the colliery to continue paying back that investment. It does not make sense to throw away such profit margins and continue to favour capital investment on such a scale.
    At the beginning of this month, I went with the leader of Rotherham council, Sir Jack Layden, to meet the chairman of British Coal. He failed to justify the plans for
    932
    Maltby colliery then, and the Government have similarly failed to do so since. Surely savings to taxpayers would be secured by keeping Maltby in production, making profits and paying back some of its capital investment. That would also save public expenditure on state benefits: whatever redundancy arrangements are reached, if job losses on the proposed scale go ahead the people concerned will be eligible for unemployment benefit.
    There remains only one justification for this decision —privatisation. That was flagged up in last month's statement. The Government had been sent away to find wider markets for the British coal industry; they returned to the Floor of the House with none, but, at the mention of the word "privatisation", all their Back Benchers' eyes lit up. They all started to cheer. That is what it is about; it must be. That is not just my view. The same view was expressed by the Dinnington and district branch of the Rother Valley Conservative association in its letter to the Prime Minister last October, in which it said—little has been done to disprove it:
    "In view of the fact that during the last few years the near-by Maltby colliery has had a multi-million pound modernisation packet … we are finding difficulty in arguing against the accusations that this money has been spent only with a view to privatisation."
    The Minister's own political party said that last October, when the balloon first went up and the Government said that they were going to mothball the colliery. It is possible that privatisation has already taken place, since the bulk of the jobs that are to remain at the colliery during the development phase are likely to be done by private contractors.
    The Government have told us over the years that privatisation is good for the work force. I had a go at the Minister last Wednesday at Trade and Industry Question Time. After I had sat down, he asked me to point to the advantages that lie ahead for my constituents because of this so-called development phase that Maltby is going through. I invite the Minister to come to my constituency, see the people at Maltby colliery and explain to the men —more than 800 of them—who face redundancy exactly what the advantages of privatisation are, when it looks as though they are faced with the dole.
    Last week I wrote to the Minister about the prospect of redundancy payments for mineworkers at Maltby. The Minister responded that it was a matter for British Coal. However, on 21 October of last year the President of the Board of Trade told the House of Commons, from the Dispatch Box, that no miner should be disadvantaged by the consultation on closures. British Coal has suggested that 500 jobs could be retained to carry out the development work, but it will not specify the make-up of the reduced work force.
    The only correspondence that the work force has had relating to these plans is a letter that was sent to the Yorkshire NUM on 9 April by the group director. Talking about the likely levels of redundancy, the group director said:
    "At present, it is proposed that up to the total number of employees presently employed at the collieries if and when Rossington is placed on care and maintenance and Maltby on a development only basis. That will, of course, be subject to any employees being transferred to other collieries where there may be vacancies,".
    The one thing that this area director has done is keep his sense of humour over the past six months, unlike most people who work in the British coal industry, since he referred to employees being transferred to other coal

    933
    mines. Does the Minister think that mine workers who do not want to leave the industry will be able to transfer to other coal mines? He went on:
    "or being required for a limited period for any salvage, maintenance or development work. Such employees will be selected on the basis of their skills and experience."
    There was a meeting last week at local level, at which the work force at Maltby asked for the pit to go into the modified colliery review procedure. Since that request was made, it has been impossible for the work force to get any information about the pit's future.
    Mr. Martin Redmond rose—
    Mr. Barron: I know that my hon. Friend has a coal mine in his constituency that is in a not dissimilar situation. I shall certainly give way to him.
    Mr. Redmond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. Rossington is one of the pits to be mothballed. I wrote to the Minister asking what mothballing meant. I do not know what it means but perhaps my hon. Friend can tell me. In any event, the Minister should be in a position to tell me although he did not do so in his one-paragraph letter in which he said that it was an operational matter for British Coal's chairman. Perhaps the Minister will now tell us what mothballing means, because the lads and lasses at Rossington colliery would like to know.
    It is because the term was not clarified when the Government published the White Paper that there are now problems in the industry. The economics are now those of the madhouse. The Government apparently have no concept whatsoever of the industry on which they have published a White Paper.
    Pensions are another issue that affects many people who have retired from Maltby. Before the election, we received assurance after assurance from Ministers and from the Minister for Energy since the election that pensions would be safe. Pensioners are not convinced that the Minister does not intend to dip in his sticky fingers and do a Maxwell-type operation on the pension fund. It is not good enough for a Minister deliberately to put such fears into the minds of retired members who have contributed over the years.
    Mr. Barron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I shall hazard a guess about what mothballing means. Under the original review in October last year, Maltby was to be mothballed. I asked the mining engineers there what it meant but they did not know. They had been told that the colliery was to be mothballed along with three others but they did not know what it meant.
    For what it is worth, I think it means taking eight pits out of the closure programme to satisfy a few Conservative Back Benchers that everything possible is being done to keep the pits open. Rossington is to be mothballed, but the Government would have us believe that someone else could come along and run it if British Coal did not want to run it. Last week, the director of the south Yorkshire area issued a press release telling us that some people would be kept on at that pit to salvage equipment. How that is to be done is beyond me, but perhaps the Minister will tell us.
    On my hon. Friend's second point, the Minister will know that the House has made it clear many times that we
    934
    want any coal privatisation programme to include protection for people who pay into various schemes, such as those for pensions and staff superannuation. It is crucial that regulation is not so lax that people are able to buy into a business and, at the same time, into its pension scheme and use the money for purposes other than those for which it was originally intended.
    Before my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) intervened, I was talking about trying to find out what the plans meant for Maltby colliery. At a meeting this morning with local senior management, representatives of the work force were told that, if they went ahead with their request to go into the modified colliery review procedure, they would not be informed of the plans for the future and that only if they withdrew their request, with no prior knowledge of the plans, there might be enhanced redundancy terms for the men to leave the industry. It is clear that they are being bribed to accept the proposition that the Swallow Wood seam should cease production at the end of this week and the Parkgate seam at the end of next month. Clearly, that will create severe personal difficulties for the miners who are trying to decide what is best for themselves and their families.
    I believe that it is for the Government to ensure that miners are fairly treated and that, if their jobs finally have to go, they get the best possible terms available. I have no dispute with that. The enhancement of redundancy terms for people who have to lose their jobs in the present unemployment situation in my area has my support, but it should be done without the duress that is now being brought to bear on people.
    This morning I faxed the Minister two specific questions. The first was: given that all coal mines both develop and produce simultaneously, why is Maltby to be given development-only status? I am fascinated by that concept. Of all the coal mines that were under review, and of all those that have a future at some stage, only Maltby will have development-only status. My second question was: given that up to 500 men are likely to work on the development, why can the work force not be told who will remain at the pit if production ceases? I hope that the Minister will answer those questions, and respond to the other points that I have raised tonight.
    There is a compelling case for continuing production at Maltby colliery. The onus is on the Government to produce equally compelling counter-arguments. There is still an opportunity to reverse their decision to stop production at that profitable, productive and modern pit, and to keep a highly skilled and motivated work force together. I hope that the Minister, and the British Coal Corporation, will seize that opportunity before it is too late. That would be in the interests not only of our constituents who work at that most modern of coal mines but of the nation as well. We should not squander the millions of pounds in revenue that could be earned from production at the colliery for the sake of a future prospect the main effect of which will be to line the pockets of people in the City and others who want to buy into the industry in two years' time, when we as taxpayers will have put more millions of pounds into development of the coal mine.
    9.26 pm
    The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): May I first say how especially appropriate it is that you should be in the Chair for the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you organised the preceding debates to fit in with your personal timetable. Of course it is appropriate that the hon. Members for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond), for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), and for Rotherham (Mr. Boyce) are also present. I am acutely conscious of the interest of their constituents in the issue and in other issues relating to the mining industry and of the close personal interest that each of the hon. Members here—including you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—take in the mining industry and its future.
    As the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) reminded me, we had a considerable amount to discuss last summer; the hon. Gentleman was so concerned, especially about Thurcroft, that I spoke to him several times when he was flat on his back in hospital. I am delighted to see that he has now fully recovered and can put forward a case on behalf of his constituents.
    It might help if I begin by setting the debate in context. It is important to remember that we have to take a view on Maltby in the context of the overall energy situation in which British Coal finds itself. We should not forget that last year British Coal produced about 77 million tonnes of coal, of which just under 63 million tonnes went to the generators in England and Wales. British Coal thought that it was unlikely to be able to sell more than about 40 million tonnes of coal to the generators from this April, and of course there were already massive stocks of coal both at the generators and at the pithead.
    That led to the announcement in October last year that 10 of the deep mines with no prospect of viability, and 21 pits with no prospect of a market, should close. As the House will remember, the Government accepted the proposals from British Coal. However, subsequently and in recognition of the concern expressed in the House and by the public more generally, we announced a review, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That review and the report by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry led my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement to the House late last month. That statement coincided with publication of the White Paper and with the debate on it.
    Mr. Hardy: The Minister said that he intended to put the matter in a broader context. Will he consider the context that, 20 years ago, 16 collieries were mining under the metropolitan borough of Rotherham? Ten years ago, 14, if not 15, of those collieries were engaged in that activity. To plunge an area into the economic disadvantage that rapid closure would cause is unseemly and barbaric. Does the Minister understand that we and the people of our area are well aware that the reason for the difficulties which he has just identified is that, in recent years, the coal industry has been compelled to operate on a playing field that is far from level?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman tempts me into a very much wider debate—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. This debate is about Maltby and is thus very narrow.
    Mr. Eggar: I shall, of course, concentrate my remarks on Maltby. Immediately after the war, Maltby was one of
    936
    650 collieries. About 800 men are now employed at Maltby because about 400 have taken voluntary redundancy over the past few months. I imagine that many more were employed immediately after the war. Those men were part of a British Coal work force of 750,000 people. I make that point only to show that there has been a sharp and consistent decline both in the number of pits in this country and in the number of people employed in them.
    To pay attention to the guidance that you gave me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we must set the matter in that context, and we must also recognise that the future of Maltby is bound up with the recommendations which were included in the White Paper and approved by the House. The proposal in the White Paper was that British Coal, subject to consultation, was to close two pits which were nearing exhaustion; it was to cease coaling at six pits and place those pits on care and maintenance; and it was to put one pit, Maltby, on development only. That was in addition to the 10 pits that are the subject of consultation at present.
    I do not wish to risk offending or annoying the hon. Member for Rother Valley, but I must emphasise that decisions about production and development at Maltby are matters for British Coal, just as matters at the corporation's other collieries are a matter for it. Opposition Members and some of my right hon. and hon. Friends overlook the fact that neither my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade nor I have any power to tell British Coal which collieries it should close, which collieries it should keep open or which collieries it should keep to develop in one way or another.
    Mr. Boyce: If British Coal proposed tomorrow to close all the pits, are the Government really telling us that they would do nothing about it and that it would be a matter for British Coal? Surely not.
    Mr. Eggar: I am saying, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware because the position is laid out clearly in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946, that neither I nor my right hon. Friend has the power to tell British Coal to take specific action. That action relates to specific collieries. The hon. Member for Rotherham may regret that. From time to time over the past few months, I have been tempted to regret it.
    The Act was laid down under the Morrisonian approach to a nationalised industry. When introducing that legislation, it was a definite decision of the then Labour Government to keep Ministers at arm's length, so to speak, from the day-to-day management and detailed decisions relating to the then British Coal Board. That is the background against which both Ministers and British Coal operate.
    Having said that—I note that the hon. Member for Rotherham smiled when I said it—I shall ensure that the attention of British Coal is drawn to this debate and its contents. The hon. Gentleman made some allegations about the pressure on miners to leave Maltby and other pits. The hon. Member for Rother Valley also hinted at that. That is an issue not just for British Coal: it is before the courts at present, so I cannot comment on that in detail.
    British Coal has proposed a forward strategy which involves substantial capital investment to create a lower cost base for Maltby in the future. In recognition of the advantages of Maltby coal to which the hon. Member for Rother Valley referred, that pit has been chosen to be

    937
    developed as a high-volume low-cost mine that is capable of producing more than 2 million tonnes of coal per annum compared to its current production of 1·2 million tonnes per annum. British Coal will invest up to £40 million in developing Maltby's extensive reserves for retreat mining over the next two years.
    The hon. Gentleman rightly said that, at Question Time, I mentioned a figure of £29 million. The difference is the estimate of the proceeds of coal sold from the development phase. The £40 million is new investment which was not previously scheduled. The Government are reflecting that new investment in British Coal's external financing limit, so that comes into the negotiation.
    Mr. Barron: If one is running a business, would it be wise to continue with the future investment plans and cut back on the revenue earning side of the business? That is exactly what British Coal proposes to do. If the proceeds from the development lessen by £11 million over two years, what would the figure be if it continued to produce one or two coal faces as well?
    Mr. Eggar: That takes us back to where I started my remarks: British Coal must examine and take all its decisions in the context of the overall market for coal. Clearly, when it takes its decisions, it must look at all the collieries and the existing market—in other words, the market in which they have some contractual undertakings; the 40/30/30/30/30 contract—and then the possibility or probability of additional contracts.
    If Maltby were run on full production—I cannot speak for British Coal, but I imagine that it is a possibility—it would effectively displace the coal being produced at another pit. The hon. Member for Rother Valley commenced his remarks fairly by saying that, although he wished to draw attention to Maltby, he did not wish in any way to do down, so to speak, the other pits in the area. I can understand that. It is very much in the character of the hon. Gentleman and the approach that hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken on the problem that British Coal faces. They do not want one pit to do well, only for another to do badly. When British Coal made the proposal to the Government as the most sensible way forward, we were prepared to make the necessary funding available and make investment approvals available.
    I do not challenge the hon. Member for Rother Valley when he says that Maltby has extensive reserves. It came out well in the Boyd review in just the way that he outlined. That upside of Maltby made British Coal wish to put it into development and ensure that in the future it could be a world-class mine producing high-quality coal, as we all wish it to do and know that it is capable of doing at low cost.
    Mr. Martin Redmond: A tremendous amount of finance—millions of pounds—is sloshing around. Will the Minister give an assurance to the Maltby pensioners and pensioners throughout the country in the various pension schemes that no funds will be used by the Government to subsidise any of the proposals in the White Paper?
    Mr. Eggar: I do not think that that is the assurance that the hon. Gentleman wants me to give. He wants me to give an assurance that we will make subsidies available to help
    938
    British Coal to compete. I give him an assurance, as I have given Opposition Members assurances on many previous occasions, that pensions will be safeguarded. I have said that frequently, and I give that absolute categorical assurance.
    The staff superannuation fund has attracted some attention. I understand that the matter is to come before the courts for a decision. In other words, an agreement has been reached that a ruling should be given because the trustees and British Coal have received differing legal advice. The Government are absolutely content, as I am sure that British Coal is, to abide by the judgment of the court. Given the understandable attention that has been given to pensions and the references to Maxwell and others, I believe that that is the appropriate way forward.
    I stress that British Coal's proposal is, of course, subject to consultation with the unions. Although the proposal does not involve closure of the colliery, it will inevitably entail some job losses during the period of development. It is right and proper that there should be full consultation with the unions on the proposal, in accordance with British Coal's legal obligations.
    Both in his fax and tonight, the hon. Member for Rother Valley suggested that I should make an announcement to British Coal's work force about who would remain at the colliery if the development proposal was adopted. He gave the impression that that was a matter for me. I know that from time to time the hon. Gentleman has, shall we say, exhibited a certain amount of creative tension with the National Union of Mineworkers, at least nationally—we admire him for the stance that he has taken. I do not believe that he wishes me or anyone else to appear to circumvent or, indeed, to circumvent decisions which are a matter for consultation between British Coal and the unions.
    Mr. Barron: I referred in my speech to what the President of the Board of Trade said about not disadvantaging any mineworkers while consultations went ahead. I put the facts to the Minister plainly and I put them to him now.
    Why have the men at Maltby, knowing that people will continue to be employed in the development work, not been told who is likely to remain working at the colliery before being forced to take a decision? It is a matter of common decency. They were asked to withdraw from the modified colliery review procedure before the plans were put before them and that has put them at a disadvantage in the consultation process. The President of the Board of Trade stood at the Dispatch Box and said that that would not happen, so he should now do something about it.
    There are things that can be done by those who stand at the Dispatch Box, no matter what we have heard tonight. The Minister and the President of the Board of Trade know that. That is why we had the review in the first place. My request should be met out of common decency, if nothing else—if there is any left.
    Mr. Eggar: The assurance that was given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in October referred in particular to the 10 pits. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that; he can check the record after the debate.
    I am in genuine difficulty in commenting on this matter. Not only is this, in practice, a matter for British Coal, in consultation with the unions, but it was also the subject of

    939
    a court hearing today. I also understand that the area around Maltby, if not that specific colliery, is also likely to be considered by the courts next week or the week after. Tempted as I might be to respond to the hon. Gentleman in detail, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for me to do so. I hope that the House will understand that. I assure the hon. Gentleman, once again, that his views and the report in Hansard will be seen by representatives of British Coal.
    The hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to recognise that the voluntary redundancy package, which has been made available to miners, is generous. I accept that he has also made it clear, however, that, given the employment circumstances in the area that he represents, he has understandable concerns about the future job prospects for those 400 individuals who have already taken the voluntary redundancy and others who will do so.
    Although I recognise that, for the purposes of the debate, the hon. Gentleman wants to highlight the problems that are associated with finding jobs in the area, it is fair to point out that, between 1987 and 1991, 84 per cent. of all those individuals who registered with British Coal Enterprise for jobs found them within a year to 18 months. It is appropriate to consider the optimistic side as well and to put it in perspective.
    When I visited the north-east just before Christmas, I met a number of men who had previously been employed by the Seaham and Vane Tempest pits who had taken voluntary redundancy. I was struck by the training that they had undertaken for jobs in a high-tech plant. I admit that they had to travel a considerable distance to reach their jobs, but their example suggests that it is reasonable to say that a significant number of individuals who were previously employed as miners will succeed in finding alternative work.
    The fact is that coal remains the largest element in the United Kingdom's diverse range of fuels for electricity generation. Most hon. Members recognise, however, that it probably never will regain the place that it once held in our economy. That is no criticism of the management or work force of British Coal. It is a fact and it illustrates the way in which the most profitable reserves have been worked out. It is also a fact that the new modern mines in other parts of the world have geological advantages over our pits, although they are not as great as sometimes claimed. Those mines also have an advantage over British coal because of the environmental quality of their coal, a quality which the coal produced by British Coal does not and is not likely to enjoy.
    Mr. Barron: What about the 1.5 per cent. sulphur content?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the relatively low sulphur content of Maltby coal. I think that he mentioned a figure of 1·5 per cent. sulphur. Internationally traded coal almost always has a sulphur content of less than 1 per cent., and sometimes has a sulphur content of something more like 0·5 per cent. That is the standard against which all British coal mines have to operate. It is a difficult and competitive market, in which world production costs are falling.
    In the year or so that I have held my present post, I have been grateful for the way in which the hon. Gentleman has argued the case for his constituents. He has always advanced the arguments cogently, both publicly and privately. I have been conscious of his considerable personal experience, both as a miner at Maltby and as an hon. Member who has consistently taken a great interest in the mining industry.
    Mr. Barron: The Minister will be pleased to know that this is the last time that I shall intervene. I cannot let the occasion pass without saying—doubtless the Minister will not agree with me—that the development status that has been granted to Maltby colliery is nothing more than the foil towards privatisation. He may not even agree with Rother Valley Conservative association, which agrees with my analysis. In the House, the Minister asked me:
    "Why does not the hon. Gentleman for once point to the advantages that lie ahead for his constituents"?—[Official Report, 21 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 314.]
    I should like to invite him to my constituency to tell the 800-plus miners who are to be made redundant in the next few weeks the advantages of the dole.
    Mr. Eggar: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman finished on that note. He mentioned "the advantages of the dole". It is important to note that considerable amounts are being invested in Maltby to ensure that it is able to compete and that its good quality coal can be produced at low cost for a long time, which will enhance its prospects of long-term viability. The hon. Gentleman should stress that fact to his constituents, as it is a positive message.
    We have had a good debate, and I thank all hon. Members for participating in it.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Ten o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Personal Injury Claims
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many employer liability personal injury claims worth over £2,500 were settled in court in(a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1992–93 and (e) the first six months of 1992–93.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  These figures are not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many personal injury claims worth over £2,500 were settled in court in(a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1992–93 and (e) the first six months of 1992–93.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The only figures available are those set out in tables 1 and 2. They show by respective year since 1989, the total number of personal injury cases disposed of by trial, in the case of the High Court, where the amount of the award was £5,000 or more; and in the county courts where the amount of the award was £2,000 or more.

  Table 1

  Personal injury cases in the high court during 1989–1992 where the amount of award was £5,000 or more

  Year

  1989

  1,823

  1990

  484

  1991

  625

  1992

  1,072

  Table 2

  Personal injury cases in the county court during 1989–1992 where the amount of award was £2,000 or more

  Year

  1989

  1,136

  1990

  2,658

  1991

  1,530

  1992

  4,106

  Duty Solicitors
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost of the duty solicitor scheme in the most recent year available; and whether that cost is included in the expenditure figures for legal aid.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In 1991–92, the last year for which figures are available, the cost of the duty solicitor schemes was £62 million. It is estimated that the scheme will have cost £72 million in 1992–93. The cost of the duty solicitor schemes is included in the expenditure figures for legal aid.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the amount of contributions to criminal legal aid paid for the most recent year available, and the number of defendants who have made those payments.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In the period from April 1991 to March 1992 a total of £3·6 million was paid in contributions towards the cost of legally aided criminal cases (£2 million in respect of proceedings in the magistrates courts and £1·6 million in respect of proceedings in courts other than the magistrates courts). In 1991 there were approximately 36,300 contributors in legally aided criminal cases.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the total number of defendants granted legal aid and the net cost of that aid, for both civil and criminal legal aid in the most recent year available.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information sought is not available in the form requested. There were 3·03 million acts of assistance in 1991–92 at a net cost of £906 million, and it is estimated that there will have been 3·39 million acts of assistance in 1992–93. It is not possible to apportion the net cost between plaintiffs and defendants.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much VAT was paid on legal aid fees, and what was the cost of administering VAT on legal services to those aided, for both civil and criminal legal aid for the most recent available year.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information sought is not available. It is not possible to identify separately the total VAT element of legal aid bills.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost of the green form scheme in the most recent year available.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Net expenditure on green form legal advice and assistance in 1991–92 was £95 million. Final figures are not yet available for 1992–93, but it is estimated that expenditure on green form in 1992–93 was £122 million.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the total cost of criminal legal aid both gross and net of contributions ordered and VAT in the most recent year available.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In 1991–92, the last year for which final figures are available, expenditure on criminal legal aid was £478 million gross (£474 million net). Expenditure on criminal legal aid 1992–93 is estimated at £535 million gross (£529 million net). It is not possible to identify the total amount of VAT paid in respect of legal services.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the number of legally aided defendants who have failed to make any payments as ordered in the most recent year available; what was the total amount involved; against how many people recovery proceedings have been commenced; and what is the amount involved.
  329
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In the period from April 1991 to March 1992 a total of 4,239 civil legal aid certificates were revoked due to the non-payment of contributions at a cost to the legal aid fund of £1·9 million. In 1991 approximately 500 criminal cases had legal aid revoked due to the non-payment of contributions. Information on recovery proceedings for non-payment is not available centrally, nor is not possible to determine the costs involved.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the number of legally-aided defendants who are in arrears with their contributions as ordered at the most recent available date; and what is the total still outstanding, the number against whom recovery proceedings have been commenced and the amount involved, for both civil and criminal legal aid.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, in the period from April 1991 to March 1992 a total of 4,239 civil legal aid certificates were revoked as a result of contributions outstanding representing a sum of £1·9 million, compared with 3,598 and £1·6 million in the previous year. Statistics regarding the financial year just ended will become available in June when the Legal Aid Board is due to publish its annual report for 1992–93.

TRANSPORT

  Motor Cycles
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy towards the proposals of the European Commission to limit production of motor cycles to a maximum engine power producing 100 brake-horse power.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Government's view is that the current European Commission proposal is unsupported by statistical evidence. We are therefore attempting to broker a compromise on power that will be acceptable to United Kingdom motorcyclists. It is at present too early to anticipate the outcome.

  Air Services
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the role of his Department in the licensing of scheduled air services to any destination in balancing demand and provision.

  Mr. Norris
  The process of licensing airlines in the United Kingdom for the operation of scheduled air services is undertaken by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). Within the EC, licensed carriers are entitled to provide services on the basis of their own commercial judgement.

  The Secretary of State also has a role in determining appeals on licensing decisions taken by the CAA, including those which involve the issue of scarce bilateral capacity.

  Radar Speed Cameras
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the implications for road safety of reflective number plates designed to evade speed camera technology; and if he will make a statement.
  330
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Reflective number plates designed to evade speed camera technology do not work. Photographs of such plates taken by approved speed detection equipment show the number quite clearly and the offence can be followed up in the normal manner. Use of these plates is illegal and the photographs also provide evidence of this offence. So purchasers are not only wasting their money but are also making themselves liable to additional penalties.

  These number plates do not comply with the new British standard which is to be published shortly and it will then be made illegal to offer them for sale.

  Al2, Lowestoft
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for improvement of the Al2 serving Lowestoft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My right hon. Friend announced in "Trunk Roads England into the 1990s" 10 separate schemes for improving sections of the A 12 between the M25 and Lowestoft, targeted with a grade separation of Capel St. Mary junction.

  The sections to be improved are:

  1. M12 motorway between M25 and Chelmsford bypass

  2. Chelmsford bypass widening

  3. Hatfield Peverel to Marks Tey

  4. Four Sisters to Stratford St. Mary

  5. Martlesham to Wickham Market

  6. Wickham Market to Saxmundham

  7. Saxmundham bypass widening

  8. Saxmundham to south of Wrentham

  9. South of Wrentham to Kessingland

  10. Lowestoft relief road

  The schemes are in the early stages of statutory procedures and our aim is to have at least selected preferred routes for them all by the end of 1994.

  Cars (Airbags)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to encourage the European Commission to initiate legislation to require all new cars to be fitted with airbags.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  None. The single most effective measure for reducing accident injury for car occupants is the wearing of seat belts. An airbag as a supplement to a seat belt can be provided only at considerable additional cost, and it is for the consumer to decide whether this is justified.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has held with groups representing disabled people on proposals in the Railways Bill to safeguard and improve facilities for access to rail travel for people with disabilities.

  Mr. Freeman
  I met the Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People in January to discuss their concerns with regard to rail privatisation and I am in regular contact with DPTAC. Officials have recently met representatives of other disability groups including the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, MENCAP and the Royal National Institute for the Blind.
  331

  Bournemouth Transport Ltd.
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a decision on the proposed single tender sale by Bournemouth borough council of Bournemouth Transport Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are in correspondence with Bournemouth borough council about the sale of Bournemouth Transport Ltd. by open competitive tender. The council has been told that the Secretary of State will not consent to a single tender sale.

  Railway Pensions
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what dates he has met with(a) the Association of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, (b) the Railway, Maritime and Transport Union and (c) the Transport Salaried Staff Association to discuss the future of railway pensions since the publication of "New Opportunities for the Railways" (Cm. 2012).

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have discussed pensions with the trade unions as follows:

  (a) ASLEF 27 October 1992 and 24 February 1993.

  (b) RMT 13 October 1992 and a meeting is planned for later today.

  (c) TSSA 20 October 1992 and 9 March 1993.

  Municipal Buses
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy concerning municipal bus company privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are encouraging passenger transport authorities and local authorities who own bus companies to sell them voluntarily. If they do so before 31 December 1993 they will be able to devote 100 per cent. of the receipts to projects—after that date 50 per cent of the proceeds will have to be used for the reduction of debt. We intend to introduce legislation to require disposal. Each sale requires the consent of the Secretary of State under the Transport Act 1985. Consent is very unlikely to be given to sales other than by competitive tender except when it was given in principle before 1992.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultation he proposes with the employees of municipal bus companies prior to a decision to seek privatised status in accordance with the Transport Act 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. This is a matter for the owning authorities.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many municipal bus companies there are in(a) Wales and (b) England; and what is his estimate of the number of employees engaged in such companies.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are three local authority owned bus companies remaining in Wales and 30 in England. I have no information about the numbers of employees engaged in these companies.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  House Building
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the members of the working group he has established to review restrictions affecting the domestic house building industry; and if he will detail the remit that has been given to the group.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central on 25 March,Official Report, column 703.

  The names of the members of the construction deregulation task force are as follows:

  Christopher Spackman, Chairman, Bovis Construction Ltd. (Chairman).

  David Summerfield, Chief Executive, How Group plc.

  Dr. Bernard Rimmer, General Manager (Construction), Slough Estates plc.

  Richard Saxon, Partner, Building Design Partnership.

  Peter Hulmes, Managing Director, Alfred MacAlpine Construction.

  Roger Humber, Director, House Builders Federation.

  Peter Warry, Chairman, Building Products Division, Norcros plc.

  Maurice Denyer, Fowler (Bros) Cowfold Ltd.

  Small Companies
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made on the Government's review of audit and accounting requirements for very small companies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department has today issued a consultative document seeking views on proposals offering very small companies relief from the compulsory audit requirement. This follows a review of audit and accounting requirements for such companies conducted by my Department in consultation with HM Treasury and the Inland Revenue.

  The Department is seeking views on proposals that very small companies may be exempted from audit if shareholders agree. Two alternative approaches have been identified and the Government will decide which option to adopt in the light of responses to the consultative document.

  Option A: Abolition
  Exemption from the audit requirement, with nothing to replace the auditor or audit report;
  or

  Option B: Replacement
  In place of the audit report, a company would be required to provide a compilation report, produced by a suitably qualified independent accountant, confirming that the annual accounts have been prepared from the company's accounting records in accordance with the relevant format and disclosure requirements of the Companies Act 1985. The compilation report would be filed along with the accounts at Companies House. The accounts would include a statement by the directors as to their statutory duties in preparing them.

  Option A offers a maximum deregulatory benefit to the companies themselves, while option B offers eligible companies a more limited measure of relief in order to address the concerns of users of accounts.

  Companies which would be eligible to take advantage of the audit exemption would be those:

  333
  with an annual turnover below the VAT registration threshold (which my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, recently proposed to increase to £37,600);
  whose balance sheet total does not exceed £100,000; whose shareholders have unanimously voted to take advantage of the audit exemption;
  which are not public limited companies, part of a group structure or subject to a statute-based regulatory regime, such as the Financial Services Act 1986.

  The exemption from the audit requirement would apply to a financial year for companies that, at the end of that year, satisfied all of the above criteria.

  A copy of the consultative document has been placed in the Library of the House. Comments should reach my Department by 30 June 1993.

  Fuel Industry
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guarantees he is providing to recipients of concessionary fuel and cash in lieu in the run up to and after the industry is privatised.

  Mr. Eggar
  I can assure present and past employees of British Coal with entitlements to concessionary fuel or cash in lieu of fuel, and their eligible dependants, that existing entitlements will be safeguarded before and following privatisation of the industry.

  Oil Exploration
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what circumstances oil companies with licences granted by his Department under previous United Kingdom continental shelf licensing rounds are able to withdraw unilaterally from any exploration and drilling commitments specified in such licences.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are no circumstances in which companies with licences granted under previous United Kingdom continental shelf licensing rounds are able to withdraw unilaterally from any exploration and drilling commitments specified in such licences. However, a licensee may, by giving to the Minister no less than six months' notice in writing, determine the licence. This right to determine the licence is without prejudice to any obligation or liability imposed or incurred under the terms of the licence.

  National Technology Acquisition Plan
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the national strategy technology acquisition plan for aeronautics submitted to him by his Department's aviation committee.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave on 24 March 1993,Official Report, column 613.

  Brown Book
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will be publishing "Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom 1993", the Brown Book.

  Mr. Eggar
  The latest edition of the Brown Book will be published on Wednesday 28 April and I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office.
  334

  Exports
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidelines there are on procedures for companies exporting controlled goods.

  Mr. Needham
  My Department has drawn up a code of practice on export control compliance which I will publish tomorrow and place in the Library of the House.

  Film Distribution Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received about unfair trading practices in the film distribution industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 April 1993]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has received two representations about the film distribution industry. The Office of Fair Trading, however, which is responsible for investigating alleged anti-competitive practices, has received a number of representations from small independent cinemas and is currently making inquiries into the supply of films for exhibition in cinemas.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer to the Director General of Fair Trading the points raised with him in correspondence by the hon. Member for Macclesfield relating to unfair trading practices in the film distribution industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 April 1993]: The points raised by my hon. Friend in his correspondence have been referred to the Director General of Fair Trading, who is currently investigating the supply of films for exhibition in cinemas. It would be inappropriate to make a statement until the DGFT has concluded his inquiries.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his policy on the encouragement of fair trading practices within the film distribution industry; and if he will list those regulations, in the United Kingdom and in Europe, which are designed to bring about such fair trading practices.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 April 1993]: Under United Kingdom legislation, investigation of allegedly anti-competitive or monopolistic behaviour is the responsibility of the Director General of Fair Trading. The DGFT may consider this behaviour under either the Fair Trading Act 1973 or the Competition Act 1980. Anti-competitive practices which affect trade between member states are handled by the European Commission under articles 85 and 86 of the treaty of Rome.

  British Geological Survey
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to market test areas of work that have historically been the prerogative of the British Geological Survey.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 26 April 1993]: The Department is preparing to seek competitive bids for work under the hydrocarbons programme, which has previously been let to the British Geological Survey.
  335

ENVIRONMENT

  Homelessness
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many persons were registered as homeless in the Greater Manchester area in 1979 and in 1992.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local, authorities report the number of households for whom they accept responsibility for securing permanent accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and the Housing Act 1985 in their quarterly P1(E) returns.

  The numbers of households accepted as homeless in Greater Manchester in 1979 and 1992 were 3,370 and 14,120 respectively.

  A new reporting system was introduced for metropolitan authorities from the third quarter of 1982. In addition the definition of acceptances was altered from the second quarter of 1991 to exclude intentionally homeless households. For these reasons figures for 1979 are therefore not strictly comparable with those for 1992.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the council of the Isles of Scilly regarding the council tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My Department has received a number of letters and telephone calls from the Isles of Scilly Council about the council tax. In addition, I met my hon. Friend, together with a delegation from the Isles of Scilly Council, on 9 December 1992 and again on 27 April.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the weekly £10 premium paid to participants on training for work and on the community action programme will be disregarded for council tax purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The £10 a week training premium is fully disregarded in council tax benefit The £10 a week premium for people on the community action programme will be similarly disregarded when it is introduced later this year.

  Housing Management
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce a national licensing scheme of persons managing houses in multiple occupation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department has no plans to introduce a national licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). Local authorities already have sufficient powers under Part XI of the Housing Act 1985 to control standards in HMOs.

  Disabled Workers
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to prevent disabled workers being discriminated against within the terms of compulsory competitive tendering procedures.
  336
  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is this Government's intention that local authorities be given every encouragement to employ the disabled. Regulations governing the operation of compulsory competitive tendering, laid before the House on 29 March, allow local authorities to take into account, for the purposes of tender evaluation, the net additional costs of employing both the registered disabled and those eligible to register under the 1944 Act.

  Buying Agency
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what objectives and targets have been set for the Buying Agency for 1993.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have asked the new chief executive, Stephen Sage, to review the strategic direction of the Buying Agency over the next few months. As part of this, I have asked him to work to the following objectives arid targets for 1993:

  PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS 1993

  —to manage the Agency's operations efficiently and to give its customers best value for money;

  —to implement systems to identify more closely individual customers and their procurement requirements, within the public sector and particularly within central Government;

  —to develop better systems to monitor suppliers' delivery performance against direct call-off orders;

  —to continue to develop awareness within the public sector, particularly within central Government, of the benefits and services available from TBA;

  —through achieving these objectives, to develop and expand TBA's customer base and to monitor its progress in doing so.

  In support of these objectives I have set the agency challenging key targets for 1993:

  —an overall profit after interest in current cost terms of not less than 1·5 per cent. of the total sales value of goods and services procured;

  —an increase in the total attributable sales volume from £131 million in 1992 to £145 million for 1993;

  —at least 90 per cent. of orders which TBA handles directly on behalf of customer departments to be delivered by the due date;

  —to acknowledge all customer complaints within two working days of receipt, indicating a proposed course of action; thereafter, to keep the customer regularly informed of progress (no less frequently than every 10 working days); to resolve 75 per cent. of complaints within one month of receipt and the remainder within three months.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in privatising the PSA's building management businesses.

  Mr. Redwood
  A shortlist of bidders has been selected for each business from those making indicative bids. Shortlisted bidders include a Management Buyout (MBO) team for BM Scotland. In line with normal Government practice a contribution is being made to MBO teams' costs in preparing bids. Shortlisted bidders have until 1 June to make detailed practical bids. We hope to exchange contracts as soon as practicable thereafter. Staff will then have the opportunity to decide whether to transfer with their businesses into the private sector and we expect the sales to be completed about two months after exchange of contracts.

  Water Disconnections
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give figures for the number of disconnections in England of domestic water supply for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 26 April 1993]: The information is set out in the following table. Information on disconnections prior to privatisation was only collected by the Department for water authorities as part of the water authorities' annual charges returns, and comprises total disconnections (domestic and non-domestic). Information on statutory water company disconnections was not collected by the Department prior to 1988–89.

  Number

  Water authorities only (domestic and non-domestic)

  1987–88

  7,447

  Domestic and non-domestic

  1988–89

  14,006

  1989–90

  7,070

  1990–91

  6,368

  1991–92

  18,331

  11992

  7,212

  1 April to September.

  Housing Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 14 December 1992,Official Report, columns 57–60, if he will update the table on housing capital spending by region for 1992–93.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 26 April 1993]: The available information, which covers the first three quarters of 1992–93 only, is given in the table. The latest estimate for local authority housing capital expenditure for the whole of 1992–93 is£2· billion.

  Local authority housing capital expenditure by region, April-December 1992.

  £ million

  Current prices

  11981 prices

  North (excluding Cumbria)

  81

  43

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  141

  75

  East Midlands

  96

  51

  Eastern

  138

  74

  Greater London

  317

  169

  South East

  177

  94

  South West

  114

  61

  West Midlands

  170

  91

  North West

  237

  126

  Unallocated

  61

  32

  1,532

  817

  1 Current price figures have been converted to 1981 prices by excluding the effect of general inflation as measured by the GDP market prices deflator.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Agencies
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will update the list of next steps agencies.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The information requested is as follows:338

  Next Steps Agencies established to date

  Agency

  Launch date

  Accounts Services Agency

  1 October 1991

  ADAS Agency

  1 April 1992

  Army Base Repair Organisation

  1 April 1993

  Building Research Establishment

  2 April 1990

  Cadw (Welsh Historic Monuments)

  2 April 1991

  Central Office of Information

  5 April 1990

  Central Science Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  Central Statistical Office

  19 November 1991

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  2 April 1990

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment

  2 April 1991

  Chessington Computer Centre

  1 April 1993

  Civil Service College

  6 June 1989

  Companies House

  3 October 1988

  Compensation Agency

  1 April 1992

  Defence Analytical Services Agency

  1 July 1992

  Defence Operational Analysis Centre

  1 July 1992

  Defence Postal and Courier Services

  1 July 1992

  Defence Research Agency

  2 April 1991

  Directorate General of Defence Accounts

  1 April 1991

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  2 April 1990

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  1 April 1992

  Driving Standards Agency

  2 April 1990

  Duke of York's Royal Military School

  1 April 1992

  DVOIT

  1 April 1992

  Employment Service

  2 April 1990

  Fire Service College

  1 April 1992

  Forensic Science Service

  1 April 1991

  Government Property Lawyers

  1 April 1993

  Historic Royal Palaces

  1 October 1989

  Historic Scotland

  2 April 1991

  Her Majesty's Prison Service

  1 April 1993

  HMSO

  14 December 1988

  Hydrographic Office

  6 April 1990

  Insolvency Service

  21 March 1990

  Intervention Board

  2 April 1990

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  30 October 1989

  Land Registry

  2 July 1990

  Medicines Control Agency

  11 July 1991

  Meteorological Office

  2 April 1990

  Military Survey

  2 April 1991

  National Physical Laboratory

  3 July 1990

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  18 April 1989

  Natural Resources Institute

  2 April 1990

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation

  1 April 1992

  NEL

  5 October 1990

  NHS Estates

  1 April 1991

  NHS Pensions Agency

  20 November 1992

  Northern Ireland Child Support Agency

  5 April 1993

  Occupational Health Service

  2 April 1990

  Ordnance Survey

  1 May 1990

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland

  1 April 1992

  Patent Office

  1 March 1990

  Paymaster General's Office

  1 April 1993

  Pesticides Safety Directorate

  1 April 1993

  Planning Inspectorate

  1 April 1992

  Public Record Office

  1 April 1992

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  6 July 1989

  Queen Victoria School

  1 April 1992

  Radiocommunications Agency

  2 April 1990

  RAF Maintenance

  2 April 1991

  Rate Collection Agency

  1 April 1991

  Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency

  2 April 1991

  Registers of Scotland

  6 April 1990

  Royal Mint

  2 April 1990

  Royal Parks

  1 April 1993

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  1 April 1992

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  12 April 1991

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  1 April 1993

  Scottish Prison Service

  1 April 1993

  Scottish Record Office

  1 April 1993

  Service Children's Schools (North West Europe)

  24 April 1991

  Social Security Agency (Northern Ireland)

  1 April 1992

  Social Security Benefits Agency

  2 April 1991

  Social Security Child Support Agency

  5 April 1993

  Social Security Contributions Agency

  2 April 1991

  339

  Agency

  Launch date

  Social Security Information Technology Services Agency

  2 April 1990

  Social Security Resettlement Agency

  24 May 1989

  Teachers' Pensions Agency

  1 April 1992

  The Buying Agency

  31 October 1991

  Training and Employment Agency (Northern Ireland)

  2 April 1990

  Transport Research Laboratory

  2 April 1992

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  2 April 1991

  Valuation and Lands Agency

  1 April 1993

  Valuation Office

  30 September 1991

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  2 April 1990

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  1 August 1988

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  2 April 1990

  Warren Spring Laboratory

  20 April 1989

  Wilton Park Conference Centre

  1 September 1991

  HM Customs and Excise1 (30 Executive Units)

  1 April 1991

  Inland Revenue1 (34 Executive Offices)

  1 April 1992

  1 Departments operating fully on next steps lines.

  Food Research and Development
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list total Government expenditure on food research and development for each year from 1978–79 to 1992–93 in(a) cash and (b) constant prices and set out projected Government expenditure on food research and development for each year from 1993–94 to 1996–97 in (i) cash and (ii) constant prices.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  [holding answer 21 April 1993]: Government funding for food research and development is mainly directed through the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, the Agricultural and Food Research

  Agriculture and Food Research Council institute staffing 1979–19861

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Institute

  Science

  Non-science

  Science

  Non-science

  Science

  Non-science

  Science

  Non-science

  Science

  Non-science

  Science

  Non-science

  Science

  Non-science

  Science

  Non-science

  ABRO

  99

  113

  77

  138

  63

  131

  64

  130

  57

  119

  62

  92

  70

  79

  85

  78

  IRAD

  137

  189

  132

  191

  117

  175

  119

  175

  122

  165

  109

  140

  97

  127

  80

  115

  IAP

  152

  146

  188

  178

  189

  175

  191

  173

  187

  175

  174

  174

  165

  153

  199

  143

  FRI (IFR, N)

  109

  66

  126

  66

  140

  64

  154

  64

  168

  72

  207

  79

  195

  78

  —

  —

  MRI (IFR, B)

  124

  83

  125

  83

  115

  88

  122

  88

  128

  79

  137

  85

  143

  74

  —

  —

  PRC

  109

  114

  107

  114

  114

  102

  115

  101

  115

  97

  116

  94

  111

  83

  106

  68

  LL

  77

  37

  78

  37

  76

  45

  80

  44

  80

  43

  68

  36

  —

  —

  —

  —

  WRO

  95

  54

  91

  57

  84

  50

  88

  52

  86

  52

  75

  45

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Units

  160

  45

  123

  19

  136

  22

  132

  22

  129

  30

  135

  34

  141

  39

  122

  35

  AVRI

  126

  180

  131

  176

  111

  171

  110

  171

  110

  171

  110

  170

  95

  129

  88

  118

  EMRS

  180

  184

  174

  188

  164

  185

  161

  176

  162

  176

  153

  169

  141

  157

  —

  —

  GCRI

  141

  109

  140

  124

  138

  122

  138

  122

  137

  122

  133

  120

  123

  106

  —

  —

  GRI (AGRI)

  187

  114

  178

  110

  178

  111

  186

  124

  183

  124

  182

  119

  262

  186

  249

  173

  HRD

  8

  —

  8

  —

  6

  —

  7

  —

  7

  —

  6

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  HPRS

  90

  130

  88

  123

  91

  114

  90

  114

  90

  113

  90

  107

  90

  101

  92

  80

  JII

  84

  77

  84

  78

  86

  78

  85

  82

  85

  77

  78

  73

  86

  63

  120

  65

  LARS

  163

  114

  163

  115

  159

  114

  169

  119

  158

  115

  152

  116

  197

  143

  152

  101

  NIAE

  149

  267

  148

  271

  140

  256

  145

  270

  141

  273

  198

  264

  129

  268

  144

  245

  NIRD (IFR, R)

  271

  224

  261

  226

  261

  232

  266

  238

  262

  232

  261

  234

  121

  82

  —

  —

  NVRS

  140

  74

  139

  73

  135

  73

  146

  77

  144

  79

  144

  76

  129

  70

  —

  —

  PBI2

  169

  79

  157

  80

  163

  82

  162

  82

  159

  81

  151

  76

  139

  77

  160

  73

  RES

  426

  211

  421

  214

  415

  214

  420

  212

  391

  189

  373

  188

  371

  182

  347

  179

  SSLRC3

  65

  15

  65

  15

  63

  15

  63

  14

  62

  15

  63

  15

  60

  15

  34

  6

  WPBS

  156

  115

  156

  123

  154

  122

  158

  119

  153

  119

  149

  117

  132

  113

  125

  99

  IFR

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  534

  226

  IHR

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  360

  315

  Total

  3,417

  2,740

  3,360

  2,799

  3,298

  2,741

  3,371

  2,769

  3,316

  2,718

  3,326

  2,623

  3,002

  2,325

  2,997

  2,119

  1 Pre restructuring.

  2 Part of the PBI was transferred to Unilver plc from 1 October 1987.

  3 The SSLRC became part of the Cranfield Institute of Technology on 1 July 1987.

  340
  Council, the Scottish Office Agriculture and Food Department and the Department of Agriculture, Northern Ireland. The aggregated expenditure classified as food research and development from these sources in the past three years is as follows:

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Cash prices

  33·4

  34·7

  38·6

  1992–93 Prices

  36·9

  35·9

  38·6

  Figures for years before 1990–91 and estimates of future expenditure are not held centrally.

  A number of other Government bodies fund research into food research but figures on their expenditure are not held centrally. Although comprehensive figures on Government funded research and development are published in the Annual Review of Government Funded Research and Development, food research and development is not a classification that is used.

  Agriculture and Food Research Council
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the total numbers of(a) science group staff and (b) non-science group staff employed at each of the Agriculture and Food Research Council institutes for each year since 1979; and if he will give estimates up until 1995.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  [holding answer 21 April 1993]: Figures given in the two tables show the institute structure prior to and after the major restructuring which took place in 1986–87.
  341
  Notes:

  1. Figures show staff in post and vacancies, as at 1 April each year.

  2. Figures exclude Agriculture and Food Research Council central office.

  3. Information was not maintained for externally-funded or short-term posts prior to 1987.

  Agriculture and Food Research Council institute staffing 1987–1995

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  11994

  11995

  Institute

  Science

  Non-science

  Science

  Non-science

  Science

  Non-science

  Science

  Non-science

  Science

  Non-science

  Science

  Non-science

  Science

  Non-science

  Science

  Non-science

  Science

  Non-science

  IAH

  296

  294

  302

  282

  285

  260

  318

  252

  348

  254

  373

  261

  350

  248

  343

  243

  343

  243

  IACR2

  540

  262

  495

  253

  483

  251

  464

  257

  467

  252

  458

  252

  449

  249

  440

  244

  440

  244

  IAPGR

  274

  237

  264

  235

  282

  233

  353

  250

  335

  235

  361

  233

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  BI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  208

  130

  200

  130

  200

  130

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  150

  103

  151

  98

  151

  98

  IFR

  514

  222

  517

  213

  463

  207

  425

  180

  308

  133

  338

  136

  335

  136

  328

  133

  328

  133

  IGER

  408

  277

  400

  278

  383

  270

  329

  236

  303

  221

  252

  140

  248

  137

  243

  134

  243

  134

  IHR3

  310

  86

  300

  101

  289

  106

  266

  125

  284

  130

  298

  139

  305

  139

  299

  136

  299

  136

  SRI

  128

  218

  112

  217

  123

  217

  129

  207

  113

  180

  no

  163

  106

  160

  103

  155

  103

  155

  IPSR

  327

  300

  336

  282

  341

  263

  304

  288

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  2,797

  1,896

  2,726

  1,861

  2,649

  1,807

  2,588

  1,795

  2,158

  1,405

  2,190

  1,324

  2,151

  1,302

  2,107

  1,273

  2,107

  1,273

  1 Planned.

  2 Figures for IACR from 1990 include the Broom's Barn Experimental Station. Prior to that, Broom's Barn was not part of the Agriculture and Food Research Council complement.

  3 IHR became part of Horticulture Research International, a MAFF-controlled NDPB, from 1 April 1990.

  Notes:

  1. Figures show staff in post and vacancies, as at 1 April each year.

  2. Figures exclude Agriculture and Food Research Council central office.

  3. Information was not maintained for externally-funded or short-term posts prior to 1987.

  4. The SSLRC became part of the Cranfield Institute of Technology on 1 July 1987.

HEALTH

  Dentistry
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy that any patient unable to afford the patient's contribution under any new service arrangements for dentistry which are introduced following her consideration of the Bloomfield report will continue to be eligible for the full range of dental treatment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are consulting widely on the Bloomfield report and will announce our conclusions in due course.

  Deafness
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate she has of the number of elderly people in the United Kingdom who would benefit from hearing aids;

  (2) what plans she has to improve the availability of, and access to, hearing aids for the elderly.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Institute of Hearing Research estimates that the number of people who could benefit from a hearing aid is about 4·4 million. The majority of these are likely to be elderly people.

  Hearing aids are available through the national health service, normally on referral from hospital ear, nose and throat departments. We have funded a number of pilot projects for direct referral by general practitioners to audiology departments. The result of the projects will be available shortly.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she will take to ensure that war pensioners in the Newcastle area suffering from deafness have access to 342
  adequate ear, nose and throat facilities; and how meeting the present demand affects the NHS provisions for the general public who are hearing impaired or profoundly deaf.

  Mr. Yeo
  District health authorities are responsible for purchasing services, including ear, nose and throat services, to meet the health needs of their resident population. There is a long-standing arrangement whereby, subject to considerations of clinical need, war pensioners receive priority in examination and treatment in national health service hospitals, in connection with the condition(s) for which they receive a pension or gratuity. I understand that special clinics for war pensioners have. been set up at the Freeman NHS trust and there has been no reduction in the service offered to other patients.

  Mental Hospitals
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes there have been since 1986 in the collection of figures on closures of mental hospitals and loss of beds in mental hospitals; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr Yeo
  In April 1987 a new system of data collection covering hospital activity and facilities was introduced followed the recommendations of the Korner committee. The new inquiry into available beds in England replaced an earlier inquiry discontinued after 1986. The new inquiry differed in being on a financial year basis and in classifying beds according to ward type, but figures for beds in mental illness wards continued to be separately collected.

  The information on the closure of mental hospitals has not been collected centrally on a routine basis since 1991.In order to carry forward its work, the mental health task force led by David King will in future need to collect information of this type.
  343

  Secure Accommodation (Juveniles)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those dates in the last year where no secure accommodation was available for juveniles at the time the request was made.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not available centrally. Figures on the levels of occupancy of individual secure units throughout the year are published in "Children Accommodated in Secure Units, year ending 31 March England". A copy is available in the Library.

  Unemployment
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies she has undertaken to assess a possible association between ill-health and unemployment; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him on 19 January at col 224.

  Administrative Staff
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed within the national health service in administration and management, by(a) hospitals and (b) family health service authorities in each of the years 1990, 1991 and 1992; and what the costs were in each year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information available is shown in the tables.

  Staff numbers in England at 30 September each year (whole-time equivalents)

  Administrative and clerical

  General and senior1 managers

  1990

  1991

  1990

  1991

  Hospitals and2 community health services

  111,640

  118,810

  8,990

  12,400

  Family health service authorities

  4,350

  4,650

  640

  820

  Source: Annual Census of Non-Medical Manpower.

  Notes:

  1 In 1991 administrative and clerical staff represented approximately 15·9 per cent. of the total NHS work force; general and senior managers approximately 1·7 per cent. General and senior manager figures include some redesignation between staff groups, for example from nursing and midwifery.

  2 Staff numbers solely for hospitals are not centrally available. The figures in the table include staff in regional and district health authority headquarters and the London postgraduate teaching hospitals but exclude staff in other special health authorities and the London ambulance service.

  3 Figures for 1991 include staff in NHS trusts.

  4 Figures for 1992 are not yet available.

  Staff salaries and wages costs in England for the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92

  Administrative and Clerical (£000)

  General and Senior Managers (£000)

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Hospitals and1 community health services

  1,187,029

  1,382,758

  251,475

  383,380

  344

  Administrative and Management Grades2

  1990–91 (£000)

  1991–92 (£000)

  Family health service authorities

  66,253

  79,942

  Sources: Annual accounts (1990–91) and annual financial returns (1991–92) of family health service authorities and of regional and district health authorities in England and those of the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals. Annual financial returns of the first-wave NHS trusts (1991–92).

  1HCHS covers the total expenditure on salaries and wages by health authorities and NHS trusts including hospital, community health, patient transport (ie ambulances), blood transfusion and other services. The figures are for gross pay costs including employers' national insurance and superannuation contributions.

  2It is not possible to disaggregate the figures for administrative and clerical staff and general and senior managers in the family health service authority figures. The figures include the costs of a small number of nursing and other staff.

  Notes:

  (1) The figures for 1991–92 include costs for staff in NHS Trusts.

  (2) Figures for the 1992–93 financial year are not yet available.

  (3) In 1991–92, Administrative and Clerical pay costs represented approximately 11 per cent. of total HCHS staff costs and those for general and senior managers approximately 3 per cent.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff in respect of whom 70 per cent. of salaries were reimbursed were employed by general practitioners in England and Wales at the most recent convenient date.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At 1 April 1992 there were 79,092 whole and part-time staff employed by general practitioners in England, whose salary costs were reimbursed in whole or part by family health services authorities (FHSAs). From 1 April 1990 FHSAs have had discretion to vary the level of reimbursement taking account of all relevant factors. Information on practitioners' staff in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish figures showing the number of general practitioner trainers and the number of general practitioner trainees, together with the cost per annum, for each of the years since 1980.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is shown in the table.

  Year

  Trainers

  Trainees

  Grants to trainers

  Trainee salaries and expenses

  1980

  1,856

  1,353

  2,483,956·09

  9,917,847·78

  1981

  2,040

  1,561

  3,668,541·79

  15,338,492·27

  1982

  2,236

  1,577

  4,823,773·39

  19,313,059·64

  1983

  2,335

  1,624

  5,564,119·18

  21,286,172·31

  1984

  2,370

  1,703

  5,694,568·18

  23,767,572·27

  1985

  2,451

  1,758

  5,886,779·28

  26,475,607·37

  1986

  2,496

  1,654

  6,242,737·30

  28,517,366·98

  1987

  2,527

  1,710

  6,356,385·12

  30,669,887·79

  1988

  2,469

  1,685

  6,470,457·00

  33,358,905·00

  1989

  2,472

  1,735

  6,928,037·00

  36,449,935·00

  1990

  2,726

  1,562

  7,735,844·00

  40,457,508·00

  1991

  2,824

  1,639

  7,939,576·00

  42,264,385·00

  1992

  2,940

  1,613

  8,162,085·00

  46,083,103·00

  Notes:

  Financial data relates to the period ending 31 March each year and is taken from summarised accounts.

  Data relating to numbers is at 1 October each year and the 1992 figure is provisional.

  All data relates to England only.
  345
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions general practitioners provided maternity services, and what payments were made to them, in respect of(a) complete care, (b) ante-natal care only, (c) confinement only, (d) pre-natal care and (e) miscarriage, in each year since 1980.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on maternity medical services is not available centrally at the level requested. The gross cost of maternity medical services in England since 1980 is shown in the table.

  General medical services—maternity medical services fees

  Maternity medical services (£000s)

  1979–80

  19,072

  1980–81

  25,643

  1981–82

  28,238

  1982–83

  30,423

  1983–84

  32,399

  1984–85

  36,868

  1985–86

  41,580

  1986–87

  42,948

  1987–88

  48,564

  1988–89

  53,733

  1989–90

  57,983

  1990–91

  65,945

  1991–92

  69,045

  Data taken from summarised accounts.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many night visits were undertaken by general practitioners; and what expenditure was incurred by such visits in(a) the higher rates and (b) the lower rates for deputising services.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The cost and estimated number of night visits in each financial year since 1980 is shown in the table.

  General medical services—night visit fees

  Year

  Night visit payment £ million

  Night visit fee £ million

  Number of visits

  1979–80

  3,812

  6·75

  564,700

  1980–81

  6,059

  10·50

  577,032

  1981–82

  7,226

  11·80

  612,399

  1982–83

  8,278

  12·75

  649,292

  1983–84

  9,023

  13·24

  681,531

  1984–85

  10,510

  14·70

  714,941

  1985–86

  12,402

  15·55

  797,524

  1986–87

  12,282

  16·10

  762,828

  1987–88

  14,185

  17·20

  824,732

  1988–89

  16,922

  18·75

  902,480

  1989–90

  18,958

  20·25

  936,187

  1990–91

  Higher

  49,275

  45·00

  1,095,003

  Lower

  6,725

  15·00

  448,303

  1991–92

  Higher

  52,198

  45·00

  1,159,956

  Lower

  8,376

  15·00

  558,428

  1. Data taken from summarised accounts.

  2. In 1990 the new GP contract extended the period night visits fees could be claimed for by two hours, consequently the numbers of visits in 1989–90 and 1990–91 are not directly comparable.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total expenditure incurred in each of the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 in respect of additional payments made to general practitioners for(a) meeting target
  346
  figures respectively, for immunisation and cervical smears, (b) health promotion clinics, (c) new patient check-ups, (d) minor surgery, (e) teaching medical students, (f) vaccination and immunisation fees and (g) contraception treatments, giving respectively, annual fees for ordinary and intra-uterine device treatment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information for years 1990–91 and 1991–92 on an accruals basis is shown in the table. The 1992–93 data are not yet available.

  Expenditure on selected items All figures taken from the summarised accounts

  1990–91 £ million

  1991–92 £ million

  (a) Targets

  Childhood immunisation

  Higher

  35·602

  38·257

  Lower

  3·636

  1·556

  Pre-school boosters

  Higher

  11·108

  10·916

  Lower

  1·507

  0·860

  Cervical cytology

  Higher

  42·423

  46·262

  Lower

  6·543

  3·052

  (b) Health promotion

  44·309

  64·024

  (c) Registration (new patient checkups)

  15·264

  19·955

  (d) Minor surgery

  16·645

  21·324

  (e) Teaching students

  7·940

  8·162

  (f) Vaccination and immunisation

  33·746

  24·405

  (g) Contraception

  Ordinary (£12·75)1

  37·634

  39·923

  IUD (£42·75)1

  4·461

  4·343

  1 Annual fees 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the average income of a general practitioner in England and Wales for each year since 1980.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The average net income of general practitioners in Great Britain is listed together with the average gross income of general practitioners in England. Average net income for England and Wales separately is not available. Information on GPs in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Information on GP income 1979–80 to 1991–92

  Average income (England) including expenses £

  Average net income (GB) excluding expenses as reported by DDRB £

  1979–80

  19,942

  11,902

  1980–81

  28,306

  15,608

  1981–82

  31,775

  17,793

  1982–83

  35,075

  19,940

  1983–84

  37,092

  20,404

  1984–85

  41,483

  22,687

  1985–86

  44,241

  23,849

  1986–87

  46,221

  24,601

  1987–88

  50,148

  26,508

  1988–89

  55,380

  28,979

  1989–90

  61,266

  31,388

  1990–91

  76,045

  137,204

  1991–92

  187,873

  n/a

  1 Provisional figures.

  347
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner practices are now general practitioner fund holders; and how many individual general practitioners that figure embraces.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At 31 March 1993 there were over 3,000 general practitioners in 585 GP practices in the GP fund holding scheme. Final figures are not yet available for 1993–94 but provisional figures show more than double this number of GP practices have been offered and have accepted budgets from 1 April 1993.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has as to the range of surpluses accumulated by general practitioner fund-holding practices during the most convenient recent period.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In 1991–92 general practitioner fund holders nationally achieved surpluses on their budget of about four per cent. Regional averages ranged from 9·1 per cent. to 1·5 per cent.

  Prescription Charges (Students)
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will allow free prescriptions to students in receipt of income below the income support level and suffering from(a) cystic fibrosis, (b) ankylosing spondylitis or (c) other chronic illnesses not on the list of medical conditions which confer exemption from prescription charges; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Young people under 19 and in full-time education are exempt from national health service charges. Remission of NHS charges, including those for prescriptions, is available under the NHS low income scheme to students aged 19 or over who are of limited means and irrespective of their medical condition.

  Trust Hospitals
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is her Department's recommended procedure for hon. Members to meet chief executives of trust hospitals to discuss cases involving and affecting their constituents; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what advice she has given chairmen and chief executives of trust hospitals on meeting hon. Members to discuss problems raised with them by constituents; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department encourages trusts to develop good communications with local Members of Parliament. The precise arrangements are matters for individual trust boards.

EDUCATION

  English
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will arrange for the key stage 3 English proposals of the Curriculum Council for Wales to be sent to all secondary schools in England.

  Mr. Forth
  No. The recommendations of the Curriculum Council for Wales (CCW) for the revision of 348
  the National Curriculum Order for English are addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. In most respects they are in agreement with the recommendations of the National Curriculum Council, which my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales adopted as the basis of the proposals which they published for consultation on 15 April. The CCW did, however, recommend certain differences which were indicated in my right hon. Friends' proposals. The chief of these were requirements relating to spoken standard English and the range of pupils' reading which were recommended by the CCW as more appropriate to pupils learning English in Wales. The CCW recommendations are therefore being circulated to all schools in Wales, to inform the consultation on my right hon. Friends' proposals in that country. Those proposals are for a single order, to apply to schools in England and Wales, but they raise the question whether the lists of required or recommended reading in the programmes of study should allow some variation for pupils in Wales to include appropriate representation of work in English by Welsh writers.

  Student Finances
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what plans he has to increase the value of student grants to take account of the Budget proposal to level VAT on domestic heating;

  (2) what estimate he has made of the impact on student indebtedness of the proposal in the Budget to levy VAT on domestic heating.

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

  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the current pupil-teacher ratios(a) in England and (b) in the Greater Manchester area.

  Mr. Boswell
  The table shows the overall pupil-teacher ratios, at January 1992, for the maintained nursery, primary and secondary school sector in England and in the metropolitan districts of Greater Manchester (including self-governing state schools).

  LEA

  Overal PTR

  Bolton

  17·40

  Bury

  18·10

  Manchester

  17·40

  Oldham

  17·40

  Rochdale

  16·90

  Salford

  17·50

  Stockport

  18·30

  Tameside

  17·10

  Trafford

  18·50

  Wigan

  16·30

  Greater Manchester

  17·40

  England

  17·44

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the average class size in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools which are (i) county non-denominational, (ii) voluntary aided, (iii) voluntary controlled and (iv) special agreement for the last five academic years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Average sizes of one-teacher classes in maintained primary and secondary schools in England: 1988 to 1992

  Position in January of each year

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Primary

  county

  25·4

  25·7

  25·9

  26·4

  26·4

  voluntary aided

  25·9

  26·1

  26·4

  26·7

  26·8

  voluntary controlled

  24·8

  24·9

  25·0

  25·4

  25·5

  special agreement

  26·8

  28·3

  27·6

  29·7

  29·5

  Secondary

  county

  20·0

  19·9

  20·0

  20·4

  20·8

  voluntary aided

  19·6

  19·7

  19·7

  20·1

  20·2

  voluntary controlled

  19·3

  19·2

  19·3

  19·7

  19·9

  special agreement

  20·9

  20·9

  20·7

  21·5

  21·4

  School Leavers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answers of 16 March,Official Report, columns 136–37, when he expects to be able to update the tables with information about school leavers' destinations for 1991–92.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information about school leavers' destinations for 1991–92 will not be available until June.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Car Thefts (Fatalities)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the maximum sentence where fatality follows as a result of car theft.

  Mr. Jack
  We have no plans at present to review the maximum penalties for offences under the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act 1992. We have, however, made clear our intention to raise the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous or drink driving to 10 years as soon as a suitable legislative opportunity is available.

  Prison Escort Services
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding the circumstances of the delivery of a prisoner from Lindholme prison to Beverley Crown court on Monday 19 April in a private unmarked car rather than a secure van; if he will list all other cases where such transport has been used by Group 4; whether such deliveries break the terms of the contract with Group 4; and what action is being taken with respect to Group 4 in connection with this incident.

  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.
  350
  Letter from Mr. I Dunbar to Mr. Tony Blair, dated 27 April 1993:
  In the temporary absence of the Director General, Mr. Lewis, from the office, the Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary question about the use by Group 4 of an unmarked car in delivering a prisoner from Lindholme Prison to Beverley Crown Court on Monday 19 April and related matters.
  At present the Prison Service uses a considerable number of unmarked, unadapted vehicles—taxis, private hire minibuses and coaches—to move prisoners. It was thus decided that it would be wrong to impose a requirement on contractors that they use cellular vehicles. In their tender, Group 4 proposed to move most prisoners in cellular vehicles, which is what they are doing. As they expected, however, a small minority of prisoners are being moved in non-cellular vehicles, which does not conflict with the terms of their contract. There is no requirement on Group 4 to report to us the occasions on which non-cellular vehicles are used.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners escaped from prison service escorts in the east midlands and Humberside region last year(a) from taxis and (b) from prison service vans.

  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 Mr. I. Dunbar to Mr. Tony Blair, dated 27 April 1993:

  ESCAPES FROM PRISON SERVICE ESCORTS
  In the temporary absence of Mr. Lewis, the Director General, the Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners who escaped from Prison Service escorts in the East Midlands and Humberside region last year from taxis and from Prison Service vans.
  From 1 January 1992 to 31 December 1992 a total of 7 prisoners escaped from Prison Service escorts in the East Midlands and Humberside region. One inmate escaped from a taxi; 6 escaped from hired coaches or mini-buses. There were no escapes in this region from Prison Service vans.
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners escapes have occurred in each court region in each of the last five years from private hire vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  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 Mr. I. Dunbar to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 27 April 1993:

  PRISONER ESCAPES FROM PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES
  In the temporary absence of Mr. Lewis, the Director General, from the office, the Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners, in each court region, who escaped from private hire vehicles over the last five years.
  Information on escapes has only been collated centrally since June 1988 but in any event it is recorded by prisons rather than court regions. The table below shows the number of escapes from vehicles used by the Prison Service on escort duties for each year from June 1988 to the end of December 1992. I am afraid we do not know which of these vehicles were owned by prisons and which were hired and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate expense.

  Escapes from vehicles while under Prison Service escort

  Number

  11988

  24

  1989

  45

  1990

  34

  1991

  39

  1992

  50

  1 From June to December only.

  Police Statistics
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give for each police force in England and Wales in 1971, 1981 and 1991(a) the number of police officers in force, (b) the total number of officers recruited, (c) the total number of officers leaving the force, (d) the number retiring at the end of full service, (e) the number taking early retirement, (f) the number resigning, (g) the number dismissed for incompetence, (h) the number dismissed for criminal offences, (i) retirement on grounds of ill health due to service, and (j) retirement on grounds of ill health not due to service and (k) death while in service.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on police strength, by force, can be found in the appendix to the annual reports of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary, copies of which are in the Library. Information on items(e), (g), (i) and (j) are not held centrally. The other information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Police (Communications)
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken by his Department to encourage police forces in England and Wales to adopt compatible computer and radio communications systems.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office has provided comprehensive guidance to forces on the procurement of computer systems, including advice on achieving compatibility within and between forces. A national information systems strategy for the police is being developed which will further assist moves towards common standards and compatibility between local force systems and those provided on a national basis as well as those operating elsewhere in the criminal justice system.

  As my right hon. and learned Friend announced in his statement on 20 April, Official Report, column 66, the Home Office has recently completed a review of radio communications in the police and fire service in England and Wales. The review identified, among other things, the importance of radio compatibility between individual forces and between the police and other public safety agencies.

  Police Staff
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the turnover of(a) police officers and (b) civilian staff for each police force in England and Wales in 1971, 1981 and 1991 expressed as a percentage of the total police force and civilian staff employed in each force.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  International Police Organisations
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the international police organisations to which the United Kingdom belongs and the main areas of co-operation covered by the organisations.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The International Criminal Police Organisation, Interpol, is the principal channel of communication between police forces throughout the world. Interpol provides an international telecommunications network to enable mutual co-operation between its members in crime and law enforcement activities. The United Kingdom police service is an active member and the Home Office contributes to Interpol's costs.

  Individual police officers from the United Kingdom, responsible for policing ports and airports, are members of the international and European associations of airport and sea port police. These organisations exist to enable officers from different countries to discuss issues of common interest.

  Non-EC Visitors (Speaking Engagements)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will make a statement on the conditions which must be complied with by non-EC visitors to fulfil a speaking engagement in the United Kingdom; and whether an application form for a work permit must be completed on arrival.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  People coming to fulfil speaking engagements in the United Kingdom, for example as participants in an international conference, may qualify as visitors under the immigration rules (HC251), but if the conference is being organised as a commercial venture, work permits are required for those providing services as speakers. A work permit must be obtained by the employer for the non-EC national before he or she arrives in the United Kingdom.

  Marriages (Leave to Remain)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for leave to remain in the United Kingdom following marriage to a British or Irish citizen have been made during the past 12 months; and how many have been granted.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information is that in 1992, 15,690 applications, made after entry to the United Kingdom, to remain for a probationary year prior to settlement as the spouse of a British citizen, were granted. Corresponding information on refusals of such applications by spouses of British citizens is not separately identified in the statistics: in total 1,790 after-entry spouse applications were refused prior to a probationary year. Information on the outcome of applications by spouses of citizens of the Irish Republic is not separately identified.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has taken to increase levels of electoral registration among the black and Asian communities; and what plans he has for further measures.
  353
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We undertake an annual publicity campaign to promote electoral registration by all those eligible to vote, and in particular members of ethnic minorities. In addition, we have provided electoral registration officers (EROs) with model explanatory notes on the registration system in a number of ethnic minority languages for them to adapt according to local circumstances. The form and content of the 1993 campaign is being considered, but ethnic minorities will continue to be one of the key target audiences.

  Police Disciplinary Procedures
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received, and from whom, about the current police disciplinary procedures as they appear in the consultative document on police discipline procedures; and what plans he has to amend the document in the light of the representations.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has asked for responses to the consultation paper by 14 May and he will consider all representations received before deciding what proposals to lay before Parliament. There has been only one response to date, from the deputy chief constable of Cambridgeshire constabulary.

  European Parliament Constituencies
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has decided on the mechanism to ensure fair distribution of constituencies for the 1994 European parliamentary election; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are still considering this matter and will publish our proposals in due course.

  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the annual cost of implementing the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on the costs to the police, local authorities, the Crown prosecution service and the courts of operating the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is not available centrally.

  Police Batons
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 3 March to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby),Official Report, column 76, when the scientific evaluation of the wounding potential of an expandable baton will be completed; when it is expected that trials will begin; what current trials of the straight baton are taking place; who is conducting those trials; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office police scientific development branch expects to report on the wounding potential of expandable batons soon. In the light of its conclusions, we will be discussing with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis possible future trials of the equipment. It is for individual chief officers of other forces to consider their position as to whether or not to test an expandable baton. Avon and Somerset constabulary and Merseyside police have decided to test expandable batons and are currently training officers in their use. Dorset 354
  police have issued a 22-inch straight baton to all officers and Northumbria police expect to do so in June, once training has been completed. The Metropolitan police also expect to test alternative straight batons shortly.

  Racist Organisations
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to restrict the activities of the group called Combat 18; what proposals he has to close the headquarters of organisations advocating violence; and if he will bring forward proposals to make racist violence and harassment a specific offence and to amend the provisions of the Public Order Act 1986 relating to incitement of racial hatred.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The views of racist organisations are unacceptable to the Government and to the public at large. An offence is committed under the Public Order Act 1986 if there is the intention or likelihood of stirring up racial hatred or if threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour takes place. It is for the police and the Crown prosecution service to determine whether proceedings should be brought in any particular case.

  The Commission for Racial Equality has made proposals relating to racial violence in its second review of the Race Relations Act 1976. All the recommendations of the review are currently under consideration.

  Fire Brigade Workshops
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford on his plans for market testing fire brigade workshops, due for answer on 14 April.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to her question on 15 April,Official Report, columns 725–6.

  Primates
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in discussions with other member states in establishing a target date after which the use of wild-caught primates in European research laboratories will be prohibited.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The United Kingdom has suggested to other EC member states that they consider setting target dates beyond which the use of specific breeds of primates would be confined to those which had been purpose bred. This matter will be discussed again later in the year at the group of EEC national competent authorities established under Directive 86/609/EEC.

  Prison Custody Officers
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison custody officers have been released for other duties as a result of the contracting out of the court escort service in the Humberside and east midlands regions; and what new tasks have been assigned to these officers.

  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.
  355
  Letter from Mr. I. Dunbar to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 27 April 1993:
  In the temporary absence of Mr. Lewis, the Director General, from the office, the Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the numbers of prison officers released for other duties as a result of the contracting out of the court escort service in the East Midlands and Humberside, and the new tasks assigned to these officers.
  Our best estimate is that the full time equivalent of 96 officers was freed up as a result of contracting out court escort work. Eighteen posts have been retained at establishments within the contract area and will contribute, as Governors think fit, to the improvement of regimes at those establishments. The remaining staff resources will be redeployed as necessary throughout the Service.

  Polling Stations
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what improvements in access to polling stations will have been carried out in Newbury by 6 May.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The acting returning officer has informed me that, since the general election, the location of seven polling stations within the Newbury constituency has been changed as buildings with better access arrangements have been found in the area.

  I have asked him to write to the hon. Member with details of these and other steps he has taken.

  Mr. Sherman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he has taken to improve access to polling stations since the general election;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to launch a programme of easier access for disabled people to polling stations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is our long-term aim that all polling stations should be accessible to disabled electors. Councils have a statutory obligation to designate as polling places, wherever possible, only places which are accessible to disabled people. We have recently written to returning officers to remind them of their obligations and to circulate guidance produced by the Spastics Society on improving the accessibility of polling stations. One of the working 356
  groups set up as part of our post-election review is also looking at matters relating to access to polling stations. Where it is not possible to use a building affording easy access, we make grants available towards the cost of providing temporary ramps.

  Angling
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions there have been in respect of the disruption of angling competitions in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not recorded centrally.

  Sex/Child Abuse
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on how the operation of the current system for granting bail for alleged sex/child abuse offenders operates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 April 1993]: Decisions regarding court bail, whatever the offence charged, are a matter for the courts in the exercise of their judicial discretion within the terms of the Bail Act 1976. That Act establishes a defendant's right to bail. It is for the prosecution to put forward arguments opposing bail, taking account of information provided by the police and, where appropriate, the probation service.

  The Probation Service strategy document "Supervision of sex offenders", issued in 1992 specifically stresses the high priority that must be given to checking information relevant to bail where a person is charged with sexual offences, particularly if the case involves potential child victims.

  The Government are determined that bail decisions taken at all levels should be based on the best possible information. That is why we have established five bail process projects which are designed to identify ways of improving the process and in the flow of information available to the courts.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Developing Countries
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the recommendations of the United Nations Development Programme on the proportion of developing countries' budgets which should be devoted directly to meeting the priority human needs of their people and the proportion of international aid for development which should directly support those needs.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Through our bilateral aid programmes, and our support for multilateral aid organisations including UNDP, we encourage developing countries to adopt effective poverty reduction strategies and to promote human development, including better education and health, and children by choice. These are two of our priority objectives.

  The proportion of international aid directed to meeting basic human needs varies from country to country. Rather than set sectoral spending targets we believe that needs should be assessed on a country basis which enables us to provide effective aid.

  Development Assistance
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the unweighted average official development assistance of(a) EC countries and (b) Development Assistance Committee countries, as a proportion of gross national product, in 1990, 1991 and 1992; how much the United Kingdom spent by the same measure; and by how much the United Kingdom would have needed to increase its assistance in cash terms in those years to reach (i) EC and (ii) DAC average expenditure.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Figures for 1990 and 1991 are as follows:

  1990

  1991

  (a) Unweighted average net oda as proportion of GNP

  EC average (per cent.)

  0·45

  0·46

  DAC average (per cent.)

  0·47

  0·49

  United Kingdom (per cent.)

  0·27

  0·32

  (b) Increase in United Kingdom oda in cash terms needed to reach EC average expenditure (£ million)

  950

  840

  Increase in cash terms needed to reach DAC average expenditure (£ million)

  1,050

  950

  Figures for 1992 are not yet available.

  Least Developed Countries
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much British aid was spent in the least developed countries in 1990, 1991 and 1992; how much this was as a proportion of gross national product; and by how much British official development assistance to the least-developed countries will have needed to increase in cash terms in those years in order to meet the level recommended by the "United Nations Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries" in 1990.
  358
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information for 1990 and 1991 is as follows. Figures for 1992 are not yet available.

  1990

  1991

  Official development assistance (ODA) to the least developed countries (£ million)

  462

  545

  As a proportion of United Kingdom gross national product (per cent.)

  0·09

  0·10

  Increase in cash terms needed to meet United Nations target for aid to the least developed (0·15 per cent.). Figures rounded to nearest £10 million (£ million)

  360

  310

  The Overseas Development Assistance/gross national product ratios are shown to the nearest two decimal points, as published by the OECD development assistance committee. The cash increases required to meet the 0·15 per cent. target are calculated on a more detailed basis.

  Aid
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the average expenditure on official development assistance as a proportion of Government expenditure in(a) EC countries and (b) DAC countries in 1990, 1991 and 1992; what proportion the United Kingdom spent by the same measure; and by how much United Kingdom assistance would have had to increase in cash terms in those years to match (a) the EC and (b) the DAC average.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information for 1990 is as follows. Comparable figures for 1991 and 1992 Government expenditure are not available.

  1990 Net ODA as a percentage of central Government expenditure

  Per cent.

  (a) EC average

  1·10

  (b) DAC average

  1·18

  (c) United Kingdom

  0·79

  £ million

  Increase in United Kingdom ODA in cash terms1 needed to reach EC average expenditure in 1990

  570

  Increase in United Kingdom ODA in cash terms1 needed to reach DAC average expenditure in 1990

  710

  1 The increases in cash terms are approximate estimates.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the areas of Sudan to which international non-governmental organisations are denied access.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  It is almost impossible to obtain accurate information on areas where NGOs and UN agencies are prevented from operating. At present these include locations in southern Sudan and south Kordofan.

  Cuba
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect of the United States blockade of Cuba on the delivery of United Kingdom emergency aid to that country; and if he will make a statement.
  359
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United States trade embargo has had no practical effect on our emergency aid. We have sourced agricultural fertilisers in Jamaica and milk powder and vitamin tablets in the United Kingdom.

  European Development Fund
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures the ODA is taking to ensure that money spent by the European development fund is devoted to sustainable economic development.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Sustainable development is recognised as one of the central objectives of Community development policy in title XVII of the Maastricht treaty and in the declaration on development policy to the year 2000 adopted under the United Kingdom presidency.

  Guyana
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on future aid to Guyana.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Following the recent election, and in recognition of the sound economic policies being followed by the Government of Guyana, we have offered £15 million of aid for commitment, as far as possible, over the next three years. We have agreed with the Guyana Government that priorities for support will include public administration, water supplies, education, forestry and agriculture.

  In addition, we have agreed to convert our outstanding aid loans to Guyana to grants by retrospectively adjusting their terms, with effect from 1 August 1993, in recognition of Guyana's poverty, indebtedness and its continuing commitment to an International Monetary Fund reform programme. The total value of the retrospective terms adjustment package is £36·3 million in principal and £17·1 million in interest, bringing the overall aid to Guyana to over £68 million.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what details are given by the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations Population Fund, in submitting grant applications, including budgets, to his Department, of the particular purposes to which grants from Her Majesty's Government would be put;

  (2) what conditions are placed by Her Majesty's Government on sums given to the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations Population Fund for population control purposes.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answers 26 April 1993]: We make annual contributions to IPPF and UNFPA in support of their world-wide activities. Our aid programme gives high priority to enabling women and men to have better access to contraceptive services and reproductive health care. IPPF and UNFPA share these goals. The policies, programmes and budgets of IPPF and UNFPA are examined annually by ODA and other donor governments at the IPPF donors meeting and UNFPA governing council respectively.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has 360
  received from (a) the International Planned Parenthood Federation, (b) the United Nations Population Fund and (c) Her Majesty's Government's diplomatic missions in China regarding the use of coercive methods of population control in Tibet.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 26 April 1993]: We have received no such information from IPPF or UNFPA. We receive regular reports from our diplomatic missions in China on a number of issues of concern, including the situation in Tibet.

WALES

  A465
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the latest information he has on traffic flows for(a) all vehicles and (b) heavy goods vehicles on the A465 heads of the valleys road between Abergavenny and the M4 at Llandarcy.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Traffic flows on A465 between Llandarcy and Abergavenny are as follows:

  Section

  1992 annual average daily flow

  1992 goods vehicles

  Llandarcy-Aberdulais

  21,950

  1,750

  Aberdulais-Glynneath

  13,250

  2,050

  Glynneath BP

  9,350

  1,200

  Hirwaun

  13,600

  1,350

  Hirwaun-Baverstocks

  9,400

  1,200

  Baverstocks-Cefn Coed

  10,500

  1,350

  Cefn Coed-Merthyr Ind Est

  9,000

  1,050

  Merthyr Ind Est-Dowlais

  9,400

  1,100

  Dowlais-Rhymney

  18,150

  1,400

  Rhymney-Tredegar

  15,050

  1,700

  Tredegar-Dukestown

  13,450

  1,550

  Dukestown-Ebbw Vale

  14,850

  1,800

  Ebbw Vale-Clydach

  14,375

  1,750

  Clydach-Govilon (A4077)

  17,300

  2,400

  Cerebral Palsy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research is being conducted in Welsh hospitals and medical research centres into cerebral palsy; and what treatment is available in Wales for children suffering from cerebral palsy.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Among current research in Wales, the Cardiff institute of higher education is conducting research into several different aspects of cerebral palsy, including a project on access to communication aids and the evaluation of a movement therapy project for young children with cerebral palsy. In addition, the Welsh Office is funding an audit of cerebral palsy in children in Wales and the treatment they are receiving.

  With regard to treatment, the Welsh Office has recently agreed funding for seven centres to provide neonatal intensive care. These will provide early diagnosis and treatment for babies born with cerebral palsy or at risk following birth. The Welsh perinatal survey, which began in January this year, aims to follow up to the age of seven years babies who have received neonatal intensive care This should lead to early detection of handicaps and appropriate treatment plans. Conventional treatment is

  361
  based on multi-disciplinary care, usually involving paediatricians, therapists and psychologists, with support from the social services. Referral to an orthopaedic surgeon is made in appropriate cases.

  Children may also be referred to the gait analysis centre in Oswestry. The Bobath Cymru centre based at Whitchruch hospital, Cardiff also offers specialist therapy. Other establishments provide education combined with therapy. Individual health authorities would be able to supply fuller details of the treatment and services available in their areas.

  A494
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet Hawarden community council to discuss his plans for road widening on the A494.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The decision on the preferred route, for an improvement to the A494 trunk road from the River Dee to Ewloe was announced on 8 April 1993. A copy of the statement of results of the public consultation and the reasons for the choice of the preferred route for the improvement was sent to the hon. Member at that time and is available to others on request. That statement fully explains the reasons for the choice of route and therefore I can see no useful purpose in meeting with Hawarden community council.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish a public inquiry concerning proposals to widen the A494 Queensferry-Aston Hill carriageway; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The proposals for widening the A494 trunk road between the River Dee and Ewloe will follow the normal procedures for such road improvements. These procedures were described in the statement of results of the public consultation and reasons for the choice of the preferred route for the improvement, a copy of which has been sent to the hon. Member.

  Breast Screening
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to make arrangements for the breast screening programme in Wales to provide an appropriate level of service in Newport, Gwent.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Breast Test Wales provides a breast screening service throughout Wales. Detailed information about current and planned screening programmes is not held centrally. This is available from the director of Breast Test Wales who is responsible for the management and delivery of the service.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what services are available in Wales to provide support and counselling for children who have been the victims of physical or sexual abuse.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Precise information of the type requested is not held centrally. Guidance for dealing with cases of child abuse set out in "Working Together Under the Child Act 1989" seeks to ensure appropriate inter-agency working with a view to securing the most appropriate support for such children and their families, including counselling.

  Traffic Congestion Connah's Quay
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet Connah's Quay town council to discuss trunk road traffic congestion.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I can see no useful purpose in meeting Connah's Quay town council to discuss traffic congestion. The Department's publication "Roads in Wales—Progress and Plans for the 1990's," the 1993 supplement for which was issued in March of this year, details the plans for road improvements on trunk roads in Wales including north east Clwyd. One of the objectives of the roads programme is to reduce traffic congestion.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is proposing to help the long-term unemployed in Clwyd.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The North Wales training and enterprise councils and employment service offer a wide range of services which are designed to help the long-term unemployed.

  From 1 April, the largest ever range of measures is available under the training for work initiative. New initiatives including learning for work and the community action programme are also being introduced which will focus specifically on providing help to the long-term unemployed.

  My Department, the Welsh Development Agency and other Government agencies also operate a wide range of other measures aimed at combating unemployment in Clwyd and elsewhere in Wales.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many long-term unemployed there are in(a) Wales, (b) Clwyd and (c) Alyn and Deeside.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In January 1993 the number of claimants who had been unemployed for more than 52 weeks in Wales, Clwyd and Alyn and Deeside district were 46,019, 4,865 and 809, respectively.

  Training
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to ensure an increased number of training places in colleges; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Department has provided for a 28 per cent. increase in further education student numbers in Wales over the next three years. Funding for the Further Education Funding Council for Wales is intended to support an increase of 9·7 per cent. in student numbers to 48,000 full-time equivalents in 1993–94.

  The funding council has set aside £4 million to encourage growth in FE institutions to the given target. The new demand-led element provides funding of £250 per term for each full-time student enrolled at an institution and will enable institutions to gain additional funding for eligible students recruited above target.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he proposes to ensure an increase in apprenticeship training for school leavers; and if he will make a statement.
  363
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Government have always supported employers in their training of young people and believe that modern, flexible apprenticeship schemes have a vital role in securing and promoting vocational training. A number of TECs in Wales are now introducing training credit schemes which cover, inter alia, employer based training opportunities.

  The Government's guarantee of a training place to school leavers ensures that the full range of training opportunities is availble to all young people.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy concerning training opportunities for the disabled in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The training and enterprise councils have a contractual obligation to provide suitable high quality training for people with disabilities.

  From 1 April, people with disabilities have been given priority access to a range of training opportunities under the training for work initiative.

  Provided they are eligible, people with disabilities will also have priority access to a place on learning for work.

  The Employment Service's disability employment advisors also provide a comprehensive range of services to people with disabilities through the local network of jobcentres.

  Youth Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is his policy concerning the youth service;

  (2) by what amount he has increased or decreased. the youth budget for the current financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My policy for the youth service is to support the activities of the Wales Youth Agency and. the national voluntary youth organisations in order to extend the opportunities for young people to develop as individuals and to become active and responsible members of society.

  The 1993–94 current expenditure budget for the support of the agency and the national voluntary youth organisations is £736,000 compared with £728,000 for 1992–93.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many people are employed in the youth service(a) currently and (b) in 1983;

  (2) what is the percentage of part-time and voluntary workers employed in the youth service in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he has taken to encourage liaison between the youth service and police with the intent of combating youth crimes.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Welsh Office has for some years advocated the adoption of a multi-agency or partnership approach to crime prevention (Welsh Office circulars 1/84 and 28/90 refer). The collaborative arrangements which have been developed include representatives from the police and the youth service working together on crime prevention forums

  The initiative in setting up some of these forums was taken by the Welsh Office in providing funds over a
  364
  three-year period to the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders to bring together relevant agencies to tackle youth crime.

  The Department also sponsors the Wales Youth Agency, which provides training, information and curriculum development for those working with young people who might otherwise become involved in crime. Much of the contact between youth work organisations and the police takes place at local level.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the annual budget of the youth service in each of the counties of Wales in 1992 and 1982 at constant prices.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the amount budgeted for youth service in 1992 is not held centrally. Outturn information for the latest year available is given in the table.

  Local authority net current expenditure on youth services at constant 1991–92 prices1

  £000

  1990–91

  1981–82

  Clwyd

  1,402

  1,271

  Dyfed

  198

  201

  Gwent

  2,195

  1,238

  Gwynedd

  1,680

  703

  Mid Glamorgan

  3,613

  1,866

  Powys

  754

  625

  South Glamorgan

  1,954

  1,570

  West Glamorgan

  1,041

  892

  Total Counties

  12,837

  8,364

  1 Information taken from local education authority revenue outturn forms. Definitions changed in 1990–91; hence figures are not strictly comparable with those for 1981–82. Net current expenditure is defined as expenditure on employees and running expenses, less sales, fees, charges, internal recharges and other non-grant income but gross of specific government grants. Includes youth centres and residential youth centres.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those road schemes in Wales which in 1993–94 have been allocated urban programme grants in excess of £1 million; what are the criteria which determine the allocation of such grants; and what is the extent of funding by virtue of such grants.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Road schemes are eligible for urban programme support only where they form an integral part of wider economic regeneration schemes. In 1993–94 one road scheme attracted urban programme grant in excess of £1 million: the highway improvements to the A472/A467 junction at Crumlin, Gwent which is part of the Crumlin regeneration strategy. This project has, in principle, been allocated £1,770 million urban programme in 1993–94, including £0·770 million carried forward from the previous year.

  Ferry Road Refuse Site
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what determination he has made in relation to the application by the Cardiff Bay development corporation for a vesting order on the Ferry road municipal refuse disposal site.
  365
  Mr. David Hunt
  My discussions with the Cardiff Bay development corporation about their proposed acquisition of the Ferry road tip are continuing.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his proposals for reviewing the national curriculum and its assessment in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have asked the chairman of the Curriculum Council for Wales to undertake a general examination of the manageability of the national curriculum in Wales. The broad aim of the review will be to examine the existing curriculum and provide advice on the scope for avoiding over-prescription while retaining clear teaching objectives which can lead to higher education standards. The key items which are to be examined are the scope for simplifying the national curriculum either through its coverage or by providing greater clarity and simplification within each of the orders; the arrangements for conducting a longer term rolling review of the curriculum in Wales; and the appropriate means of grading the attainment of individual pupils including formal testing. In carrying out the examination I have asked that the Curriculum Council for Wales should work closely with the review which is being conducted by Sir Ron Dearing at the request of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.

  Sir Ron Dearing will be examining the arrangements in Wales as well as England in his initial review of the testing and assessment of the national curriculum. I have asked him to take into account, as part of that review, the specific considerations which apply to Welsh language subjects and the arrangements for conducting all tests through the medium of Welsh.

  The conclusions of both reviews will be taken into account by the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales when, subject to the approval of the Education Bill currently before Parliament, it is established in April next year. The first priority of the authority will be to take forward an evolutionary programme of review for the national curriculum in Wales and to develop stable assessment and testing arrangements.

  Mental Handicap Strategy
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial support is available to assist individuals with a mental handicap and their families in Wales and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Under the Welsh Office's very successful mental handicap strategy, a special allocation of £48 million has been made in 1993–94 to support the development of help for mentally handicapped individuals and their families in Wales. This is an increase of 15 per cent. on the 1992–93 allocation of £41·5 million, making a total of over £200 million since the strategy began in 1983.

  Special grants for 1993–94 have been made as follows:

  To the county teams

  £ million

  Clwyd

  5·564

  Dyfed

  4·028

  Gwent

  7·203

  Gwynedd

  5·525

  Mid Glamorgan

  7·104

  366

  £ million

  Powys

  1·941

  South Glamorgan

  5·987

  West Glamorgan

  5·583

  As direct funding to voluntary organisations

  £

  MENCAP

  84,000

  Catholic Children's Society

  8,000

  Standing Conference of Voluntary Organisations

  156,000

  Additionally, the balance of the special grant will be allocated to fund resettlement and new, innovative developments.

  I can confirm that the mental handicap strategy will continue as a vital part of community care. I am confident that the excellent achievements of the strategy provide a firm foundation for the years ahead.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Malawi
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to the Government in Malawi with regard to respect for human rights.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Failure by the Malawian Government to address the international community's concern over human rights led the United Kingdom and other aid donors in May 1992 to suspend non-humanitarian assistance until there are clear signs of improvement. During our Presidency we initiated EC representations calling on the Malawian Government to address concerns over human rights. We continue to raise human rights issues regularly with the Malawian Government.

  The referendum on Malawi's future political system due on 14 June encapsulates many of the key issues in question.

  Britons Abroad (Financial Aid)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the accounting rules for diplomatic posts overseas relating to restrictions on the provision of financial assistance to Britons abroad who have got into serious financial difficulties.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Before financial assistance can be authorised the post must be satisfied that the applicant is destitute, has no funds in the United Kingdom, that his predicament is not of his own making, and that he cannot make use of a cheque card and cannot arrange for the rapid transfer of funds through commercial channels from relatives or friends.

  Additionally, a small loan of up to £20 can be made if a British national loses his funds or has them stolen to enable him to get to an airport or be provided with an emergency passport. We would expect the applicant to have

  reported the loss at a police station;

  called the consulate immediately after making the

  367

  police report;

  produced an air ticket;

  demonstrated that the air ticket is not transferable or refundable and has limited validity.

  In all cases of financial assistance and repatriation, a legally binding undertaking to repay must be signed by the applicant.

  Human Rights Conference
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the forthcoming UN world conference on human rights in Vienna on 14 to 25 June.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom is closely involved in the preparatory process leading to the world conference on human rights, due to be held in Vienna 14–25 June 1993. United Kingdom objectives at the conference will be to promote universal adherence to existing standards, to explore ways to improve their implementation, and to examine the relationship between human rights, democracy and development. The United Kingdom will also work to ensure that, among other issues, the conference addresses the rights of women, children and the disabled.

  Waco Siege
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent loss of life of British citizens at Waco in the United States of America.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 26 April 1993,Official Report, column 288.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the United States Government concerning the recent deaths of British citizens at Waco, Texas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We remain in close touch with the United States authorities about this tragedy and we are giving every assistance to relatives of the United Kingdom citizens affected. President Clinton has ordered an inquiry into the events at Waco. We await the outcome.

  Philippines
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to the Philippines Government about the killing of Mr. Chris Batan from the Bontoc office of Task Force Detainees of the Philippines on 23 February.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We are aware that this case has been highlighted by Amnesty International, and are seeking further information from the Philippine Government, who are investigating the circumstances of the murder.

  Far East
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries he visited on his recent visit to the far east; which ministers or 368
  Government officials he met; and what matters in regard to nuclear non-proliferation and arms exports were discussed.

  Mr. Goodlad
  During his visit to Indonesia my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had discussions with President Soeharto, Foreign Minister Alatas, and Economic and Finance minister Afiff; he also met other Ministers, the Sultan of Yogyakarta, and a number of officials and businessmen. In Japan he met the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, the Finance Minister and the Minister for International Trade and Industry, and in Korea the President, the Foreign Minister and the Minister for National Defence. The discussions in Japan and South Korea covered North Korea's announcement of its intention to withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty. Arms exports were not discussed during the visit.

  South Africa
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the South African authorities on the effect of Mr. Chris Hani's murder on the peace process; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have made every effort to help to minimise the effect of the tragic assassination of Chris Hani on the negotiating process in South Africa, including the provision of a senior police officer to help with the investigation.

  In the next few weeks, the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary will be seeing Nelson Mandela and Chief Buthelezi to discuss the progress of negotiations. The Prime Minister is in regular contact with President de Klerk.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about rape camps in the former Yugoslavia; and what action he now intends to take.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received many representations from members of this House and of the public. Evidence collected by the EC investigative mission into the abuse of women in former Yugoslavia points to rapes having taken place in small centres, such as schools and hotels, rather than large-scale detention of women in camps for the purpose of rape. In response to the mission's recommendations, we have promoted and jointly funded a project to counsel and help rape victims in Bosnia.

  Construction Contracts
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement of his policy on awarding contracts for construction and refurbishment work on the diplomatic estate, indicating, specifically, the steps which are taken to ensure that opportunities to tender are drawn to the attention of British companies.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The FCO's policy is to contract with British firms where competition establishes that they provide best value for money, and where their
  369
  participation is practicable in local circumstances. All major construction and refurbishment projects are advertised in the supplement to the Official Journal of the European Community, in accordance with our obligations under the EC Public Procurement Directive for Works. Information about a wider range of projects is also periodically sent to the Export Group for the Constructional Industries for circulation to its members.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent construction work has been undertaken on the proposed embassy in Berlin; to which companies major contracts have been awarded; what nationality are those companies; what is the value of the contracts; and what steps have been taken to ensure that British companies had the opportunity to tender for the work.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The proposed embassy in Berlin is still at pre-planning stages, and no construction work has yet been carried out. In due course, the project will be advertised in the supplement to the Official Journal of the European Community in accordance with our obligations under the EC Public Procurement Directive for Works and its details will be sent to the Export Group for the Constructional Industries.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent construction work has been undertaken on the high commission in Islamabad; to which companies the major contracts were awarded; what nationality were those companies; what was the value of the contracts; and what steps were first taken to ensure that British companies had the opportunity to tender for the work.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The construction of a new Immigration and Consular building, at a total contract value of about £4·8 million, is currently proceeding in Islamabad. Glauser International, a French contractor with an established operation in Pakistan, is the main contractor. The sub-contractor for the mechanical, electrical and services engineering work (valued at about £2·2 million) is the British firm Balfour Kilpatrick Ltd. This project was drawn to the attention of the Export Group for the Constructional Industries. Eight contractors, including five British, were invited to bid.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent construction work has been undertaken on the embassy in Kiev; to which companies the major contracts were awarded; what nationality were those companies; what was the value of the contracts; and what steps were first taken to ensure that British companies had the opportunity to tender for the work.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The recently-occupied embassy and residence building in Kiev is currently being refurbished at total contract cost of about £300,000. All the contracts were awarded to British companies: Rotary International, Kitchen World and Amity International Ltd. The tender lists were derived from contractors who had expressed an interest in the project.

SCOTLAND

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many appeals have been made to him against the terms of records of needs for children with special needs under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 in the last four years; what are the average and maximum times taken to process such appeals; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the four-year period from 1989 to 1992, 13 appeals were referred to the Secretary of State under section 64(1)(a) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. Of these, six appeals received in 1992 are still under consideration. The other seven appeals were determined on average within eight months but in one case processing took 12 months. The considerations involved in the appeals process are invariably complex, but steps are being taken to bring outstanding appeals to a conclusion as quickly as possible.

  Dentistry
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce a scheme in Scotland similar to that operating in England and Wales giving financial assistance towards the setting up or expansion of dental practices within family health service authorities.

  Mr. Stewart
  There are no plans at present to introduce a similar scheme in Scotland.

  Forth Road Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what forecast he has made of the likely level of tolls for the new Forth road bridge; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As the Government reported in February in our response document to the setting forth consultation, preliminary indications suggest that the additional bridge and associated roadworks identified in that consultation could be supported by a toll comparable in real terms to the toll on the present bridge when it opened in 1964. The 2/6d toll then would compare to around £1·25p now. The precise level of toll on any new bridge will not be known until the completion of a full competitive tender process should the Government decide to proceed with the project following the feasibility studies currently under way.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what force of impact the caissons on the Skye bridge are being constructed to withstand.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The caissons on the Skye bridge have been designed to withstand the impact from a 10,000 tonne dead weight vessel. This allows for all known shipping movements. This 10,000 tonne limit was agreed with Marine Directorate of the Department of Transport.

  Caledonian MacBrayne
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland under what statutory provisions he can override the commercial decisions of the directors of Caledonian MacBrayne.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend's powers and obligations in respect of Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd. are defined in the terms of the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Act 1960 and the undertaking of 15 August 1975 between the Secretary of State and the company. As controlling shareholder of the company, my right hon. Friend has certain other powers and responsibilites, which are defined in the company's articles of association.

  Kyle-Kyleakin Ferry
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the construction of the Skye bridge and its approach roads will result in any physical obstruction to the use of the Kyle-Kyleakin ferry slipways.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The construction of the Skye bridge and its approach roads will not result in any physical obstruction to the use of the Kyle-Kyleakin ferry slipways. HRC's complementary Kyle prospect enhancements, made possible by the bridge, take advantage of the released ferry marshalling area.

  Mr. Clarles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what Scottish Office grant aid was made available for the construction of the piers and slipways presently used by the Kyle-Kyleakin ferry; and what provisions cover the refund of such money.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  White Fish
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what quantities of white fish were withdrawn from the market under intervention in each of the past 12 months at

  Withdrawals of whitefish (tonnes) by port of landing during the period 1 March 1992 to 31 March 1993

  Port

  April 1992

  May 1992

  June 1992

  July 1992

  August 1992

  September 1992

  October 1992

  November 1992

  December 1992

  January 1993

  February 1993

  March 1993

  Eyemouth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Pittenweem

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arbroath

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Aberdeen

  4

  5

  25

  97

  46

  48

  —

  —

  —

  —

  57

  29

  Peterhead

  2

  89

  277

  493

  355

  309

  84

  —

  —

  30

  357

  113

  Fraserburgh

  —

  18

  3

  73

  58

  51

  32

  —

  —

  57

  119

  34

  Macduff

  —

  4

  1

  4

  2

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  Buckie

  —

  1

  4

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  10

  Lossiemouth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wick

  —

  19

  8

  10

  16

  12

  1

  —

  3

  9

  21

  19

  Shetland

  —

  1

  2

  13

  16

  15

  3

  —

  —

  9

  166

  54

  Kinlochbervie

  —

  23

  44

  58

  69

  19

  1

  —

  —

  —

  11

  20

  Stornoway

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  25

  7

  8

  1

  Ullapool

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  Mallaig

  —

  5

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  Oban

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Campbeltown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ayr

  —

  —

  1

  2

  2

  5

  3

  3

  —

  —

  1

  5

  Lochinver

  2

  7

  27

  29

  27

  7

  4

  —

  —

  3

  8

  13

  Forestry
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 477, what comments his Department
  372
  each port; what was the total sum paid to fishermen in respect of these landings; and what quantities of this fish have gone for human consumption (a) abroad or (b) via domestic charities.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 23 April 1993]: None of the white fish withdrawn from the market under intervention has gone for human consumption either abroad or to charities. Full settlement to the producers organisations of compensation payable for fish withdrawn under the European Community's price support system for the year to end December 1992 has yet to take place, though advance payments have been made. Information on the quantities of white fish withdrawn from the market in Scotland under intervention in each of the 12 months to end March 1993, on the ports of landing and on the intervention sums paid so far is set out in the tables.

  Compensation paid to producers organisations in each of the 12 months to end March 1993 following the withdrawal of whitefish from the market

  £

  1992

  April

  12,900

  May

  68,700

  June

  166,600

  July

  51,200

  August

  168,100

  September

  160,400

  October

  45,600

  November

  121,300

  December

  13,800

  1993

  January

  —

  February

  —

  March

  —

  made to the Highland regional council on their draft indicative forestry strategy concerning Caithness; what consideration he has given to the Highland regional

  373
  council's Economic Review Issue No. 19, published in January; if the comments on page 15 accurately reflect his Department's views; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 20 April 1993]: The comments in the Economic Review relate to a letter of 23 October 1992 from the Scottish Office environment department to the regional council commenting that some of the agreements in the council's land use strategy for Caithness and Sutherland were not fully reflected in its draft indicative forestry strategy. The letter also pointed out that the draft omitted reference to the continuing programme of designation of sites of special scientific Interest in the area by Scottish Natural Heritage.

  These comments were made as technical assistance to the council's professional officers and were not formal

  1988 (February-April)

  1989 (February-April)

  1990 (February-April)

  1991 (February-April)

  1992 (February-April)

  1992 (September-December)

  Cormorants only applications

  6

  5

  12

  16

  12

  6

  licences granted

  6

  5

  12

  16

  12

  6

  Goosander and/or mergansers only applications

  12

  9

  12

  13

  2

  —

  licences granted

  12

  9

  12

  10

  2

  —

  Cormorants and goosander/mergansers applications

  23

  23

  18

  32

  20

  3

  licences granted

  23

  23

  18

  24

  20

  —

  Total number of applications submitted

  41

  37

  42

  61

  34

  9

  Total number of licences granted

  41

  37

  42

  50

  34

  6

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) cormorants, (b) goosander and (c) red-breasted merganser were killed under licence in (i) Scotland and (ii) the Tweed catchment, for each year since 1988, to prevent serious damage to fisheries.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 26 April 1993]: The details are as follows for the period 1988–1992.

  1 Birds reported killed under licence in Scotland (excluding the River Tweed)

  Cormorants

  Goosanders

  Mergansers

  1988 (February—April)

  221

  429

  204

  1989 (February—April)

  112

  383

  247

  1990 (February—April)

  335

  673

  421

  1991 (February—April)

  381

  504

  235

  1992 (February—April)

  141

  412

  148

  1992 (September—December)

  46

  —

  —

  2. Birds reported killed under licence in the River Tweed catchment

  Cormorants

  Goosanders

  1988

  50

  258

  1989

  5

  30

  1990

  17

  264

  1991

  26

  164

  1992

  28

  124

  374
  comments on an alteration or review in relation to the existing structure plan. No such alteration or review has been submitted to my right hon. Friend for his approval.

  Fisheries (Bird Killing Licences)
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many licences were applied for, and issued, under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to permit the killing of(a) cormorant, (b) goosander and (c) red-breasted merganser in Scotland for each year since 1988, to prevent serious damage to fisheries.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 26 April 1993]: The information is as follows:

  No application has been received to shoot mergansers in the Tweed catchment during this period.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what analysis has been carried out on the diet of(a) cormorants, (b) goosander and (c) red-breasted merganser killed under licence in (i) Scotland and (ii) the Tweed catchment; and what proportion of their diet was salmon; and what proportion was assessed to constitute serious damage to salmon fisheries.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 26 April 1993]: The Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department (SOAFD) commissioned research from the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology (ITE) in 1987. The programme has been extended to 1994 and is designed to investigate the predatory activities of sawbill ducks (goosanders and mergansers) and other piscivorous birds, and their impact on salmonid populations in Scottish rivers, including the River Tweed. A major element of the programme is an analysis of the gut of birds shot under licence to determine the nature of their diet. Results of this research programme are expected to be available in 1994.

  Community Care
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for the issuing of guidelines to social work departments in relation to the discharging from
  375
  hospitals of psychiatric patients into the community by way of the community care programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 22 March 1993]: Guidance was issued to local authorities, health boards and others in February 1992. My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State is aware of the current review of treatment in the community for people with a mental disorder in England and will consider the need for any changes in Scotland arising from that review.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Third World Debt
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the United Kingdom will implement the Trinidad terms on remission of debt for the poorest countries as indicated by the Prime Minister in October 1991.

  Mr. Nelson
  The United Kingdom conduct their policy with regard to developing country debt issues through the Paris Club. This multilateral approach is shared by our creditor colleagues, and works to the benefit of both creditors and debtors. The United Kingdom Government have an excellent record on initiatives and action on developing country debt—including the Prime Minister's Trinidad terms. For full details, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave recently to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 26 April 1993,Official Report, c. 293.

  Bitumen (Tax)
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how a natural bitumen (CN2714) would be taxed in accordance with EC Council directive 92/81/EEC if such hydrocarbon is used as a fuel for power generation with a price and role similar to that of coal.

  Sir John Cope
  Natural bitumen classified under CN2714 is not specified in EC Council Directive 92/81/EEC and therefore not subject to mineral oils duty under the directive, whereas mixtures based on natural bitumen are classified under CN2715 and when used as a fuel for power generation are subject to duty under the Directive. Clause 10 of the current Finance Bill gives effect to this aspect of the directive.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Inland Revenue regards as business use cases where an employee is provided with a company car and uses it to drive, or to be driven, from home to the normal place of employment.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Home-to-work travel in a car made available by an employer is normally regarded as private use.

PRIME MINISTER

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he received on the dangers of plutonium proliferation from the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield during his most recent visit to Washington DC.
  376
  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Visually Impaired People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister what action Government Departments have taken, or will be taking, to improve official communications with people who are visually impaired by providing more information in large print, braille or on tape; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  A number of Government publications have already been produced for people who are visually impaired. Examples are given in the following table:

  BRAILLE

  Cabinet Office

  The Citizen's Charter First Report: A Guide (also available in audio cassette version)

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food>

  New Microwave Labels (to be issued shortly—also available in audio cassette and large print versions)

  Employment

  Jobseeker's Charter

  P.A.C.T. (Placing, assessment and counselling teams)

  Environment

  Council Tax: A Guide to the New Tax for Local Governments (also available in audio cassette and large print versions)

  Council Tax: Liability, Discounts and Exemptions (also available in audio cassette and large print versions)

  Council Tax: Valuation and Banding (also available in audio cassette and large print versions)

  Council Tax: How to Appeal (also available in audio cassette and large print versions)

  Council Tax: Transitional Deduction Scheme (also available in audio cassette and large print versions)

  Health

  Patient's Charter (also available in audio cassette version)

  NHS Reforms and You (also available in Moon and audio cassette versions)

  Northern Ireland

  HPSS Charter for Patients and Clients

  Social Security

  Parents Who Live Apart (also available in audio cassette version)

  Guide for the Disabled

  AUDIO CASSETTE

  Cabinet Office

  The Citizen's Charter: A Guide

  Education

  Special Education Needs Charter

  Parent's Charter

  Your Child and the National Curriculum: A Parent's Guide

  Grants and Loans

  Testing 7 Year Olds

  Testing 14 Year Olds

  Children with Special Needs: A Guide for Parents

  Environment

  Council Tenant's Charter

  Health

  Health of the Nation

  While You Are Pregnant—Safe Eating

  Elderly Health

  377

  Community Care Changes in April 1993 (tapes also available in ethnic minority languages)

  Home Office

  Practical Ways to Crack Crime

  Prisoners Information Pack

  Fire Safety in the Home

  Social Security

  Disability Living Allowance (tapes also available in ethnic minority languages)

  Disability Working Allowance (tapes also available in ethnic minority languages)

  People with Learning Difficulties

  Care in the Community (tapes also available in ethnic minority languages)

  Transport

  Door to Door Transport—A Guide to Transport for People with Disabilities

  How To Use A Puffin

  LARGE PRINT

  Health

  Keep Warm, Keep Well (also available in audio cassette version)

  Community Care Changes in April 1993

  Home Office

  Fire Safety Advice

  Fire Safety Advice for Disabled People

  Social Security

  The Guide to New Benefits for the Disabled

  Care in the Community

  Moreover the citizens charter, which calls on public services to make sure information about services is easily accessible to all their users, is putting fresh emphasis on the need for effective communication with those who have special needs, including people who are visually impaired.

  Libya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from Arab sources about the effect of sanctions on transport in Libya, with particular reference to the delay in the provision of non-banned medicines causing them to be ineffective.

  The Prime Minister
  So far as I am aware, I have received no representations.

  Engagements
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 April.

  The Prime Minister
  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.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates have been made as to the number of abattoirs in the United Kingdom which will be unable to meet the standards set out in the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992.

  Mr. Soames
  Nine abattoirs have been refused licences under the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection)378
  Regulations 1992 because of serious hygiene deficiencies. Approximately 30 abattoirs have yet to agree a work plan to upgrade their premises to comply with the Regulations and have been given a time-limited licence to enable outstanding problems to be resolved. No further licences will be issued to these premises unless a work plan to remedy structure-related hygiene problems is agreed.

  Premises which are refused a licence may appeal to the meat hygiene appeals tribunal.

  Biofuels
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures his Department is taking to promote the production and use of biofuels.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department is sponsoring research on a number of topics relevant to biofuels and other non-food uses of crops, and is working closely with other departments, in particular the Department of Trade and Industry's energy technology support unit. We are also pressing for perennial crops such as short rotation coppice and miscanthus to be eligible under the non-rotational option for set-aside.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to the 1990 report of the Veterinary Products Committee in deciding that BST should be licensed.

  Mr. Soames
  In 1990 the Veterinary Products Committee advised Ministers that, having assessed data on two BST products, it was satisfied that they were efficacious and that their use would not pose any health hazard to consumers of milk from treated animals. On the basis of the data before it, however, the committee was not completely satisfied with some aspects of the safety and welfare of treated animals if used commercially, and could not recommend that a licence be granted. In such circumstances, under the Medicines Act 1968, applicants have a right of appeal to the Medicines Commission before their application is determined. Additional scientific evidence can be generated and presented at such hearings. Both companies exercised that right and in January 1993, on the basis of the evidence then presented, the Medicines Commission advised that the Medicines Act criteria of safety, quality and efficacy were met.

  This advice was reflected by the United Kingdom delegation during the subsequent final scientific evaluations of the two BST products by the EC Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products. However, no product licences under the Medicines Act may be issued so long as the licensing moratorium agreed by the European Community's Council of Ministers remains in force.

  Broiler Chickens
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to make changes to slaughterhouse practices and legislation in relation to the treatment of broiler chickens.

  Mr. Soames
  The Department initiated discussion on an EC proposal on the welfare of animals at slaughter, including poultry, during the United Kingdom presidency. Discussions are continuing and we will be seeking high
  379
  welfare standards to be implemented and enforced throughout the Community. Proposals to implement Council Directive 92/116/EEC on poultry meat hygiene are currently being prepared, in discussion with industry and enforcement interests, and will be issued for public consultation in due course.

  Integrated Administration and Control Scheme
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements have been made to pay any interest accrued where it is established through the integrated administration and control scheme that the applicant has been underpaid, erroneously, under any of the various CAP regimes established by the 1992 CAP reforms.

  Mr. Curry
  Cases involving erroneous underpayments would be dealt with on their merits, within the rules of Government accounting.

  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the cost to date of the measures taken to prevent an outbreak of foot and mouth disease since the presence of vaccinated stock in the United Kingdom first came to his attention.

  Mr. Gummer
  The measures taken include the tracing and testing of some 850 cattle in some 27 consignments imported into Great Britain since last August and which are now located throughout the country. Information on the cost of such measures, which are still continuing, is only available at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the most recent figure for the number of cattle presently in the United Kingdom which are known to have been vaccinated against foot and mouth disease; from which country they originated; if the precise location of each vaccinated animal is known to the authorities; and what plans he has for removing vaccinated livestock from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Gummer
  So far, a total of 238 imported cattle have been tested positive for the presence of antibodies to foot and mouth disease (FMD). In the absence of clinical disease, the positive test results indicate that the animals in question may have previously been vaccinated against FMD. Most of the seropositive animals originated in the Czech Republic and a small number in Poland. All seropositive animals are currently under restriction on their holdings while the tracing and testing of remaining animals is completed. In view of the long-standing policy not to permit the presence in the United Kingdom of animals which have been vaccinated against FMD, and the fact that the animals were imported in contravention of Community import rules, the seropositive animals will have to be either returned to their countries of origin or slaughtered. My veterinary officials have been in touch with their counterparts in the Czech Republic and Poland to discuss possible arrangements for the re-export of the animals in question.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to compensate United Kingdom livestock farmers who came to be in possession of stock vaccinated against foot and mouth disease.
  380
  Mr. Gummer
  The resolution of the problem is a commercial matter between the exporters, the importers and the current owners. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is under no obligation to pay any form of compensation.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits (Capital Limits)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the full year cost of abolishing all the capital limits for all social security benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  Using data from the 1988, 1989 and 1990 Family Expenditure Surveys modelled at 1993–94 prices and benefit levels, we estimate that the cost would be approximately £1,590 million.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people would receive increased benefit payments if all the capital limits for social security benefits were abolished.

  Mr. Burt
  Using data from the 1988, 1989 and 1990 Family Expenditure Surveys modelled at 1993–94 prices and benefit levels, we estimate that the number of people who would receive increased payments (including those who currently receive no payment) would be as shown in the table.

  Benefit

  Gainers

  Income support

  800,000

  Housing benefit

  400,000

  Council tax benefit

  1,360,000

  Family credit

  50,000

  Training Schemes
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances participants in training for work, learning for work and the community action programme who receive income support as part of their participation allowance will be eligible for the £10 a week voluntary payments disregard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Participants in training for work and community action will receive an allowance equivalent to their benefit entitlement, plus £10 a week training premium. Participants in learning for work will receive an allowance equivalent to their benefit (without the £10 premium).

  Participants on any of these schemes will be eligible for the £10 a week voluntary payments disregard, subject to the usual conditions.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much end-of-training bonus training for work, learning for work and community action participants will be able to receive without its affecting their entitlement to income support; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Any payment not exceeding £200 received as a training bonus will be disregarded.
  381

  Part-time Study
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the application of the 21-hour rule to unemployed income support claimants who wish to study courses of higher education, including undergraduate and post-graduate degree courses and higher national diploma courses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to her on 15 April at column 704.

  Social Fund
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action his Department has undertaken following the research it has commissioned on the social fund; and when a new system of entitlements to grants will be developed.

  Mr. Scott
  We are currently carefully considering the operation of the social fund, including grants provision, in response to the research commissioned from York university's social policy research unit, along with a number of other reports and our own close monitoring of the fund.

  Disability Benefits
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to ensure that people in receipt of disability benefits who take up a place in the work activity element of training for work, or in the community action programme, will not have their subsequent eligibility for disability benefit challenged because of their participation in the programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Participation in a training for work or community action programme will not in itself automatically debar a person from disability benefits. A trainee in receipt of disability living allowance or attendance allowance may have their entitlement reviewed after six months to establish whether their needs have changed.

  Deafness Claims
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to implement the recommendations of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on the occupational deafness disability benefit scheme contained in Cm. 817 and Cm. 1245; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's recommendations have been carefully considered. A number of administrative changes have been introduced, and new arrangements for audiometric tests are currently being evaluated. A decision on extending the scheme will be taken once we have the results of this study.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to prevent delays in diagnosing and assessment of deafness claims by war pensioners in the Newcastle area.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Following a competitive tendering exercise a national contract for the provision of audiological testing will be awarded in May. This will provide a more efficient and speedier service, throughout the country.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many retirement pensioners qualify for the additional payments available to those aged 80 years and over; and what percentage this represents of the overall total of retirement pensioners.

  Miss Widdecombe
  At September 1992 (the latest date in respect of which figures are available) 2,241,040, or 21·8 per cent. of, retirement pensioners were aged 80 or over and therefore qualified for an age addition of £0·25 to their pension.

  Note: The term "retirement pensioner" includes those receiving non-contributory retirement pension and/or graduated retirement benefit only and pensioners residing overseas.

  Retirement Age
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to announce proposals which equalise the retirement age of men and women; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government are committed to the equalisation of state pension age. No decisions have yet been made on what option should be adopted.

  We will announce our proposals for equalisation when we have fully considered the views expressed by both the public and interested organisations and its implications for related developments in the private pensions sector.

  Disabled (Car Insurance)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations the Minister for Disabled People has had from Artsline in regard to car insurance for vehicles driven by disabled people; what reply he is sending; what action he has taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We have received a copy of a letter from Mr. Roger Robinson, director of Artsline, to the chief executive of the Association of British insurers about the costs of car insurance for disabled drivers. The issue of insurance policies and their terms are for the commercial judgment of insurance companies. In 1989, the Association of British Insurers produced a dossier of advice for disabled drivers and undertook to investigate individual cases of difficulty. We understand that it will be sending a full reply to this case and we have asked for a copy of its response, in the light of which we shall write to Mr. Robinson.

  Fostering
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will extend the home responsibility protection to foster carers who do not receive a financial reward from fostering; and if he will give reasons for his answer.

  Mr. Burt
  Eligibility for HRP is dependent on entitlement to certain benefits, primarily child benefit. To avoid double provision from public funds for the cost of child care, child benefit is not paid to foster carers who receive an allowance from the local authority. Consequently HRP is not available in these cases.

  Personal Injury Compensation
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how much in state benefits was recovered from legal damages in employer liability personal injury cases under section 22 of the Social Security Act 1989 in each quarter of 1990, 1991 and 1992;

  (2) how much in state benefits was recovered from legal damages in personal injury cases under section 22 of the Social Security Act 1989 in each quarter of 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The operation of the compensation recovery unit is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 26 April 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is. my responsibility for answering questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how much in state benefits was recovered from legal damages in (i) personal injury cases and (ii) employer liability personal injury cases under section 22 of the Social Security Act 1989 in each quarter of 1990, 1991 and 1992.
  The Compensation Recovery Scheme became effective on personal injury claims settled on or after 3 September 1990. Details of all recoveries made since that date are shown at Annex A by quarter and details of all recoveries made in employer liability cases are shown similarly at Annex B.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  ANNEX A Recoveries on all personal injury claims

  Quarter ended

  Recoveries (£s)

  31 December 1990

  1,108,818·90

  31 March 1991

  2,619,996·10

  30 June 1991

  4,119,276·67

  30 September 1991

  5,559,042·77

  31 December 1991

  6,604,468·94

  31 March 1992

  9,034,568·47

  30 June 1992

  10,203,274·13

  30 September 1992

  10,972,265·31

  31 December 1992

  12,131,043·13

  ANNEX B Recoveries in employer liability cases

  Quarter ended

  Recoveries (£s)

  31 December 1990

  504,600·09

  31 March 1991

  1,206,281·02

  30 June 1991

  2,099,802·83

  30 September 1991

  2,630,944·11

  31 December 1991

  3,441,977·44

  31 March 1992

  5,020,164·86

  30 June 1992

  5,742,871·01

  30 September 1992

  5,913,562·40

  31 December 1992

  6,833,390·53

  Benefit Deductions
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of income support recipients are now having deductions made from benefits as a result of 384
  paying back social fund loans (a) nationally, (b) by territory, and (c) in each Department of Social Security-Benefits Agency district.

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

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 26 April 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking, what percentage of Income Support recipients are now having deductions made from benefits as a result of paying back Social Fund loans (a) nationally, (b) by territory, and (c) in each Department of Social Security-Benefits Agency district.
  It is not possible to provide this information as it is not collected as a matter of routine; also records relate to applications rather than applicants. I can, however, advise you that at 31 March 1993, some 680,000 loans nationally were being repaid from various sources. In the main, this was by deduction from Income Support.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Mrs. D. Milford
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the application for attendance allowance submitted by Mrs. D. Milford (NI JB 091986 C) in May 1992 will be considered; and what reasons underlie the time taken in notifying Mrs. Milford.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of attendance allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 26 April 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking when the application for attendance allowance submitted by Mrs. D. Milford in May 1992 will be considered and the reasons for the delay in notifying Mrs. Milford.
  Mrs. Milford has been in receipt of the lower rate of Attendance Allowance (AA) since 5 June 1989 and wrote to the Attendance Allowance Unit on 29 May 1992 requesting that she receive the higher rate of AA. Mrs. Milford's claim for the increased rate of AA has now been considered by the Adjudication Officer and she was notified of the result of the claim on 22 April 1993.
  Whilst the delay in arriving at the decision on this claim has taken longer than is usual for these types of cases, an examination of the papers show that the main reason for this was the difficulty encountered in trying to obtain the dates of Mrs. Milford's hospitalisation. It was imperative not only that these dates were obtained, but also verified, as they did have a material effect on the award and payment of the allowance.
  I thank you for the opportunity to explain this case. I hope that you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

EMPLOYMENT

  Learning for Work
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many places have been provided on the learning for work scheme announced in the Budget.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Provision for 30,000 people to take part in learning for work will be available during the 1993–94 academic year starting in September in England and Wales and in August in Scotland.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what initiatives she has to decrease unemployment in mining areas.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We are making available £75 million to training and enterprise councils and the Employment Service to help redundant miners and other unemployed people in areas affected by a pit closure.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures she is introducing to assist the long-term unemployed in East Anglia.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  New measures recently announced will provide an extra 100,000 opportunities nationally. Learning for work, community action and an expanded business start-up scheme will be available to long-term unemployed people in East Anglia as elsewhere. Additionally, a pilot scheme, north Norfolk action, will provide 100 opportunities for long-term unemployed people in Norfolk to participate in full-time community work.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate she has for the number of part-time or casual workers in(a) 1979 and (b) 1992; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Estimates from the Labour Force Survey show that the number of part-time employees in spring 1979 was almost 4 million, and in autumn 1992 it was over 5 million; 780,000 people were in casual, temporary and seasonal jobs in spring 1984, decreasing to 690,000 in autumn 1992.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in unemployment in the south-east since 1990.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In the South East region, seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment rose by 604,100 between March 1990 and March 1993.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures she is introducing to assist the long-term unemployed in the north of England.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  New measures announced in the Budget will provide an extra 100,000 opportunities nationally for long-term unemployed people. Learning for work, community action and an expanded business start-up scheme will be available to long-term unemployed people in the north of England, as elsewhere.

  Disabled People
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals she has for extending employment training opportunities for the disabled.
  386
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  From 1 April people with disabilities have had priority for a place on a wide range of employment and training programmes including training for work.

  In addition, people with disabilities will be given similar priority on learning for work and community action, where they are eligible.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps she is taking to enable trade unionists and unemployed persons to receive training in the establishment and running of small businesses.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Training in the establishment and running of small businesses is available under the business start-up scheme, youth training, training for work and through our support of the Prince's Youth Business Trust.

  Trade unionists who meet the appropriate eligibility conditions can participate in any of these programmes.

  Back Pain
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps are being taken by the Health and Safety Executive to reduce the number of working days lost due to back pain.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am informed that the Health and Safety Executive is working actively with industry and others to reduce the number of working days lost due to back pain. New regulations on manual handling of loads and the use of display screen equipment and the executive's current "Lighten the Load" campaign will all help to focus the attention of industry on the need to reduce the incidence of back pain and other musculoskeletal disorders and promote their prevention.

  Training
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of under 21-year-olds move directly on to permanent employment from training schemes.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In 1992, 35 per cent. of those leaving youth training moved directly into employment. In the same period, 19 per cent. of those aged under 21 leaving employment training found a job.

  For both programmes, regular follow-up surveys show that much greater proportions are in a job three months after leaving their training.

  "New horizons for Women"
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on progress on the "new horizons for women" initiative.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  "New Horizons" events have so far been held in Manchester and Newcastle and I am very encouraged by the interest which they have generated. The next event will be held in Bristol on 10 May and further events are planned elsewhere in the country during the coming months.

  Youth Training Guarantee
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment she has made of how effectively the youth training guarantee is working.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department's contracts with TECs calls for regular monitoring and review, at a local level, of the numbers of young people covered by the youth training guarantee who are seeking a place. The review is conducted jointly by Departmental officials, TECs and other interested parties such as the careers service. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced to the House on 7 July last year,Official Report, cols 171–72, measures establishing a national system for monitoring the numbers of young people seeking training.

  We are confident that the TECs and careers services are working well together to ensure that sufficient places are available to meet demand.

  TEC Challenge Fund
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on the TEC challenge fund.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I am delighted to announce that a prospectus inviting TECS to bid for TEC challenge funds was issued on 13 April. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Departmental Working Conditions
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations she has received about working conditions in her office block in Tothill street, from staff working in the building.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend has received no direct representations from staff about working conditions in her office block in Tothill street. Such matter; are usually addressed at regular meetings between officials and staff representatives.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretaryn of State for Employment on what date she estimates that funds from the package of additonal assistance for redundant miners announced in October 1992 will begin to be released in the Nottinghamshire coalfield.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 31 March 1993,Official Report, column 254.

  We cannot make an estimate of when individual pit areas might be eligible for help. That will depend on decisions made by individuals employed at the pits concerned.

  Employment Legislation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals she has for further legislation on terms and conditions of employment.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill currently before Parliament 388
  further strengthens the framework of statutory employment protection in relation to maternity, written particulars of employment and unfair dismissal. In general, however, terms and conditions of employment are a matter for agreement between employers and employees without Government intervention.

  Gas Safety
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals emerged from the review initiated by the Health and Safety Executive of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1984; and when she will publish these proposals.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Health and Safety Commission will consider proposals emerging from the review shortly.

DEFENCE

  Dockyard Redundancies
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is his intention to continue funding redundancies in the royal dockyard.

  Mr. Aitken
  Under the term contracts for the operation of the Royal dockyards, my Department has an obligation to reimburse the dockyard operators for the cost of redundancies among their employees arising from reductions in the naval refit programme (subject to their having achieved specified targets for commercial (non-MOD) work). Arrangements for the period after the present term contracts expire have yet to be determined.

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether a lost property system is operated at Menwith Hill RAF base near Harrogate with recorded acknowledgement of all items handed in; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes.

  Bosnia
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British service personnel have been killed or injured on active service with UNPROFOR II; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There has been one death, that of Lance Corporal Edwards, and five injuries to British soldiers sustained in the course of their duties while serving with UNPROFOR Bosnia-Herzegovina command.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment his Department has made of the possibility of extending the policy of safe havens from northern Iraq to Bosnia; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what consideration he has given to the military implications of the establishment of safe havens in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts regarding the military implications of the establishment of safe havens in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.
  389
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We welcome the UNHCR's proposal to establish safe areas in Bosnia by agreement with the parties; the United Kingdom supported similar ideas last July. The position in Bosnia is however different to that in northern Iraq; the ethnic map, topography and triangular war make it impossible in the absence of an effective peace agreement to envisage the establishment of genuine safe areas without the deployment of huge numbers of heavily armed United Nations ground troops assisted by air power.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions British service personnel deployed with UNPROFOR II have sought to negotiate local ceasefires and other methods of preventing conflicts with local militia commanders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Participating in negotiations to arrange local ceasefires to allow the passage of humanitarian aid and refugees, the evacuation of the sick and wounded and other tasks within the mandate of the UNPROFOR troops operating in Bosnia-Herzegovina is part of the British battalion group's day-to-day business. It is not possible to provide a precise figure.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts concerning an increase in the size of the British contribution to UNPROFOR II; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts concerning a general increase in the size of UNPROFOR II; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Participation in United Nations peacekeeping deployments in the former Yugoslavia is kept under constant review in concert with our NATO allies. These discussions naturally include the possible size and scope of future United Nations deployments in the former Yugoslavia.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what consideration he has given to the military consequences of implementing the Vance-Owen peace proposals in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts relating to the military consequences of implementing the Vance-Owen peace proposals in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Both within the United Nations and NATO, the possible size and scope of an operation to assist the parties to implement the Vance-Owen peace proposals is being kept under close review.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times British service personnel deployed with UNPROFOR II have been mentioned in dispatches.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Mentions in dispatches are awarded in operational theatres only. The former Yugoslavia has not been declared an operational theatre, although this is under review.

  Airwork Ltd.
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current value and type of contracts that his Department have with Airwork Ltd.; and what conditions relating to operations in the event of a conflict have been included in these contracts.

  Mr. Aitken
  Figures for the end of the 1992–93 financial year are still being finalised, but at the end of February my Department had 49 contracts with Airwork Ltd. The original value of these was some £91 million, but the value of the work still to be carried out is some £28·5 million.

  Airwork Ltd. provides my Department with a wide range of aircraft-related maintenance, repair and other support activities, as well as providing services such as catering and cleaning.

  Terms and conditions of individual contracts are regarded as commercially confidential, but I can confirm that our policy for contracting out support services takes account of the need for continued support in time of conflict.

  Meggitt Aerospace and Defence plc
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many contracts currently exist between his Department and Meggitt Aerospace and Defence plc.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department holds no contracts directly with this company, but does hold a large number with its various subsidiaries. A total of 1,363 such contracts were active during the 1992–93 financial year.

  RAF St. Athan
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made as to the adequacy of the maintenance of aircraft at RAF St. Athan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  RAF St. Athan is accredited by my Department's directorate of quality assurance to an international quality standard and there is no cause to doubt the quality of the aircraft maintenance carried out there. Some problems have, however, been identified during a recent modification programme on Tornado aircraft, the cause of which is currently being examined.

  Army Recruitment
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a breakdown by individual Army recruiting offices of the recruitment by regiments or corps for 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have placed the available information for main Army careers information offices up to 6 March 1993 in the Library of the House.

  RAF Leeming (Aircraft Noise)
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total amount of noise compensation paid out by his Department to property owners in the vicinity of RAF Leeming since the stationing of Tornado aircraft at the base.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at the end of March 1993 my Department has paid out £8,903,000 in noise compensation to entitled claimants.

  RAF Wyton
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further consideration he has given to the future of RAF Wyton and the proposed location of the RAF logistics command headquarters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Royal Air Force's electronic warfare and reconnaissance assets and a number of other major and minor units are currently stationed at RAF Wyton. In order to exploit the benefits of estate rationalisation and because certain units are being market-tested, flying operations at RAF Wyton are planned to reduce to the point at which it would be uneconomic to retain the airfield, with its associated station support services, as a flying station.

  Subject to consultation with the trade unions I have concluded that the electronic warfare and reconnaissance assets should be relocated to RAF Waddington, and other units to RAF Marham and RAF Finningley. These relocations would be completed by mid 1996.

  I announced on 14 August that RAF Wyton, along with RAF Brampton, would form the centre for RAF logistics management, and that this would involve the concentration there of support activities situated now at several sites, including MOD Harrogate. It subsequently emerged from revised Army plans that Uniacke barracks at Pennypot, near Harrogate, might become available for other defence purposes, and I therefore commissioned a detailed study into its possible use for RAF logistics activities. This re-examination is now complete. The result is to confirm that the Brampton/Wyton option provides the best solution to RAF needs. RAF Logistic Command will therefore form on 1 April 1994 at Brampton and, on current plans, most of the logistic support services will move to Wyton in 1995 and 1996. MOD Harrogate, RAF Swanton Morley, and eventually RAF Stanbridge, will close as originally announced.

  I am happy to say that the Army apprentice college at Uniacke barracks at Pennypot will, however, remain open for longer than previously anticipated. Apprentice training for the Royal Signals will continue there for the time being and will move direct to Blandford where new facilities should be ready for occupation during 1995. Alternative long-term defence uses for the Pennypot site are tinder consideration.

  Food Distribution
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future arrangements for the purchase and distribution of food for the armed services.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Responsibility for the purchase and distribution of food to the armed services is currently split between the Director General of Supplies and Transport (Naval), the Royal Logistic Corps and the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes (NAAFI). Following a detailed study, I have concluded in principle that the task should be rationalised and that, subject to satisfactory terms being negotiated, a fixed-term contract should be awarded in the first instance to NAAFI. Once consolidation has been achieved, as much of the work as possible will be subjected to market testing. The responsibility for the policy and management of food supply will remain within the Ministry of Defence.

  We shall be consulting interested parties, in particular the Ministry of Defence trade unions, about the proposal in the normal way. I am placing a copy of the consultative document in the Library of the House.

  Maintenance Group Defence Agency
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish key management targets for the Maintenance Group Defence Agency.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Maintenance Group Defence Agency's key management targets for 1993–94 are as follows:

  (a) To achieve at least 98 per cent. of the specified maintenance and communications-electronics tasks to standard and on time.

  (b) To achieve the Joint Service Publication 336 Defence Supply Manual speed of issue arid pipeline targets for at least 95 per cent. of the depot supply task.

  (c) To keep within the group's allocated budget.

  (d) To reduce the cost per unit of output by 2·5 per cent.

  (e) To achieve the quality systems targets set in the group's management plan.

  (f) To install the new financial and management accounting system at all the group's major units by 31 March 1994.

  (g) To complete the warehouse and transportation management system full study by 12 October 1993, and to commence implementation by 1 November 1993.

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

Schools: Grant-Maintained Status
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many primary schools and secondary schools have been given grant-maintained status, how many in each category are now being considered and what is the total number of schools eligible for grant-maintained status.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, there are 18,296 maintained primary schools and 3,847 maintained secondary schools in England. Of those, 116 primary and 406 secondary schools have been approved for self-governing status. Applications from 71 primary schools and 97 secondary schools are under consideration.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, when the Government introduced the policy did they expect that there would be a 100 per cent. take-up of opting out? If not, what percentage of opt-outs was expected? Is it not now obvious, especially in the light of the figures that we have just been given, that there is no great enthusiasm for the scheme? Will the Government therefore do two things? Will they make provision for those schools which have opted out to opt back in if they so wish; and, secondly, will they drop the proposal which is now before this place in the Education Bill, which compels governing bodies to consider at least once a year having a ballot to opt out?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is hostile to the idea of grant-maintained status. If he believes his own rhetoric, he will have nothing to fear because the growing number of schools that we know are interested in grant-maintained status will not proceed with applications. However, there is a growing number of schools wishing to seek grant-maintained status. It is a voluntary principle. We are neither pressing schools to seek it nor preventing them from doing so. It 'is an enabling part of the Bill, and we shall retain it. However, I have to say to the whole House that, as we have spent two very long days and shall be spending most of the rest of today and part of tomorrow discussing the Bill, I am disappointed that this Question should be down on the Order Paper in this way today.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister help the House by telling it what percentage of primary schools and secondary schools in England and Wales have
140
now opted out? Will she also enlighten the House about how the Government see the future of education on a opting-out basis in terms of its implication for the whole character and quality of local democracy?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I gave the noble Lord all the figures, and I have no doubt that he can work out the percentages for himself. As for the policy, it is voluntary. If schools wish to opt out, our only concern is that they should be good schools. If they choose to remain with the LEA our equal concern is that they should be good schools. That is all there is to the policy.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does the Minister accept that my noble friend will have tabled the Question before he realised that today would be the day for discussing the Education Bill? Will she answer his second question, which was: what about this one-way ratchet? Will it be made possible for schools which want to opt back in to do so? After all, there will be a new set of parents in three or four years' time. If those parents want to opt back in, will it be possible for them to do so?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on the first point made by the noble Baroness, I believe that not to be the case. This Question was not down when we first knew the Committee dates of the Bill. Secondly, the noble Lord referred to this issue during the course of discussion on the Bill. When he asked the Question he knew that in something like one or two hours' time we should be discussing the very point that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have posed. I am a democrat. I shall wait and listen to the debate.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the Minister display her democracy by answering my noble friend's question? Why do we have a single ratchet in this case? If she is so in favour of choice, why cannot choice go both ways?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amendment which will be dealt with second this afternoon addresses precisely that question. There will be free and, I suspect, full and frank exchanges of views all around the Committee discussing that question in all its aspects. I prefer to wait for the will of the Committee to be expressed.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister misunderstood my noble friend's question, which did not refer to the amendment but to the Question that I have asked today. Be that as it may, I presume that this is a free House where we can ask questions if we wish. Does the Minister agree that, because it is so difficult to get a straight answer from the Government, it is not a bad idea to keep pressing the issue? Secondly, is the Minister prepared to listen to the debate this afternoon when she will find my speech so compelling that she will change her mind today?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it has never been my style not to answer a straight question but we are only a matter of hours from debating this very matter. The

141
noble Lord knew that a week ago and that is important. In terms of priorities, I suspect that a large number of important Questions which are waiting to be tabled could have used this slot during Question Time more profitably.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us are puzzled by her attitude towards the Question? She is right, is she not, that we shall have a debate? However, is it not possible that, because of the answers which the Minister has given today, many more Members will wish to speak in the debate? Therefore, does that not make the Question valuable indeed?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that the House will be understanding. The debate on the issue will range far and wide and I shall not give a one-line answer to what I believe to be an important question which needs to be properly addressed in a democratic way. Giving simplistic one-line answers is no way to treat a serious amendment which will be debated in this Chamber later today.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many more people will have heard her arguments during Question Time today?

The Hydrographic Service
2.45 p.m.
Lord Shackleton Lord Shackleton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their proposals for the future of hydrographic surveying by the Royal Navy and particularly on the replacement of the ageing vessels in the existing hydrographic surveying squadron.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, we recognise the importance to the Royal Navy of a continuing specialist hydrographic capability. The current specialist hydrographic vessels will be replaced, as this becomes necessary, with chartered vessels with naval crews or parties embarked as appropriate.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister who has declared the Government's proposal to destroy one of the glories of the Navy; that is, the hydrographic service. What steps is he taking to replace or otherwise to encourage hydrography in the future, and in particular the officers who are trained hydrographers? The real tragedy is that there will be the destruction of some of the most valuable employees of the Crown.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord is well known for his knowledge of the subject. The Navy greatly appreciates the importance of the hydrographic service, and the hydrographic service will continue. The point in question is the most cost effective way of delivering a survey capability which is important for the continuance of that hydrographic service. I can reassure the noble Lord that, as a result
142
of the careful scrutiny of cost effectiveness, which is continuous in the Ministry of Defence, a further examination of the issue is in train. However, during the course of that examination the overwhelming importance of the contribution of what I might call White Ensign status will be taken fully into account.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the mounting importance of British hydrographers in the Antarctic? Is he further aware that two or three years ago an Argentinian ship was sunk using old-fashioned charts and that there is now increasing sea-borne tourism in the Antarctic? British hydrographers are regarded as leaders in the field and are widely recognised by all nations. Does the Minister agree that it is imperative that that is not forgotten?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend whose knowledge of such matters is well known. He will be aware, as I am, that the cache of Admiralty charts means that up to 60 per cent. of all charts being used by seafarers world-wide are Admiralty charts. That is sufficient corroborative evidence of his contention and the Navy has no intention of undermining that most important capability.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are important aspects of maritime defence survey which can be carried out only under the White Ensign by serving naval officers? Will he assure the House that the Royal Navy will retain that capacity?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord will be well aware of the great advantages which were enjoyed by the mine counter-measures vessels during the course of the recent Gulf conflict when they were able to call upon hydrographic vessels manned by Royal Naval crews flying the White Ensign. They enabled those vessels to work in tandem with the mine counter-measures vessels in the Gulf to considerable effect, which helped not only us but our American allies. We are well aware of that and the review which is now in train will reflect a number of factors which must be taken into account, including that one.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Viscount trying to tell us that the hydrographic service will remain as is, staffed and conducted by naval officers flying the White Ensign, the only difference being, subject to the review which he mentioned, that the vessels may be chartered rather than owned by Her Majesty's Government? Is my understanding clear and precise on this matter?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, that is not the situation. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will be aware, the situation is that a review is taking place to find out the optimum formula for the future of hydrographic surveys. It is perfectly conceivable that some of the crews will not be Royal Navy crews, but I must ask the noble Lord to wait until I am in a position to announce the results of that review. It is equally possible that they will be 100 per cent. Royal Navy crews or that the balance will be somewhat different.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Viscount tell us when he is likely to make that announcement? Apart from anything else, the hydrographic service has been an enormous money spinner in past years. Can the noble Viscount give us the revenue from commercial sales last year and what plans the Government have to increase it?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords. I am unable to give the noble Lord a precise figure for earnings, but I shall undertake to write to him on that as soon as possible. As regards the first part of the question, I am fully aware of the difficulties which uncertainty creates in any situation, particularly in times of great change, which the Ministry of Defence is enduring at present. Therefore, the answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question is that the announcement will be made as soon as is practicably possible.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Viscount therefore saying that the hydrographic service, which all sides of the House agree has been extremely valuable, is liable to be privatised? Is that what the Government seriously have in mind? If, in the end, he is prepared to make an announcement—and I shall wait patiently for it—will he make it quickly so that your Lordships avoid what will certainly be repeated questions from my noble friend Lord Shackleton until he gets his way?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I shall greatly welcome repeated questions from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. He will certainly improve my knowledge of the subject in doing so and, I suspect, that of your Lordships. It is untrue to say that I have just announced the imminent privatisation of the hydrographic service, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, well knows. I must ask him to contain his impatience. I am as impatient as he is for the result of the review. As soon as the review is complete, I shall make an announcement to the House and the noble Lord will have an opportunity to comment.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, will the noble Viscount continue his efforts on behalf of the hydrographic service? It is apparent that he has tried but has not entirely succeeded. I should like him to bear in mind one possible solution; namely, that ships should be taken up for trade and should be operated by the Merchant Navy. If that is to be the solution, it is crucial that they operate under the White Ensign so that the hydrographic officers have the prospect of a career in the Navy. That is crucial for the future.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord. It is highly unlikely that we shall build specialist ships to replace the existing hydrographic fleet. Therefore, bare boat chartering or taking up from trade is a likely option. The nature of the crew is still a matter for study. It could be all Navy, all merchant seamen or a mixture of both. Different conditions could apply in different ships. I agree with the noble Lord that it is important that there should be a broad career structure for people who are interested in hydrography. Another study has been commissioned into the future career structures of
144
officers in the Royal Navy. It may be possible to broaden even further the base from which recruits are taken for the hydrographic service as a result of some of the conclusions of that study.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the House have a further opportunity to discuss this matter before a final decision is taken?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has already undertaken to raise this matter at repeated intervals. I suspect that your Lordships will need no help from me to raise this important matter. I look forward to your Lordships' initiatives in that regard over the coming weeks and months.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does not our hydrographic service have some bearing on our future in the deep sea mining industry? Bearing in mind that the United States of America was the only country which did not sign the international agreement, will the noble Viscount agree that, if we do not handle this matter carefully and if we lose ground in relation to the hydrographic service, we may pay a very high price in future?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean, to the extent that he and I are both well aware of the enormous potential of effective hydrography. It is our intention to obtain the maximum from our hydrographic service, which will continue. The point at issue is what is the most cost-effective way of delivering the tasks which the hydrographer is asked to perform.

Coal Industry: Financial Assistance
2.55 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is now the estimated cost to public funds in 1993–94 of financial assistance to the coal industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, the Government have published Supply Estimates for 1993–94 which include provision for grants of up to £1,120 million for British Coal and £44 million for payments under the Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme. Following the coal review the Government propose to provide an operating subsidy to the industry. The actual level of expenditure will depend on the degree to which the coal industry is successful in securing additional orders.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is she telling the House that that level of expenditure will continue to support the coal industry for some years to come? If so, is that not quite inconsistent with the Government's very proper concern with economy in public expenditure which has been so vigorously applied in other directions?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to tell my noble friend that we are concerned about public expenditure. We believe that for the future of the country and for the future of the industry, the best possible route is to ensure that coal is privatised as soon as possible.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that according to a recent National Union of Mineworkers' report, the 10 pits which are threatened with immediate closure—6,000 miners' jobs—could make a profit and save British Coal £185 million of redundancy payments? Will the Minister say whether that report is being considered by her department?
Secondly, what advice have the Government offered to British Coal regarding the use of their pension funds which have a surplus of approximately £1,000 million? Is that to be used for redundancy payments? Allied with that, will the Minister give an assurance that miners' pensions will not be harmed now or in the future under privatisation?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Mason, that the department takes into account all information on the subject of the industry and will continue to do so. I assure him also that the pension entitlements of present and past employees will be safeguarded and the trustees of the pension scheme will be consulted about arrangements following privatisation.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the negotiations as regards the sale of coal to the power stations. Can she give us any information about the success of those negotiations?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the discussions about additional sales are between British Coal and the generators. Those discussions are continuing.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the figures which she gave in reply to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, reveal that the amount paid in support of the coal industry is far less than the amount paid out of taxpayers' money into the European Community every year and that it represents far better value for money than the sums paid into the European Community, a large amount of which is dissipated by fraud?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, sticking within the remit of the Question, perhaps I may stress the fact that some of that money comes back through RECHAR which is a great help to the area. I should also like to point out that, since 1979, the Government have provided the coal industry with financial assistance exceeding £18 billion. We certainly have had regard.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, can the Minister say how much of that estimate has been set aside for the moth-balling of pits? Is she aware, for example, that the pit at Easington (where I come from) last month made a profit of £2 million and a substantial profit over the financial year? Is it not
146
absolutely crazy that pits should be moth-balled with all the technical and operational difficulties that that entails, such as the redundancy payments about which the Minister has talked? I repeat my original question: how much has been set aside?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, knows as well as I do that the coal mines are operated by British Coal and that the commercial decisions rest there. However, I agree with the noble Lord that it is crazy not to concentrate on additional sales. The purpose of the coal review's results and support is to try to find an extra market for coal.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an assurance that, if evidence is adduced that demonstrates that the pits which are threatened are indeed potentially highly profitable, the Government will not apply any constraints on the right of the pension funds to invest in them?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I have to repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, the answer that I gave earlier; namely, that the pension entitlements of present and past employees will be safeguarded. The trustees have that responsibility.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness meant to add in her reply to her noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that in the case of current mines the costs of maintaining them open are no more—and in most cases, are less; and would maintain miners in the dignity of employment—than the costs of closing the mines bearing in mind the true social, redundancy and subsequent social security costs? In the past financial year 1992–93, can the Minister tell the House what were the costs of closing the two dozen mines and of making 14,000 miners unemployed?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that we have supported the coal industry very extensively for a long time. When it comes to the question of respect for miners and their future, a £200 million programme to ensure that there are opportunities for those people is certainly a very large, possibly the largest, programme which has been focused on the matter. The numerous costs are attracted because we must always remember that the main issue is that there is no value in mining coal which cannot be sold. That is why we have looked at addressing that problem.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I wonder whether we ought to move on to the next Question as 25 minutes have passed.
3.3 p.m.

The New National Forest
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made with the creation of the new national forest.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Countryside Commission recently submitted a business plan and draft forest strategy drawn up by the local project team. Currently Ministers and officials are giving these detailed consideration.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, does he agree that when the new national forest was originally announced by Mr. Patten as Secretary of State, and when it was endorsed by Mr. Heseltine as Secretary of State, it generated considerable expectations, not least in your Lordships' House? Does he also agree that the enthusiasm, especially of local authorities, for the landscape, recreational and particularly economic regeneration of that part of England is considerable and that it is most important that that should not be allowed to wilt? Therefore, would my noble friend like to give an enthusiastic endorsement of the project, as did previous Secretaries of State?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am delighted to be enthusiastic about the project. It is a very imaginative scheme and one which will help to increase the forestry cover of the United Kingdom, particularly in an area which is not well served by trees. It will give a great deal of opportunity for access and recreation in the countryside. I hope that enthusiasm for the scheme will not be lost. We are very keen on it, but it is a very complex issue and one which we must get right.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, in view of his enthusiasm for this new aspect of forestry, can the Minister say whether he would share similar enthusiasm for the much more important area of the development of the nation's woodlands? The contribution of the national forest park, to which reference has been made, is minimal in the total picture of the decline of forestry in this country, which is very substantial.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am equally enthusiastic about the role of forestry throughout the country. The noble Lord will know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland recently made an announcement on the review of forestry.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, is my noble friend and the Government aware that the International Tree Foundation (of which His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is patron and in which I declare an interest as president) has planted trees in the new national forest? Therefore, should not the Government perhaps match a one-for-one tree planting grant which would encourage nongovernmental organisations to co-operate?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am delighted with the work of the International Tree Foundation. I can tell my noble friend that over 350,000 trees have already been planted. As to the question of the one-for-one support, that is an issue that we are very carefully considering.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, can the Minister reassure the House about a planning aspect of the new community forest? I understand that the tree planting is not going quite as quickly as we had hoped at the beginning. Therefore, can he reassure us that the buildings which might have been built as part of the community forest will not go ahead on their own and become an excuse for putting buildings where, normally, we would not have had them? Can the Minister say whether they will in fact keep pace with the planting of the trees?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is clearly, and quite properly, something for the local planning authority to decide.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend give an assurance that, when the forest is planted for environmental, traditional reasons and to attract the widest variety of wildlife, there will be a preponderance of hardwood and broadleaved trees rather than conifers which are untraditional, in England at any rate, and which happen to attract a large proportion of vermin?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not share my noble friend's antagonism towards the conifer which can be a very appropriate tree in many parts of the United Kingdom. However, I can totally endorse the fact that the national forest is very much about planting broadleaved, native species and improving the quality of our environment.

Business
Viscount Long: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Education Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 will be taken.

Statute Law Repeals Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to promote the reform of the statute law by the repeal, in accordance with the recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, of certain enactments which (except in so far as their effect is preserved) are no longer of practical utility, and to make other provision in connection with the repeal of those enactments; and to correct a mistake in the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1978. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Education Bill
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
[Amendment No. 157B not moved.]
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 157BA:
After Clause 52, insert the following new clause:
("Audit Commission In section 220(1) of the Education Reform Act 1988 for the words "may, at the request of the appropriate body" there shall be substituted the word "shall" and at the end there shall be added the words "and shall have the right to appoint auditors." ").
The noble Lord said: To begin with, I wish to apologise to the Committee for returning so quickly to a topic which we discussed at some length last week. I am encouraged to do so for two reasons: first, the matter will still be fresh in the minds of the Members of the Committee, and, secondly, the more I look at the very complex arrangements under this Bill and previous Acts of Parliament, the more I become concerned about their practicability.
I start by saying what these amendments are not. They are not attacks upon the policy of Her Majesty's Government, which in this particular respect I greatly support. Even more so, they are not critical in any way of my noble friend Lady Blatch: I share in the widely held admiration for her skill, patience and courtesy. She has the terrible task of piloting these huge and massive Bills through this Chamber. I pay her the compliment of not considering her to be entirely responsible for all their contents.
It is common ground that this Bill represents a major initiative in the direction of grant-maintained schools. The more successful the measure is, the larger will be the sum of public money involved. It is no party matter when I say it is really important that the progress made under the legislation once it comes into force should be most carefully monitored, both for the expenditure which is involved and for the quality of the product which comes out at the other end. It is very important in this connection that we should have available comparisons not only between what happened before the Bill and afterwards but also between individual schools as they emerge into new grant-maintained status. The principal question which has to be settled is whether the National Audit Office or the Audit Commission is the best body to carry out the audits.
I wish to make it absolutely clear that there is nothing in anything I say or in these amendments which implies any criticism whatsoever of the National Audit Office. That is far from being the case. I invite the Committee—I hope the Committee will be patient as this matter is rather complicated—to
150
consider for a moment the arrangements as they will be for the audits of the accounts of the various types of school which will then exist. The position will be governed by two Acts of Parliament and by the present Bill, which will in due course become one. I need hardly pause to comment that the fashion of complexity will be at least provided for in full.
First, I shall deal with the position of local education authority schools. The audit arrangements are governed by the Local Government Finance Act 1982. The audit of the accounts of these schools will therefore continue to be carried out by firms appointed by the Audit Commission. Quality and value-for-money surveys will also be carried out by the Audit Commission.
However, the position will be different when it comes to grant-maintained schools. Under the 1988 Act and under this Bill they will be free to appoint their own auditors. It is true that they will have the right and the possibility of calling upon the district audit service, that is the service provided by the Audit Commission, to carry out the audit of their accounts. They will also be able to call for value-for-money surveys from the Audit Commission. But I think that in practice they are hardly likely to do so. No one really welcomes severe and strict scrutiny before disaster has occurred, at which point it becomes essential. The poorer the performer, the less likely is it to welcome the intervention of the commission.
Amendment No. 157BA, standing in my name, would require grant-maintained schools to look to the Audit Commission to appoint auditors for their accounts and require them also to look to the Audit Commission to carry out value-for-money surveys. My Amendment No. 159A seeks to make an appropriate amendment to the Local Government Finance Act 1982.
I now turn to education associations, for which again the audit arrangements are different. I believe they will in practice be free to appoint their own auditors but they will not be able to seek the advice and the assistance of the Audit Commission. That difference seems to me at the least slightly perverse and eccentric. I have tabled Amendment No. 243AB to the Local Government Finance Act 1982, which would look after that position.
I now turn to schools of which the governing bodies will have been incorporated under Clause 225 of this Bill. For them no arrangements at all have as yet been made for audit. I am almost prompted to call to mind Mark Anthony's words and say to the Committee: if you have tears, prepare to shed them now, not for a dead Caesar but for a live accounting officer who could face a prospect of deep and lasting anxiety. I wonder very much whether that particular individual is not feeling a few twinges of apprehension, even at this early stage. In the case of these schools the Audit Commission will continue to audit the local education authority accounts. As those particular schools will be largely financed by local education authorities, it will be possible for the Audit Commission to look down through the authorities at individual schools and at such records as are maintained by them. That will fall far short of an effective audit. Here again Amendment

151
No. 262A on the Marshalled List also changes the Local Government Finance Act 1982. That would secure the necessary rectification.
I apologise to your Lordships for the complexity, but I can only say that I am not its parent. I turn now to the two funding organisations, which are answerable directly to the Secretary of State and whose accounts will be audited by the National Audit Office. That body, therefore, will be able to look through the accounts of the two funding bodies and those of the schools which they finance. However, it lacks the local organisation available to the Audit Commission and will have to set one up anew or will not be able to carry out the task with the same efficiency as has been displayed in the past by the Audit Commission. It would appear likely that at least in the case of those schools the Audit Commission will fade out and be replaced by the National Audit Office.
I cannot for the life of me imagine any benefit which that change will confer on anybody. I believe that it would make sense and be far better for all concerned if the arrangements for the auditing of all public sector accounts were carried out in the same way by the same body. The Audit Commission is well placed both to appoint local auditors to carry out the audit and itself to carry out the quality and value-for-money surveys which it has undertaken in the past and which have been very useful.
I should like briefly to sum up the merits of the Audit Commission as I see them as against the National Audit Office, of which, as I have already said, I intend no criticism. The Audit Commission is accustomed to overseeing locally delivered services; the National Audit Office is not. The Audit Commission already has a local network; the National Audit Office does not. The Audit Commission is accustomed to working with schools; the National Audit Office is not. The Audit Commission does not just look at what has gone wrong, it helps audited offices to correct faults and put matters right. Importantly, it would provide continuity for those schools which change their status from local education authority schools and become grant-maintained schools.
I do not believe that the reputation or achievements of the Audit Commission over the years it has been in existence are a matter of controversy. Indeed, my noble friend on the Front Bench paid tribute to it the other day. It has emerged with a first-class record, particularly in relation to the monitoring of and assisting local services. All the jealousies and concerns which were generated when the commission was first set up have been laid to rest.
I turn to the individual amendments. I do not intend to take up the Committee's time with any detailed consideration of them. I am happy to admit that they may not be ideal. However, I believe that my noble friend would be making a grave error if she were to put them aside on the grounds that they could be better and that I ought to prepare them better, because I do not have the same equipment for doing so as the Government. I would gladly accept that they could be improved provided she would take upon her shoulders
152
the task of so doing. Nor should they be set aside merely on the grounds that they are incomplete, as often happens.
I suggest to the Committee that the amendments point the way for the Government to escape from a muddle which, if left alone, could prove to be extremely expensive and very much against the interests of all those whom this Bill aims to serve. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: There is one element in the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil which he may not have intended but which will be of deep concern to many Members of the Committee. The Committee will recall the very first debate on the first amendment on the first day in Committee when there was a widespread feeling that the Bill we are discussing should not confer any powers or obligations in relation to higher education and to universities in particular. We had a prolonged debate on that subject, which was ably led by my noble friend Lord Beloff. My noble friend the Minister agreed to take her own amendment away and to bring it back subsequently, making it absolutely clear that no additional powers were being conferred upon the Secretary of State or anybody else in relation to the universities.
There is a problem in relation to Amendment No. 157BA in that it refers to a section of the Education Reform Act which does not make reference exclusively to grant-maintained schools. If it did, then no doubt the amendment proposed by the noble Lord might succeed in fulfilling his intentions. However, Clause 220(1) of the Education Reform Act 1988 states that the Audit Commission for Local Authorities in England and Wales:
"may, at the request of the appropriate body, promote or undertake studies designed to improve … efficiency … in the management or operation of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, a higher education corporation or the governing body of a grant-maintained school".
No doubt it is that last point which would fulfil my noble friend's intentions, but the Higher Education Funding Council (as the formation body has become) or higher education corporations are at the heart of university government.
The proposed amendment would have the effect not merely of allowing the Higher Education Funding Council or a higher education corporation to call on the services of the Audit Commission when it wished to do so—which would be an entirely appropriate power and one which is at the heart of the 1988 Act—but it would be a requirement that the Audit Commission move in and audit the Higher Education Funding Council and universities. It would also be a requirement that the Audit Commission itself would have the right to appoint auditors for the Higher Education Funding Council and for universities.
We all agreed, on every side, at an earlier stage that it is not the intention that the Bill should interfere with the operation of higher education or that it should place constraints on the Higher Education Funding Council or upon universities. It is certainly not the intention that it should give anybody, whether the

153
Secretary of State or the Audit Commission, powers in that respect. Unfortunately, that is precisely what my noble friend's amendment would do.
I am sure that there are other worries with regard to the amendment. Rather than replacing the existing scope of the National Audit Office by the Audit Commission, it seems to add the Audit Commission to the National Audit Office. It is therefore heaping Pelion on Ossa. However, I am not a specialist in that area. It seems a dangerous amendment. It brings the universities and the higher education funding council into the scope of the Bill.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Perhaps it would help if I reply immediately to my noble friend. To some extent I am the victim of Clause 1 which was not of my occasion or drafting. As I said, I am happy to amend the provision to make it generally acceptable. I acknowledge, of course, the knowledge and mastery of university affairs of my noble friend. Unfortunately, I do not share those with him. However, I understand absolutely his desire to defend the universities against inappropriate intervention. That is certainly not the intention of my amendment.
When my noble friend replies from the Front Bench, I shall be glad to hear her say that she will amend the provision as she has offered to do with regard to Clause 1.
Baroness Seear: I welcome the main thrust of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that the provision must be separated from any interference with university affairs. I am sure that ultimately that can be achieved. But I wish to register support for the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. It most certainly should be done.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I appreciate what my noble friend has in mind in seeking to obtain the expertise of the Audit Commission in those areas where it would be an advantage. However, would the schools in which the National Audit Office already operates be beset by the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission if the amendment were passed? Would there be a double audit? The noble Lord made it plain that in some areas that was not so. I may have misunderstood. I do not believe that that was his intention in moving the amendment.
I too observed the problem with regard to universities. His amendment would mean that the Audit Commission was crawling all over Oxford and Cambridge universities to see whether they were giving value for money, even money not provided by the taxpayer.
Quite apart from universities, is the double-banking implied by the amendment desirable? I may be wrong. The Minister may be able to put me right.
Lord Peston: I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. However, Members of the Committee will forgive me if I do not agree with all his remarks in support of the Government and the Bill.
154
On the other hand I stand second to none in admiration of his noble friend Lady Blatch. She and I were members of the same intake of Peers. She knows that I hold her in high esteem; she has been the great achiever of our entry. But that does not cause me to be sympathetic towards the Government's policies.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and others about universities. However, although I speak as a university person, I become extremely irritated by my university colleagues distorting debates simply in order to grind a university axe. The point about universities can be dealt with with the greatest of ease. But it is time that the universities realised that there are other parts of the education system. It is about time that they showed sympathy towards them. I hope that the debate will not be totally distorted, as it was last week, by the universities aspect.
The point at issue is straightforward. We need to audit. By that we mean two things. We are to ensure the correct use of funds—the fiduciary question, or whatever we call it. Equally, we are anxious to obtain value for money. That, too, is a matter on which I am willing to pay tribute to the Government. Those are the two aims that we wish to achieve. How are they to be achieved? They are achieved by the bodies themselves, the schools. But someone has to audit their function. As the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, pointed out, the auditing body can also encourage and help them. It is not a threatening or necessarily destructive matter.
I do not wish to become involved in details of the perfection or otherwise of the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, states that the right body is the Audit Commission. It is a body with expertise and experience. As I believe I pointed out last week, if one reads the reports, one cannot but be impressed by what it does and how supportive it is of the bodies with which it is involved. That is why I support the spirit of the amendment. If the proposals are badly drafted—I have no expertise in that area; the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, stated that, too—I hope that the Government will take the provision on board.
What puzzles me is the fear of double-banking. It was a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. It is a simple point; namely, that the Audit Commission should do the work and that the National Audit Office should not. That seems to be the aim. The Audit Office has many admirable qualities and can do excellent work. The amendment may not be written in a way which achieves that aim, but that can be accomplished. Therefore, I wish to hear a sympathetic response from the noble Baroness stating that she understands the point made and that the commission is the correct body because of its expertise and sensitivity at the local level of the individual school. We can then all get together and devise the appropriate amendments. A most unattractive response would be for the Government simply to say, "No, we did not think of it. We shall not accept it. We are happy with things as they are and we shall reject the amendments because we do not like the drafting."

155
My main task is to say that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is on the right track and that the Audit Commission is the right body. I strongly support what he says.
Lord Acton: I too support the thrust of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, if not the detail. The points that he made about the Audit Commission seem overwhelmingly strong. He appeared to highlight some gaps in the auditing arrangements for schools. I hope very much that the Government will accept the amendments in principle. If they are unable to accept the Audit Commission as the correct body, I hope that they will produce satisfactory auditing arrangements to cover the gaps that the noble Lord highlighted.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may take the final part of the debate first in responding to the amendment. No one, including my noble friend Lord Peyton, either in the debate last week or again today, has stated what is unsatisfactory about the present arrangements for auditing our schools. If we are to enter into a debate about the comparability between the National Audit Office and those arrangements on the one hand, and the Audit Commission on the other, I believe that it would be more honest for this Chamber to have that debate. However, we have not had such a debate. The debate has been about double-banking. I have been invited time and again by my noble friend to get his amendments right for him. I have to be told unequivocally by the Committee that the current arrangements are not working or have no prospect of working.
I have said this once and I say it again. First and foremost, the amendments would super-impose an additional audit regime. It would not replace the existing proper role of the National Audit Office, which is accountable to Parliament, to perform value-for-money studies on the various funding councils and their client schools, colleges and universities.
As I said to noble Lords earlier, where bodies are in receipt of Exchequer grants—and that includes the new funding authorities to be established under the Bill—they will be subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General. Grant-maintained schools are required, under their 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 cannot see the need to double-bank this requirement with a roving brief to the Audit Commission. There is nothing in the amendment about who will pay; the cost has to come from somewhere. Indeed, that could confuse the issue of accountability. One particular concern I should have were the Audit Commission to have a roving brief of value-for-money studies would be to establish who was the client. We do not know who the client is. The National Audit Office is accountable to Parliament.
156
To whom would the Audit Commission be accountable? Who would meet the audit fees? The amendments do not make that clear.
Secondly, Amendment No. 157BA includes the provision for the Audit Commission to appoint all auditors. That is a difference between the 1988 Act and the present Bill. It would apply not only to grant-maintained schools and the funding authority, but also to the higher education funding council and the further education funding council and to all the universities and colleges in their sectors. In defence of my noble friend Lord Renfrew, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that my noble friend was simply pointing out that the consequence of the amendments would be all-embracing and would cut right across the whole educational sector.
I think that my noble friend is right to take into account the debate we had on Clause 1. If the Clause 1 debate is unacceptable or if the implications of Clause I are unacceptable to the Committee, it is clear that the amendments go much further. Imagine the reactions of noble Lords if the Government were to propose that the Audit Commission—or any other central body for that matter—should appoint the auditors for the University of Oxford. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy said, just imagine it! But that would be one of the effects of the amendment. I am afraid that it is shades of Clause 1 all over again. There was a temptation at least for a fleeting moment this morning to accept the amendments.
The other three amendments are somewhat more limited, extending the Audit Commission's powers in respect of grant-maintained schools, education associations and incorporated LEA-maintained schools. Some Members of the Committee are, I know, concerned to ensure that we have an effective audit regime for the grant-maintained sector. I share that view absolutely. They may be interested to know that, in a sample of over 270 grant-maintained schools recently taken by my department, the Audit Commission, through its district audit service, was found to have the largest number as clients—some 30 schools. That indicates to me that grant-maintained schools not only can, but do use the Audit Commission. However, I see no reason to make use of the Audit Commission compulsory, which is what the amendments do. It seems to me to be quite contrary to the intention of placing the responsibility properly on schools' governing bodies, as long as they remain fully accountable for and open to scrutiny of their actions.
We are concerned, as will be the funding authorities, that a high standard of audit is maintained. There is absolutely no question of grant-maintained status allowing schools to slip the net—either on accountability or on value for money. The department requires schools to conform to a detailed financial memorandum and it has issued an external audit code which sets out its expectations of audits for governors and auditors.
That is the point which I believe unites all of us in the Committee, it certainly unites me with my noble friend in what he wants. But if he tells me that that is not secured by the present system—I believe that it is—then the Committee must explain to me why the

157
present situation is so unsatisfactory. Those requirements have been generally welcomed, including by the National Audit Office in its recently published report on financial controls for grant-maintained schools. I have the report with me.
I cannot say much about the report because it is awaiting consideration by the Public Accounts Committee in another place. It is part of the full-blown scrutiny of how our grant-maintained schools are performing. It may be worth me quoting just three extracts, which I understand is permissible. The report states, first, that one of its main conclusions was that:
"The Department and individual schools had approached the change of status and the new financial regime positively and with a large measure of success, and both were developing sound financial procedures".
Secondly, the National Audit Office found that:
"the schools visited had … responded positively and vigorously to their new responsibilities under grant-maintained status and had developed or acquired the necessary expertise and procedures".
Thirdly, the National Audit Office nevertheless pointed to:
"some areas where improvements were required",
in particular cases, including,
"internal control, financial reporting, documentation of procedure and responsibilities, the custody and control of assets, and purchasing and contracting procedures".
Those quotations have a clear message in relation to the amendments. Generally sound procedures are being developed and the National Audit Office already provides a mechanism to encourage improvements where they are needed. The National Audit Office does not flinch from criticism, nor should it. We always intended that the regulations to be made under Clause 216 would apply, among other things, the auditing arrangements for grant-maintained schools to education association schools, so that they will have the same entrée to the Audit Commission.
As regards local authority maintained schools, which would be incorporated under Clause 225 of the Bill, my advice is that their expenditures under Local Management of Schools schemes should still be classed as local authority expenditures, and thus they would continue to fall squarely within the Audit Commission's ambit.
The funding agencies and councils already have, or through this Bill will have, the ability to employ the Audit Commission, should they so wish. Under the terms of the Further Education Act 1992, the Audit Commission may undertake value-for-money studies at the request of the further or higher education funding councils. Under the terms of Clause 8 of the Bill, it will be able to undertake studies for the new funding authorities. There is no reason to suppose that value-for-money studies across the sector could not occur under their auspices. But, equally, there is no reason why the Audit Commission should be given a compulsory role in that respect, or to double-bank the role of the National Audit Office.
Similarly, it is also open to schools to appoint professional advisers to undertake value-for-money studies. I heard the note of caution that my noble friend expressed. It will be the wrong schools that do
158
not invite the Audit Commission and it will always be those schools which feel that they are able to withstand scrutiny which will do so. But even that is taken account of. The governing body of a grant-maintained school could, if it wished, commission a value-for-money study from the Audit Commission, just as it could from any other suitable professional adviser. However, I see my noble friend's point.
On the other hand, I cannot see that the Audit Commission should itself appoint all the auditors for schools and universities. Removing the choice at present given to governing bodies—which, as I said, are subject to full scrutiny in all their actions—would do nothing to encourage the sense of freedom allied to the responsibility that is so important for governors. In my view, it would be more likely to create a quite inappropriate dependency culture.
I am sure that Members of the Committee, and in particular my noble friend, share my concern that the audit regime of all educational institutions, including grant-maintained schools, should be strong. My department has provided guidance for grant-maintained schools in this area and we continue to keep the subject under review. I do not believe that the reduction of competition in the market, the reduction of freedom of choice and the reduced responsibility for governing bodies is the way to achieve success; nor indeed do I believe that we should give all that work to the Audit Commission.
I do not believe that there is much between my noble friend and Members of the Committee who have spoken in the debate about the need for proper scrutiny and full accountability for grant-maintained schools. Therefore, I do not wish to respond to the invitation to take these flawed amendments away and bring them back in another form. However, if there is to be any intellectual validity in the argument, it must be for the Committee to convince me that the present arrangements are unsatisfactory. Then we shall have a proper debate about whether the responsibility should he that of the National Audit Office or the Audit Commission.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I do not pretend that I listened to my noble friend with any great pleasure or satisfaction. I shall, of course, read what she said. She covered much ground rather faster than my mind is capable of going. That is my fault, not hers. I will do my best to wrap such mind as I have round what she said when I have greater leisure than is available at the moment.
Perhaps I may interject a comment to my noble friend Lady Carnegy, who was worried about double-banking. I believe that the danger of double-banking is much more likely to occur under the arrangements adumbrated by the Bill than it is as a result of what I suggest. Moreover, the idea of schools being subjected to a double audit is one of nightmare quality. It is unlikely to occur under the arrangements which I have suggested.
I am grateful to my noble friend for coming round at long last to the three minor detailed amendments

159
which are calculated to look after the provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. If she were to admit that there was a point there, I would be grateful. But she does not. However, she seemed a little less hostile than she was to my first amendment.
I want to deal with the question of Back-Benchers' amendments. We try our best to find out in these exceedingly opaque and complex measures possibilities of things going seriously adrift. I believe that there are such possibilities. Otherwise I would not have dreamt of troubling the Committee for a second time within a few days on this issue. I am exceedingly disappointed that my noble friend is content merely to say that there is no problem, that the arrangements suggested are perfectly all right, that they will work fine, that there will not be any double-banking, and that the National Audit Office is absolutely qualified to do the job. I tried to keep my remarks as short as possible. But I mentioned about six respects—I do not want to repeat them; they will be on the record—in which the Audit Commission was better qualified to carry out an essentially local function than was the National Audit Office, which is a central affair. I am bound to say that when my noble friend says that I come here pleading that she should tidy up my amendments, that is, whether intentional or unintentional, a gross misconstruction of my suggestion. I ask her to tidy up her Bill.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I am sorry that he takes such a disparaging view of the seriousness with which I approach the amendments. I take them extremely seriously. I take particularly seriously the importance of having a rigorous and extremely robust system of accountability for those individual establishments within the state sector of education. Having said that, my noble friend has indeed given a large number of reasons—and I have taken them all on board—why he believes that the Audit Commission would do this job very well. But I believe that it is for the Committee to take a view on the present arrangements. They are entirely local. The auditors who carry out the audit of the schools are local. They are drawn from the Audit Commission, from local companies and from approved bodies. That part of the exercise is entirely local and subject to scrutiny. But the overall value-for-money studies are always done from a national position. Indeed the Audit Commission would take an overall perspective. It could carry out the audit on a single-school basis under the present system. It could do it on an overall, across the sector, basis, as it can under the present system.
Nor was I rather flippantly saying to my noble friend, "Don't ask me to tidy up the amendments". I pose a more fundamental question than that, one which I believe should be addressed by the Committee before we tidy up the amendments. It is absolutely legitimate for any Back-Bench Member of the Committee to call into question the provisions of the Bill. I take that extremely seriously.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness a second time. I agree entirely that the Committee has to take a view about this matter and
160
express its view, and that she must respond to it. It might help—she emphasised the role of the National Audit Office—if she could tell us how many grant-maintained schools the National Audit Office has audited so far. Does she have the data before her? Essentially, what sort of job is it doing? Has it looked at most of the schools or one or two schools? How many has the NAO audited?
Baroness Blatch: The National Audit Office does not audit. As I said, the schools appoint their auditors and the auditors appointed have to be approved bodies. I can be very specific. They can come from the Audit Commission itself. It appoints the district auditors, and those are predominantly the bodies which are called upon by the schools to do the audit. The largest group of GM schools uses the district audit service under the umbrella of the Audit Commission. Auditors may also be members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland, the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants or the Association of Authorised Public Accountants; or members of any other body approved by the Department of Trade and Industry to audit companies; or any bodies that may be approved by my department to audit grant-maintained schools.
There is another principle which I believe is debatable. It was debated during the passage of the 1988 Act and will clearly be debated as part of the amendments. It is this. So long as those bodies are approved and subject to scrutiny, should we interfere with a grant-maintained school's right to appoint an auditor from one of those categories? That is another debate, one which we have not had but which may need to be held in the context of the amendments put before us.
Lord Renton: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is trying to find out something which is of interest to all of us; namely, whether under the present arrangements there is an audit of accounts of all the schools, or only a proportion of schools.
Baroness Blatch: To respond first to my noble friend's point, each school's accounts are audited annually and the result of that audit is made public and presented to the annual meeting of governors and parents. The National Audit Office does not audit in the sense to which we refer now; namely, an annual audit of individual schools. But in the course of carrying out its studies of the grant-maintained sector, and indeed in order to arrive at this report, it clearly had to go into individual schools in order to arrive at some view about whether the performance of the grant-maintained sector was good, bad or indifferent. I believe that I am right in saying that 15 individual schools were visited in order to arrive at some evidence for the information in the report which is now before the Public Accounts Committee.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Baroness for that answer, which is what I expected. It seems to me that therefore we have to some extent debated this matter at cross purposes. In terms of the audit of individual

161
schools, which is what I am interested in and what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is interested in, the National Audit Office has nothing to do with it. This has been a red herring. I am sorry about that. It was certainly not introduced by me; nor was it introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. We are discussing the specific auditing of specific schools by appropriate auditing bodies. Our view is that the commission is the right body. Therefore, the audit office has nothing to do with the matter so far as the auditing of specific schools is concerned. I certainly do not suggest that the macro-studies that the NAO does should be discontinued. They are excellent. That is not what this debate is about. I think that for a little while at least we have been rather at cross purposes because that was not made clear.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I gave way, which is why I rise to my feet again. There are two points that I would like to make in conclusion. First, there is absolutely nothing new in having an element of compulsion where audits are concerned; nor is there anything undesirable in having the degree of co-ordination which the Audit Commission would make available.
I am troubled about this matter. The Bill is a government Bill. As I see it, there is a serious defect here. I have done my best in the limited amount of time to point out as clearly as possible that it is messy and untidy to have four different arrangements for schools just because of their status. They are all public sector schools. I have not heard even a tremor of an answer to justify the distinction between those schools which are still local education authority schools, the schools which are grant-maintained, the schools which are education societies and those whose governing bodies are incorporated. I do not see why they should all be treated in different ways. My noble friend has done nothing to justify that.
In conclusion, I hope that she will recognise from the mere fact that this matter has come up twice so early in our proceedings, that there is serious concern about it. I hope that she will have the grace to take it away and ask herself and her advisors whether there may be a problem here and consult without any commitment to bring forward an amendment at Report stage. I hope that she will go that far. If she cannot, I shall take the opinion of the Committee.
4 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My noble friend the Minister has said that it is for the Committee to decide. It is an intricate problem which has been very well debated. Her weakness is her answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the system is adequate despite the plea and the evidence of my noble friend who said that it is inadequate. She said to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the National Audit Office has no practical experience of having done the job. If she could have said, "Yes, it is doing the job already, it has done it well and that is why I am defending it", I would have been inclined, as part of the Committee, to come down on her side. But in the absence of that—there is a vacuum at the moment—I agree with the plea of my
162
noble friend that the least that she can do at this stage is, while not accepting the amendment, to say that she will, in the light of the uncertainty on both sides, have another look at it. If that is not Parliament at its best, I do not know what is.
Baroness Blatch: There is not a single amendment that comes before the Committee for debate which, short of being determined by a vote, I do not take back and think about in the course of the gaps between Committee stage and other stages of the Bill. But I think that we are talking at cross-purposes. Certainly, I have not appeared at this Dispatch Box and said that the National Audit Office has no experience of what it is doing. It is a matter of understanding the role of the National Audit Office—its overall detailed studies and its individual or across-the-sector studies—which is precisely what the Audit Commission does. It is for the Committee to determine the relative merits of the Audit Commission vis-á-vis the National Audit Office.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that I have not been talking at cross purposes. The effect of Amendment No. 157BA would be to require the Audit Commission to carry out value for money studies covering the new funding authorities, and also in respect of universities, further education colleges and grant-maintained schools. At this moment we have the National Audit Office doing just that. I have in my hand its first report. It is before the Public Accounts Committee at the moment.
The other side of the matter, which I do believe is a legitimate debate for the Committee, is the right of a grant-maintained school to choose its auditors. We believe that that is part of the freedom of being a grant-maintained school. As long as, first, schools engage a bona fide company to carry out that audit and as long as, secondly, they are fully subject to all the scrutiny of their actions, I believe that that is appropriate. The amendment before us asks that the Audit Commission appoints the auditor for each grant-maintained school. The amendments say nothing about who would fund the Audit Commission in that work. It would have to become involved as a national body in the local appointment of every auditor for every school. As the number of schools grew, that would be not only unwieldy—it would not be consistent with local democracy. Those are the two aspects of the debate. I hope that I have not misled the Committee in my understanding of the amendments.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am very disappointed. I do not wish to be diverted into a discussion as to whether or not an element of compulsion is necessary in auditing. I believe that it is, and that is that. The only way that I can express my dismay that my noble friend will not say quite simply that she recognises that there must be a problem here and that she will therefore undertake to have a really careful look at it between now and the next stage, is to take the opinion of the Committee. I beg to move.
4.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.157BA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 121; Not-Contents, 167.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jeger, B.

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Airedale, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Alport, L.

Judd, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Lawrence, L.

Attlee, E.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E. [Teller.]

Lockwood, B.

Longford, E.

Barnett, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monson, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mulley, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Parry, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Eatwell, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ennals, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rea, L.

Falkland, V.

Richard, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Galpern, L.

Rochester, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Russell, E.

Glenamara, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Serota, B.

Grey, E.

Shackleton, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Shepherd, L.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Ham wee, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strafford, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Healey, L.

Thurlow, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whaddon, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

White, B.

Hooson, L.

Wigoder, L.

Howell, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jay, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

194

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Hemphill, L.

Addison, V.

Henley, L.

Aldington, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hives, L.

Annan, L.

Holderness, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Hood, V.

Arran, E.

Hooper, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Howe, E.

Astor, V.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Barber, L.

Ilchester, E.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Bellwin, L.

Kimball, L.

Belstead, L.

Kitchener, E.

Bessborough, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Blatch, B.

Layton, L.

Blyth, L.

Lindsay, E.

Boardman, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Borthwick, L.

Liverpool, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Long, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas, L.

Brentford, V.

Lyell, L.

Brigstocke, B.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Cadman, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Caithness, E.

Manchester, D.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Manton, L.

Carnock, L.

Margadale, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Marlesford, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Marsh, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mersey, V.

Clark of Kempston, L

Middleton, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Milverton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mottistone, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cox, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Moyne, L.

Cranborne, V.

Munster, E.

Crathorne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cross, V.

Nelson, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Norfolk, D.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Norrie, L.

Davidson, V.

Northbourne, L.

Denham, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Orkney, E.

Downshire, M.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Palmer, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elles, B.

Pender, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Elphinstone, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elton, L.

Radnor, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ferrers, E.

Reay, L.

Flather, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rennell, L.

Geddes, L.

Renton, L.

Gibson, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Goschen, V.

St. Davids, V.

Grantchester, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Savile, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sharpies, B.

Sherfield, L.

Halsbury, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Stockton, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Strange, B.

Harvington, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Haslam, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hayhoe, L.

195

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Ullswater,V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Vivian. L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Swinton, E.

Teviot, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wynford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.14 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley moved Amendment No. 157BB:
After Clause 52, insert the following new clause:
("—(1) Where the governing body of a grant-maintained school—
Proposals for county or voluntary status by a grant—
maintained school

(a) decide by a resolution passed at a meeting of that body ('the first resolution') to hold a ballot of parents on the question of whether county or voluntary status should be sought for the school, and confirm that decision by a resolution (`the second resolution') passed at a subsequent meeting of the governing body held not less than twenty-eight days, nor more than forty-two days, after that at which the first resolution was passed; or

(b) receive a written request signed (or otherwise endorsed in such manner as the governing body may require) by a number of registered parents of registered pupils at the school equal to at least twenty per cent. of the number of registered pupils at the school to hold a ballot of parents on the question of whether county or voluntary status be sought for the school; and in this subsection "registered" means shown in the register kept under section 80 of the Education Act 1944 as that register has effect on the date on which the request is received;

they shall—

(a) secure that the ballot is held in accordance with subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of section 25 of this Act, as though section 25 applied to a ballot under this section; and

(b) give notice in writing that the ballot is to be held to the local education authority, and in the case of a former voluntary school, the trustees of the school, and any relevant diocesan authorities.

(2) This section does not apply if in the case of the school in question—

(a) a ballot has been held in accordance with this section within the period of twelve months ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the request is received; or

(b) a ballot has been held in accordance with section 25 of this Act within the period of five years ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the request is received;

unless in any case falling within either paragraph (a) or (h) above the Secretary of State has given consent in writing for a new ballot to be held.
(3) For the purposes of this section a person is eligible to vote in a ballot if he is a registered parent of a registered pupil at the school, where "registered" is as defined in section 26(2) of this Act, as though that section applied to a ballot under this section.
(4) Where in any ballot held in accordance with the requirements of this section (other than one held by virtue of this subsection) the total number of votes cast by persons eligible to vote is less than fifty per cent. of the number of persons eligible to vote, the governing body shall secure that a second ballot is held within the period of fourteen days beginning with the date immediately after that on which the result of the first ballot is determined.
(5) In such a case as is referred to in subsection (4) above—

(a) the result of the first ballot shall be disregarded for the purposes of subsection (6) below; and

(b) subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of section 25 of this Act shall apply subject to the omission of section 25(3) (a) and to the reading of section 25(4) as if the information there referred to were the information given for the purposes of the first ballot.

(6) Where the result of a ballot held under this section shows a simple majority of votes cast (by persons eligible to vote in the ballot) in favour of seeking county or voluntary status for the school the governing body shall publish proposals to that effect as though they were publishing proposals for grant-maintained status under section 29 of this Act.
(7) Section 30 of this Act shall apply to proposals published under subsection (6) above as though they were proposals for grant-maintained status.
(8) Sections 24 and 28 of this Act shall be deemed to apply to ballots under this section.
(9) The Secretary of State shall make such regulations as he considers appropriate to have effect, where proposals published under this section have been approved in respect of any school, in relation to—

(a) the transfer or vesting of property, rights and liabilities;

(b) the transfer of staff;

(c) disposals of land and the control of contracts;

(d) restrictions on changes of purposes of property or changes of staffing; or

(e) any other matter he considers relevant to the carrying out of proposals as approved.").

The noble Earl said: Fortunately, this amendment looks more complicated than it actually is. It is designed to correct a major anomaly in the schools legislation of the last five years. Parents have been able to take their school out of the local authority sphere of influence and into a quite different set of regulations. But, curiously, there is no provision for schools to go the other way if circumstances change and a later generation of parents decide that that is what is best for their children.
This lack of symmetry is extremely puzzling. In almost every area of life or law that one can think of, it is possible to change a decision that has been taken. To be actually debarred from doing so in this case is unjust and we are convinced that, if parental choice means anything, there should be a right on the statute book to go back, however seldom it may be exercised.
The provisions of the amendment are designed to produce, with two exceptions, a mirror image of the opting-out process. That is essentially what all the words are about. We look for no special favours to induce parents to opt back in; we are not, for example —as the Government are in Clause 21—seeking to compel governors to vote on the issue year after year.
The wording of the amendment therefore follows the wording of the clauses in this Bill as closely as possible, consistent with producing the necessary reversal of direction and consistent with building in two restraints which, to encourage stability, we have thought it right to require. The first, in subsection (1) (a), is the provision for a second governors' resolution which, as we know, the Government have dropped from the opting-out clauses of the 1988 Act. I hope that this will be seen as an earnest of our intention not to make it unduly easy to opt back in. There will be an extra hoop to jump through.
The second, in subsection (2)(b), is the requirement that no ballot may be held until five years have elapsed since the school balloted to opt out. The reason is obvious. Any major change should be given a chance to prove itself and to show if it can bed down satisfactorily before the question is reopened. It would

167
be quite wrong, we felt, for a school to make another major change within a period of five years, for reasons both of common sense and stability.
The only place where it has not been possible to echo the wording of the Bill is subsection (9), which sweeps up the Chapter III provisions of Clauses 35 to 44 which cannot neatly be reworded and are best left, we feel, to separate regulations.
If there is one metaphor which has recurred throughout our debates so far it is the "level playing field". The Minister took us last week into the realm of motives and told those of use who opposed some of the clauses in the Bill that we were "running scared" of the move towards grant-maintained status. It is always tricky when you start imputing motives. I cannot speak for other noble Lords. I can only say that what principally offends me in this Bill is the unfairness of so much of it. I have highlighted the example more than once and do not need to do so again. It is a matter of equity. At so many points the parents' choice is being influenced: it is made easy for them to vote for GM status and less attractive to stay with their local community of schools.
When the noble Baroness said the other night when we were debating Clause 33 that the Bill intended to provide a level playing field, she took my breath away. If she sees the playing field as level, she must be lying on her side. The playing field cannot be level if parents can opt one way but they cannot opt the other. I should have thought that this was unarguable. You may have other reasons for making this step irreversible, but you cannot say the choices are equal, and they clearly should be.
For one thing, as matters stand, it is just one generation of parents that can vote to change a school's status for all time. Since it is hard to see how else the voting constituency could work, it is imperative that this amendment be enacted so that future parents are not permanently disenfranchised. It is their school as well.
Again, the importance of this particular issue was evident in the way it underlay a number of our debates last week. Time after time, on questions such as the majority vote and the second governors' resolution, we found ourselves saying, "This would not matter so much if the decision were not irreversible". I do believe that, if we can get this bit right, quite a number of the other inequities in the Bill will lose much of their sting and ruffled feathers will be smoothed to some degree. Surely, the Government must hope for this as much as we do.
I lay my own preference upon the table. The noble Baroness knows it quite well. I think grant-maintained status is largely an irrelevance to raising educational standards, a red herring that loses more than it gains in rejecting the local community network of professional support and expertise in a framework where all schools under LMS now have a large measure of control over their own affairs.
I only want to make two brief points on the merits of opting out. The first is to draw attention to what I believe to be the first reliable evidence, as opposed to impression and anecdote, of which we have heard quite a bit during our debate so far, on the success or
168
otherwise of the GM sector. Both the new inspectorate and the authors of a separate three-year Government-funded study reported three weeks ago that the reforms had made little or not difference to teaching standards or exam performance in GM schools or, interestingly, to parental choice, which, if anything, has become more problematic, and this in spite of the extra funding that these schools get and LEA schools do not. Also it appears that the power of LEAs, such as it is, is being replaced not by the consumer but by the power of head teachers. That is what those two reports tell us.
My second point is that you do not opt out into a vacuum: you opt from one system into another. Where does the ultimate power over a school reside under the new system? With the person who can close it, and that is the Secretary of State. If this Bill goes through unamended, he can open it, close it, enlarge it, change its governors, move it, inspect it. tell it what to teach, virtually without let or hindrance.
But that is all as it may be. I make these points to show that some parents and governors, some time, may decide to take a different view from that of the noble Baroness and her colleagues. Indeed, I would say that it is statistically certain that some of them will. But there is no way in which they can express that view, and it is to correct that anomaly, that injustice, that we have put down this amendment. It is not about the views of the noble Baroness or mine: it is a straight issue about parental choice.
I conclude with a word about the objections which I suspect the Government may put forward. They may say that it is a threat to their programme of reform. I hope that the noble Baroness will not argue that. There are certain beliefs that the Government, in logic, cannot hold at the same time. They cannot believe in the merits of grant-maintained status, trust in market forces and parental choice, and believe that this amendment threatens their reforms. It is an impossibility. If they believe the first two—and I think they do—then they must believe that no one will want to avail themselves of the opt-back, in which case they can have no problem whatever with our amendment. This is the converse of the argument that the noble Baroness used against the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, at Question Time.
They may also say that it could open the door to further disruption and instability in the educational field. If they say that, then, in addition to the difficulty in logic, I believe they would have quite a big problem of credibility. Since 1980 the Government have introduced change after change after change to our system of schools. When someone else puts forward a measure, as we do—one measure, and an enabling measure at that, which in the Government's eyes few people will want to take up—I believe that they can hardly be heard to object.
The Government's reasons for all their changes are presumably that they are necessary. The reason for our proposed change is the same. So in the end it is the merits of the case that count. Our case is that to give parents a decision that cannot be reversed if circumstances change is indefensible. This amendment, I stress again, is not about the pros and cons of

169
grant-maintained status; it is about parental choice. If you oppose this amendment, you oppose the rights of parents and governors. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: It is a great privilege to follow the noble Earl who has so powerfully moved this amendment. I can think of few people in this Chamber who have a greater record of professional engagement in the sphere of education and who have brought to that work a greater degree of public service and objectivity. Therefore, I believe that the Committee would be wise to listen very carefully to the argument that has been presented. Whilst we continue to have parallel systems of education in the state sector with local authority and grant-maintained schools existing side by side, if the Government are serious about parental choice and freedom to decide it is essential that transfer both ways should be possible. Without such a provision where would be the freedom of choice for the next generation of parents?
As the noble Earl has argued, the requirement that no school may opt back within five years of opting in is by contrast designed to ensure more stability than the Government's destabilising policy of the annual consideration of opting out. Five years seems to be a reasonable interval since it will recognise the arrival of a new generation of parents who are entitled to make their own decisions for their own children. There are numerous reasons why a school may wish to opt back. It will be different parents who will be taking the decision, but the decision may also be influenced by a change in attitude or political control of the local authority. For example, a school might have opted out to avoid a reorganisation or the introduction of selection which it no longer saw as a danger. It might be opting back into a different local authority altogether—one that had been reorganised by the local government commissioner. It might be that the new parents wanted to take advantage of first-rate local education authority services in the particular area.
The Government and others have often claimed that the only advantageous funding enjoyed by grant-maintained schools is that relating to their capital grant, usually in cases where schools have been (as it is described) neglected by their local education authority. If schools could opt back into their local education authority there would be an incentive for the Government to ensure that funding, including capital provided by them, was equitable because an advantageous allocation of grant could subsequently be transferred back to the local education authority sector. The main difference would then be a matter of autonomy, as Ministers have often claimed.
The possibility of opting back would also offer parents some protection from the possible excesses of either heads or governors who would become far more accountable to parents than under the present arrangements. Should they seek to abuse the autonomy of grant-maintained status against the wishes of parents such status could be removed. I suggest that that would secure a greater degree of
170
accountability for future generations of parents who might have quite different views from those who had voted to opt out.
Although I totally endorse the argument put by the noble Earl that this amendment is not about the merits or demerits of one form or the other but about the right to choose, I come back to what I understand to be the underlying position of the Minister as repeatedly put in the debate on the Bill so far. I have come to accept that the noble Baroness argues the point with integrity and sincerity. It is her conviction that the quality of democracy will be enhanced by giving authority to parents in their local communities, as distinct from the rather over-structured system of democracy that we have at the moment either at the centre—as we participate in debate here and in the other place—or at local authority level.
However, with great respect, the Minister cannot have it both ways. If she is taking away the democratic powers or diminishing them at the central or local level, when we cannot be bound by our predecessors and have a perfect right to change legislation whenever we wish, as that is the basis of our constitution, then, even if we were to accept her argument, surely parents who are acquiring those democratic rights must have the ability to be able to change the situation so long as an option exists.
I hope that the Minister will take this point seriously. We do not put it in a personally antagonistic way. We have a genuine anxiety. It is that underlying issue which makes so many people in the country fear that the Bill is either naive in that respect—and that is a generous interpretation—or a little sinister. It is about a form of democracy in which, through attrition of the rest, one goes on and on persuading people to consider an issue until they finally cave in and come round to one's point of view but give them no similarly balanced opportunity to make the alternative choice. For that reason I believe that this amendment is very important. I hope that the Minister will, perhaps I may say a little uncharacteristically, feel able to accept it.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: I wish particularly to speak on subsection (2) (b) of this amendment, which lays down that no opted-out school may take a decision either way to opt in or out under five years. I believe that it would be very disruptive for the present parents if that were to be the case. However, after five years it should be possible for parents to decide to stay in a grant-maintained school or to opt back.
This country is changing at an incredible rate. Perhaps I may give just two examples to illustrate my point. Suppose that a village disappears and a new estate is built on the site. That estate would have a completely different ambience, a completely different set of people and an altogether different ethos. It may be that those people would wish to remain with grant-maintained schools; but, equally, they may wish the schools to return to a local authority. A second extreme example would be if, with the Channel Tunnel, an enormous number of French people came to live in Kent. Quite a number have already bought

171
houses in Kent. In five years' time they may prefer the schools to be run by the local authority rather than to be grant maintained.
I believe it fair and honest that if, after five years, a school wants to change, it should be able to do so.
Baroness Hamwee: From these Benches I too support the amendment. During the passage of the Bill we have heard and will continue to hear about, on the one hand, the concepts of partnership and parallel and comparable provision by the two sectors, and, on the other hand, the centralising tendency moving not to direct provision but to direction from the Secretary of State. That centralisation is an inevitable concomitant of grant-maintained status, where the autonomy of individual schools must be limited to some extent.
I hope that the Government will be open to the idea, though opting in and out may be the wrong notion. Schools are opting for the alternative arrangement. That possibility in itself may give parents the confidence to know that education is not being treated as a political football. I have no particular liking for the phrase "a level playing field" but perhaps that is the analogy that one must draw. I appreciate that the Minister will tell us that education is not a political football. I share with her every endeavour not to make it so. But the debate about grant-maintained status has, I fear, left parents feeling that such a highly political issue calls into question whether or not education is a political football.
I welcome too the proposal for the five-year bar on the consideration of the matter. The new demography to which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, drew attention is a very real issue. The five-year bar will allow a new generation of parents to consider the matter. It is a sensible compromise to achieve flexibility without producing an unstable system. That the five-year bar and the second governors' resolution, to which the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, referred, are included, must reassure the Committee that this is not a frivolous suggestion.
Baroness Cox: I am deeply impressed by the plausibility both of the amendments and those who have spoken to them. Indeed, in an ideal world I should be delighted to support them in principle and in practice. I would go into the Division Lobby with those Members. But we do not live in an ideal world and I am afraid that I must introduce some counter-arguments from the real world of realpolitik.
I am the strongest possible supporter of parental choice but I am also a realist so far as local education authority politics are concerned. It has been the reality that, when many schools have been going through the process of considering opting out and through the process of ballots, they have been subjected to the most appalling intimidation and parents and teachers have been subjected to the most appalling victimisation.
When I mentioned those words on an earlier evening, Members opposite were surprised, as though there were no such thing as intimidation or victimisation. I am afraid they have been a reality. What has also been a reality is that once the schools
172
have achieved their grant-maintained status and been allowed to be established, the dogs of war have been called off and the schools have been able to develop in stability and peace.
Members opposite challenged me and said that they did not recognise the kind of local education authority about which I was talking. The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, said that if there were examples of victimisation or intimidation, we should hear them. Therefore, for the record, the examples I give are real.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said that she did not recognise the kind of authority of which I was speaking. I have lived for over 30 years in what I call the People's Republic of Brent. We sent our children to state schools in Brent, both primary and comprehensive schools. We paid a price for that. Brent is not unique. There are many authorities which give their children very short shrift and where I am afraid tactics of intimidation are at work. I wish Members of the Committee could have heard the telephone calls that I had from a very brave parent, Mrs. Yasmin Ahmed, who was trying to work with other parents in Humberside, encouraging parents to vote in a ballot for Toll Bar School. Teachers came knocking on the doorsteps with misinformation about what would happen to the pupils. The head was subjected to threats about the future of his job. The intimidation to which individual parents and individual teachers were subjected was quite grim.
In my own area of Brent, one of our councillors, Councillor Graham Durham is quoted as saying that it was his borough's "duty" to "strangle" any grant-maintained school. Referring to Claremont School, which has now run the gauntlet and is grant maintained, he said, "We must do everything we can as an authority to ensure that this school cannot and does not work".
The council went on to remove the school from the list of secondary schools given to parents with children at primary school, so that the parents would not necessarily be aware of that school as an option to which to send their children from primary schools. I should point out that Brent has a very high proportion of parents from ethnic minority families who would not necessarily know how to challenge that kind of policy from the local authority.
Boldon Council refused pupils at St. James' School access to the local swimming pool while it was contemplating going for a ballot and opting out. A teacher was banned from a training course on child abuse run by the council. A Labour councillor was suspended by his local party for three years for daring to support St. James' campaign to become grant maintained. He was accused of bringing the party into disrepute.
I have given two examples beginning with the letter B, from Brent and Boldon. I could give other examples beginning with B—from Birmingham—and with C from Clwyd and Calderdale. I could go down the alphabet to Swansea, Tameside and North Tyneside. However, I shall not delay the Committee unless I.am asked for further examples, in which case I shall be happy to oblige.

173
The point I am trying to make is that, tragically, in the real world, if this amendment were agreed to, these schools would be put into a state of instability, confusion and uncertainty. I find it a little strange that among its supporters is the noble Lord opposite. Ann Taylor, speaking at the Labour Party Conference, said that a school does not belong to any one set of governors—I think she also mentioned parents.
I wish that I could take the idealistic and principled view to which these amendments aspire. But in the real world parents and teachers are subjected to sustained intimidation. If this amendment, which would allow one set of governors to initiate a reverse procedure, is agreed to, it would be opening up a veritable can of worms, creating instability among schools which are now settling down, the great majority of which are thoroughly enjoying their freedom from local education authorities and going from strength to strength. I hope that they will be able to retain that autonomy and prove themselves in the way that they have already begun to do without this very destabilising amendment.
Earl Russell: I have listened fascinated to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I welcome her realism, but it is insufficient. I, too, come from what used to be the people's republic of Brent, now the banana republic of Brent, which has passed from loony Left to raving Right, without passing through the intermediate stage of civilisation. I listened to the quotations from councillor Graham Durham and I do not argue with them. The noble Baroness might also have quoted councillor Nkechi Amalu Johnson who remarked that she admired Margaret Thatcher for the same reasons as she admired Winnie Mandela and Idi Amin.
Extremism happens on both sides of the political fence; intimidation happens on both sides of the political fence. But I believe that the noble Baroness's realism is insufficient to the extent that she has underestimated the determination of extremists to go to meetings. I believe that she has underestimated their capacity to make attending meetings extremely unpleasant for other people. Therefore, I believe that she has underestimated the very grave danger of extremists gaining control of the governing body of a grant-maintained school.
That is one of the circumstances in which a school might well wish to opt back. I see that the Minister shakes her head. But I am sure she remembers the case of the Stratford School. If this power had been available in the Stratford School, it might have helped.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I would like him to- give me, first, an example of how that can happen and, secondly, to continue with his example of the Stratford School and to say how it came right in a faster time than any local education authority might have put it right. We followed a proper procedure and that school is now a very good one and performing very well.
Earl Russell: I accept that the Secretary of State did succeed in pulling the chestnuts out of the fire at Stratford. I congratulate him on that. I was hoping to
174
save him from the rather painful need to burn his hands next time. It was not a pleasant business and I am sure that the Secretary of State did not enjoy it.
I am also concerned that this amendment would actually make it easier to put the case in favour of opting out. In 1988 the school which my two sons were then attending discussed a proposal to go grant-maintained. All parents were consulted by letter. I wrote back that I was not prepared to support going grant-maintained while the status was irreversible. I believe that I was not the only parent who said that. So the noble Baroness might just find that going grant-maintained is a little easier if freedom of choice points both ways.
This is the hub of the whole argument. It is an argument of freedom of choice. The Government tell us that that is the central thrust of their reforms. Either that is true or it is not. If it is true then it must be possible, if freedom of choice is the ideal, to make the choice either way. I have been trying to think of other irreversible choices. The only one that I have thought of in the past few minutes is the choice of selling oneself into slavery, but I do not believe that that is an appropriate parallel. If the Minister can think of any others I shall be glad to hear of them.
But if the Government's purpose is not freedom of choice, then what is it? If it is not freedom of choice it must be some other purpose about which, as yet, we have been told nothing. When the Minister comes to reply I shall be very glad to know some of those purposes. It is precisely because some of us find it so completely impossible to understand what the real purpose of grant-maintained schools is, that we get so regularly tempted to go looking for hidden agendas which is a process in which we may perfectly well be making mistakes.
We on this side of the Chamber believe in freedom of choice, but we shall find it very hard to believe that the Secretary of State does until he changes his name by deed poll to Hobson.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Young: Like the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has put up a very enticing argument. It sounds so reasonable. As my noble friend Lady Cox has said, the idea of the level playing field and voting in and voting out sounds very reasonable and something which everybody should accept. Not only do I support the arguments so clearly put by my noble friend Lady Cox that one has to face the political reality of the situation, but the fact of the matter is that were this amendment to be agreed to, schools would become a political football. There would be votes and pressure put on parents to vote one way or the other. Five years is a very short time in the life of a school. At the end of the day, we are talking about the children.
I do not believe that this point applies to my noble friend Lady Faithfull who has supported this amendment, but others who have supported it are themselves entirely opposed to grant-maintained schools. They have never made any bones about it and in a free society they are perfectly entitled to take that point of view. That is yet another way of attacking the

175
whole system which, as we all know, is beginning to work extremely well. I do not believe for one moment in this argument about getting extremists on a governing body. We already find that a great many able people are coming forward to serve on the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools. The question of the Stratford School was dealt with very rapidly by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
In comparison, when I first became a Minister at the Department of Education and Science, almost the first school problem that crossed my desk concerned William Tyndale school. I remember it extremely clearly. It was an absolute scandal which was not dealt with by ILEA for a very long time. I do not believe that we can suppose for one moment that all schools under local authority control will be all right and that grant-maintained schools will not.
I hope that the Committee will not agree to this amendment. It is very important that grant-maintained schools should be given the opportunity to succeed which certainly requires more than five years. I believe that they will succeed in raising standards. The Committee should really address the very important questions about educational standards within schools which is the point of the whole Bill, instead of trying to find other ways of disposing of grant-maintained schools.
Lord Dormand of Easington: The Government's slip was showing right from the start in this matter. The man from Mars would have asked immediately: "With all this talk of opting out, what happens if it does not turn out to be such a wonderful thing? What can be done about it?" The man in the trim, dark suit and with a quiff replies: "Nothing, because it is so good and no-one will want to opt back in". That argument really cannot be sustained. Although I am against opting out and have made no bones about it —I shall continue to do so throughout the debates —I know as everyone else does, that some schools will be successful under the system and some will not. I return to my theme: opting out means getting away from, at best, an inadequate system and, at worst, out of the hands of those awful, dreadful, doctrinaire and bureaucratic local education authorities. Those are pejorative terms, and, I suspect, deliberately so in this context.
Much of the Government's legislation since 1979 has been directed against local democracy in the shape of the various types of elected councils, and that shows up especially strongly in this measure. Some of the arguments in favour of being allowed to opt back in are so obvious and simple that one hesitates to use them. They have already been put forward strongly by a number of Members of the Committee, but some, at least, have to be repeated. No one can say that all succeeding boards of governors will take the same view over the years. Some, for a number of different reasons—one has to emphasise this point—will wish to return to LEA control. That is as certain as night follows day, but the Bill's provisions would make it either permanent night or permanent day.
Of course the Government will say—I assume that this will be the major argument that we shall hear
176
today—that we cannot have this chopping and changing. Schools, teachers, governors, children and parents will not know where they are. Without some provision, that, of course, would probably be the case, but the answer is that there must be a time limit to the period when opting back can take place. Part of the amendment suggests five years. I would go partly along the way with what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said: seven years or even longer would not disturb me. In education, especially in schools, these matters cause a great upheaval. There is a need for a settling down period. However, five years to seven years seems to me an eminently reasonable period to bring about change, if it is thought to be necessary.
A mighty big change is soon to take place in local government. The review which is presently being undertaken by the Government will, without any doubt, bring about substantial changes which will include, among other things, the disappearance of some local authorities and a change in political control. Such changes will inevitably cause some schools to reconsider their position. New or different local authorities are a legitimate reason for schools to consider changing their status. Another reason occurs to me. We tend to believe that head teachers and governors are, if not perfect, adequate and competent to meet every task and problem put before them. I hope that I need not argue the case that some heads and some governing bodies do not meet those criteria. There are difficult heads—if I may use the word "difficult"—and difficult governors, just as there are difficult pupils. One way, and, indeed in my view it is the way, of meeting such a difficulty would be to opt back in.
There are then those who will say that the LEA may not be able to support such schools. As the Secretary of State would have to approve the proposal—one assumes that would be the case—I cannot visualise any circumstances in which he would allow a school to return to a local authority which could not support it.
The Government are showing remarkably little flexibility over this matter, and this is an excellent opportunity for them to demonstrate that they are willing to change. Those now famous words "freedom of choice" in that famous document just do not apply here. My noble friends have emphasised the fact that the essence of the amendment is concern for freedom of choice. I support that view. I hope that I have made it clear—if not, I repeat it—that I happen to believe that the system of grant-maintained schools, as visualised under the Bill, will be less effective than LEA control. I shall continue to believe that throughout the Bill's passage.
There are two factors involved, as I see it. If I am pressed by any Members of the Committee I would say that the first relating to freedom of choice is the more important. Despite all the fine words being used to justify opting out, the failure of so many schools to apply to become grant-maintained demonstrates the doubt that they have about losing the advantages of being an LEA school.
Let me assure the Minister, because of the exchanges that took place today on my Question, that my Question was put down a month ago. If she

177
believes that I was able to anticipate a debate on the subject so early, then she attributes to me an ability which I do not possess. The fact that we have had—I call it a poor response, but I know that the Minister will disagree with me—what is, by any standards, a poor response to grant-maintained status, considering that 24,000 schools are eligible to apply, in itself justifies giving those who feel that a mistake has been made the safeguard of being able to change their mind. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: There is one important point which none of the four Members of the Committee who proposed the amendment has cleared up. The amendment provides clearly that after five years it will be possible for a grant-maintained school to opt back into being local authority supported. But what is not clear is whether that can happen only once. If the amendment were included in the Bill, and the Bill became an Act, would it be possible for the school, after, presumably, another five years, to opt back to being grant maintained? Then perhaps after another five years it would be able to opt back, and so forth, indefinitely. That is an important aspect of the matter.
Is it contemplated that there would be one option, and one option only, if the amendment were enacted, or would it be a right that would appear and reappear every five years indefinitely? It is important to get that point clear. The otie thing that would be hopeless for the school would be for it to be changing over every five years between the two bases. One has to think especially in that context of the staff of the school. What would be the position of the headmaster, for example, and of other senior masters in a school which was alternating between two systems almost indefinitely?
On my reading of the amendment, it is not clear, and it has not been made clear in the speeches of those who put it forward, whether what is proposed is a once-and-for-all choice, or a choice on a quinquennial basis indefinitely. It is important to get that point clear and to get those who advocate the change to be clear in their minds as to what it is they propose, because, whereas one choice would be difficult, a regular choice every five years would plainly be catastrophic.
The only other point I wish to make is that one or two Members of the Committee have referred to the fact that some parents may well wish their child to go to a local authority-supported school. So far as one can see, in urban areas there will always be a choice between a grant-maintained or a local authority-supported school. It would be up to the parent to choose the particular school to which, in his or her view, it was sensible to send the child. Therefore there does not seem, except perhaps in remote country districts, to be any very serious point to be made about depriving parents of choice. Under the law as it stands, in all built-up areas parents will have a wide choice and be able to come to the decision that they want. That, I imagine, is what the Committee would wish to see.
Lord Renton: The point that worries me about the amendment—this is a fresh point not so far mentioned
178
in the debate—is that, if opting out is to be possible, the original decision will be made upon a somewhat experimental basis, and that would be a bad thing. Clauses 20 to 34 deal with the original balloting, confirmation and so on, for obtaining grant-maintained status, and they contain careful safeguards. They will cause parents, governors and so forth to think most carefully before applying for grant-maintained status. However, if there is to be the possibility of opting out, even after five years, some parents who may find it difficult to make up their minds, will unfortunately say, "Let's have a go for five years". That would be bad and the argument is reinforced by what was said by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Furthermore, I wonder whether it has occurred to those who are opposed to grant-maintained status that there may be more votes for grant-maintained status simply because it is to become experimental. That, too, would be bad. I suggest that there should be a degree of finality. If grant-maintained status goes wrong there are in Clauses 100 to 103 powers to enable the Secretary of State to withdraw the grant and to wind up the school. That is an additional factor which should be borne in mind. No, we should be aiming not at experiment but at finality.
5 p.m.
Lord Elton: I wish to endorse and to emphasise a comment made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and to tie it to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The prospect in the curious borough of Brent is oscillation—violent, perhaps frequent and not always predictable—between what the noble Earl described as the loony Left and the raving Right. He asked what would happen if one of the extreme bunches were to capture the board of governors of a school and take advantage of the opportunity given under the Act and to opt for GMS—thereby one knows which faction the noble Earl was talking about.
Under the proposed amendment the prospect is that at some time on the unfortunate frail craft—that is the school—there will be the thunder of the boots of the opposite faction climbing on board. The tiller will then be swept hard over to the other side and the school will be taken back into the control of the local authority. No sooner will she have steadied on that course for a further five years when again the thunder of boots will be heard overhead. The crew will then cower, the children will be terrified and the ship will be turned back towards GMS. Everyone will know that that might happen. Therefore, the circumstances pointed out by my noble friend Lady Cox will appertain from the start and not to the finish because there will not be a finish. Forever that school will always be the prize to be captured by the "outs" from the "ins".
In order to prevent that happening the Committee should be persuaded by my noble friend and not by the otherwise attractive arguments of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley. Both the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, said at an earlier stage—and I told Members of the Committee

179
that I should remind them of the fact when we reached this amendment—that we must have certainty and stability. They said that schools must be in no doubt about their future. The way to do that is to reject the amendment.
Lord Parry: Listening as we did with awe and admiration to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, we were taken logically through his considered opinions as to how we should advance. Since then some of the arguments have been specious and incapable of holding water. Some Members of the Committee opposite quickly contradicted themselves. In passing the Bill as a whole we are moving into an experimental situation. We are experimenting with the tried and trusted system of education, some parts of which have worked badly and inadequately and have been properly challenged.
We have heard repeated arguments which seize on bad examples of bad practice and try to make the case sound logical. If we are to create a system in which parents can opt out of local authority control there should, if democracy is to continue, be built into the system the equal and opposite opportunity to opt back at some point. The period of five years was notional and was thrown into the debate as it took place. To seize on that and to assume that every five years everyone will opt in or out as this or that local government system changes is to ignore the fact that an experiment is taking place as regards the total reorganisation of local government.
I urge the Committee to treat the amendment not in a specious and party political way, as it has been by Members opposite, but on the basis of the terms used by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, when he moved it.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I am grateful to Members of the Committee opposite for raising the issue of children in the schools. I too wish to register my deepest anxiety about the amendment and the effect that it would have on pupils in schools. The Committee is united in its concern to remove the degree of turbulence which for various reasons is currently being experienced in our schools. I could not bear to think of the prospect of our children being dragged through the process of changing from one status to another every five years.
Surely all Members of the Committee, whether or not they are antipathetic to the principle of grant-maintained schools, must want those schools to succeed because if they fail the children within them will fail. We must in every way possible ensure that once the schools have chosen grant-maintained status they succeed. If they are to succeed everyone must be fully committed to working with them as they are. If there is a simple escape route and if as soon as circumstances become difficult it can be said, "Never mind, we can always go back into the arms of the local authority", there is the minimum motivatidn for people to work with the school and to make it succeed. I hope that the amendment will be rejected.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I, too, wish to oppose this somewhat beguiling amendment. I do so for several reasons but perhaps in particular for the
180
reason mentioned by my noble friend Lady Cox and others. Allowing schools to have the prospect of opting back into LEA control would inevitably prolong the very unpleasant intimidatory atmosphere and the tactics which some LEAs have been using against governors, parents and teachers to persuade them not to opt out.
As I said on Second Reading, dishonourable resistance to grant-maintained status would not appear to have been confined to Labour-controlled LEAs. I understand that Hampshire, Hereford, Worcestershire and East and West Sussex have all been guilty of using large sums of public money to lobby against GMS. But I believe that it is when we come to consider Labour-controlled LEAs that the tactics become somewhat more serious. I must say that when some Members on this side of the Committee dare to mention the viciousness of the hard Left in our state system of education I am always surprised by the show of apparent disbelief and protest which comes from the Benches opposite. Of course, I have to accept that Members of the Committee opposite are acting in good faith. I should not dream of suggesting that they are not doing so. But, by the same token, I have to assume that they are genuinely not aware of the behaviour to which I refer. I hope that I shall not be considered too rude if I say that the thought does occur to me that perhaps they do not look for it all that diligently, and that is perhaps understandable.
On this occasion my noble friend Lady Cox mentioned a very brave lady in the shape of Mrs. Yasmin Ahmed and the tribulations which she has been put through by the attempt of Toll Bar School to opt out. That reminds me that I first met Mrs. Ahmed some 10 years ago when she lived in Haringey. At the time she and other parents in Haringey were bravely fighting against their local education authority's policy of what came to be known as "positive images". That, as many Members of the Committee will recall, was the ardent promotion of homosexuality, often to very young children. Mrs. Ahmed and her friends rightly found it most objectionable.
I had the privilege of helping Mrs. Ahmed and her friends to form the Haringey Parents' Rights Group. In that capacity I observed at close quarters the virulent beastliness of the hard Left within Haringey LEA. I do not know whether to trouble the Committee with too many examples of that kind of behaviour but, for example, my friends were shouted down at council meetings, they were urinated upon from the gallery at the same meetings and they and their children were threatened with violence in person and by telephone.
This sort of behaviour in support of positive images was not confined to Haringey. It was widespread throughout the country and it was encouraged by the Left-wing controlled Labour LEAs, by elements of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, by elements of the Left-wing teaching unions and so on.
I mention all that because I am sure that I smell the same fraternity at work in the more vicious opposition to opting out. Once again, it is not good enough to pretend that the sort of behaviour referred to by my

181
noble friend Lady Cox and others is confined to one or two exceptional LEAs because, as with the promotion of positive images, it appears to be endemic in the Labour LEA system.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, asked earlier in the Committee stage of the Bill for examples of the sort of unacceptable behaviour of which we accuse LEAs, and particularly Labour LEAs. I have here some 40 examples of the sort of thing that we are talking about and they emanate from some 30 Labour controlled LEAs. My noble friend Lady Cox has given some examples and so, for my part, I propose to put in the Library only a brief summary of some of the cases which I have mentioned. If the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, or any other Member of the Committee opposite feels that any of those cases do not represent examples of inappropriate action by Labour controlled LEAs, I should be very happy to hear from them.
In the meantime, I submit that those examples confirm the kind of atmosphere which will continue to surround the opting out process if this amendment is accepted; and so I very much hope that the Committee will not accept it.
Lord Addington: I should like to intervene briefly in this slanging match which seems to be taking place between the two 'sets of Benches. We are not talking about what has happened or what could happen occasionally. We are talking about future plans. Two alternative systems of schools are operating. We have heard a great deal about parental choice and about the marketplace. Thus, we have a situation in which it is logical that you can choose one or other of the systems. Also, it is logical that in the marketplace, if you make an inappropriate choice, you can change. If we try to remember that, we may possibly make some headway.
Also, if the Government had chosen one system and had elected to work with that system, much of our discussions today would have been unnecessary because we should know how authorities are to be divided up and who will take over certain activities within the educational system. I believe that at least 50 per cent. of the debate on the Bill so far would have been superfluous. Therefore, I suggest that the noble Earl's amendment is totally within the spirit of the Bill and is totally appropriate to it.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: A number of Members on this side of the Committee have been willing, as am I, to concede some elements in logic to the case put forward by the proposers of the amendment. Certainly my noble friend Lady Cox made that point. I too see that it is extremely final to suggest that a school should never be able to reconsider its position and never be able to consider the possibility of returning to local authority maintained status.
However, a point which a number of Members of the Committee have emphasised—and the noble
182
Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, was one of them —is that schools need a measure of stability. In my view, a period of five years is totally inappropriate. When a school changes, it needs to feel that for the foreseeable future it has a stable system of school government and it knows where it stands. Inevitably it will take a year or two for the school to settle down within the grant-maintained system and, lo and behold, on the horizon—
Lord Judd: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. If he is as concerned as he claims to be —and I am sure that he is—about stability, how does he reconcile his position on this amendment with supporting a government position whereby, if the school does not make the right decision in the Secretary of State's mind in any one particular ballot, it can be required to consider voting year after year until it does make the right decision? How does the noble Lord reconcile those two positions?
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I take the point which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, makes that there is likely to be continuing debate about the status of a school under the present recommendations. However, the stability to which I was referring, which is ultimately of greater importance, is the stability of the regime of the school. The damaging aspect is that schools will be oscillating with a five-year periodicity.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, was moving towards that position and that is why I mentioned his name. A period of 10 or 15 years might be a much more feasible proposition. If the word in the amendment were "fifteen" rather than "five", I should be willing to support it. However, if we are not careful we shall be in the position in which one finds oneself in regard to American presidential elections. Before one President is elected, people are already beginning to debate who the next President will be. I realise that that is four years rather than five years, but five years seems to be an unrealistically short period.
That is particularly so when one takes into account not only the status of individual children but also the status of individual teachers. Some teachers will prefer to teach within a school of one kind or another and will deliberately seek recruitment into such a school. It will do them no good at all to be thinking in terms of a five-year timescale when they are naturally thinking about their own status and their own career prospects within a school. They should be able to think in terms of a decade or considerably longer.
I believe that there is a case in logic being made by the proposers of the amendment. I should support the amendment if the time were 15 years rather than five years. However, a period of five years offers a process of endless oscillation and disputation which would be damaging not only to the pupils and to the parents but also to the staff of the school.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will give a more specific answer to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Judd. At present the Bill says that a governing body is compelled at least once a year to consider the holding

183
of a ballot. There is no freedom of choice. Will the noble Lord deal more specifically with that point, because he rather brushed it aside?
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: Once 15 years have elapsed, I should be happy for there to be an annual ballot about the return of the school to local authority governance. The point which I am making is the undesirability of the governance of the school oscillating on a five-year periodicity. I am not concerned about how often the matter is discussed but about how often it happens.
If we take the logic of the amendment and call it 15 years rather than five years, then once the school has settled down into that system, by all means let there be an annual debate about it. It is not the annual debate to which I object but the oscillation in the governance of the school.
The Earl of Strafford: It cannot be right that schools cannot change their status for all time. That is what the Bill suggests. As the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and others have quite rightly pointed out, the weakness of the amendment is the timescale. I should have thought that we could reach a consensus that 10 or 15 years is a reasonable time for a school to adjust to change and then it should be allowed to reconsider its position. I believe that the Government should include such a provision in the Bill.
Earl Russell: I listened with great interest to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. If the noble Baroness would indicate that a longer period of time makes the amendment more acceptable, I think that that would be helpful to the Committee.
Baroness Blatch: I shall certainly touch upon that matter before I finish my response to the amendment. But, first, perhaps I may tell Members of the Committee that I am exceedingly touched by the outbreak of democracy on the question. If noble Lords opposite really mean what they say—namely, that this is only about choice, and democratic choice at that—I would have been more impressed with the case that they put forward if they had supported this side of the Chamber in allowing parents to exercise their democratic choice to go into the grant-maintained sector in the first place.
Members of the Committee opposite make no secret of the fact that they start from a position of being anti grant-maintained status. The energy they are using now is not about extending democratic choice. It is about how to scupper the policy of the Government. If Members of the Committee will give me time, I shall explain what I mean.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, rather disparagingly referred to my noble friend having a slugging-out match with noble, Lords opposite, along with a passing reference to my noble friend Lady Cox. The stories that they recounted were examples of the totally real experiences of real people trying to exercise their democratic rights under the law. That is not slugging something out; that is speaking with conviction about a policy which they
184
support. They feel that if we believe in the extension of democratic choice we should allow parents to exercise that democratic right without being intimidated.
I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter about the five-year period flip-flopping in and out of the sector. Let us imagine 1993 after Royal Assent when the provisions of the Bill will be triggered. Some schools will be close to being able to exercise that right. By 1998 the school may opt back to what may be a very different local education authority. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington. Indeed, the local education authority which the school left may not even be there. Moreover, if a unitary authority takes its place, it may be a totally different body. Come 1999, the school decides to opt back to grant-maintained status. But, by 2004, the school may opt back to an even more different local education authority. By the year 2005, we are back again to opting in. Is a flip-flopping in and out of the LEA control really what we want?
The noble Lord, Lord Judd intervened during the remarks of my noble friend Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn about the annual ballot. If we really did believe in democracy, why is it that we require governing bodies to do anything as draconian as to consider in one meeting a year whether it is appropriate for that school to seek, on behalf of the parents, grant-maintained status? That is all that is required. That is not undemocratic. It is saying to the parents annually at their meeting, "We have considered this. We have taken the view that it is a good idea and we would recommend that we now start the process", or, "We have considered it and for the following reasons we do not believe that this is the road down which we should go". At least the parents would know what their governors were thinking on the issue. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I am grateful to the Minister. I shall be very brief. Why make it compulsory?
Baroness Blatch: Because we believe that it is right that the parents should have some information about how the governors are thinking. In fact, the noble Lord has given me the answer. He said—and it was refreshing to hear him say it—that not all head teachers are good people and that not all teachers are. Indeed, he said they are good, bad and indifferent, just as other people are good, bad and indifferent. He added that that applied also to governing bodies. There are some governing bodies that would never broach the subject unless we made it a requirement upon them to do so. We make it a requirement that they should only consider and then give their views to parents and the Government. There is nothing undemocratic about that. In fact, it is a protection of the interests of the parents. What is crucial at the end of the day is real democracy. It is for parents to vote, not governing bodies.
It is worth correcting figures that were bandied around the last time we debated the strength of parental choice. Out of the 1,044 ballots which have closed to date, 93 per cent. had turn-outs of over 50

185
per cent. the first time round. Of the 75 ballots that did not achieve 50 per cent. the first time round, 45 achieved a 50 per cent. turn-out the second time round. That means that 97 per cent. of the ballots to determine whether a school should or should not go grant maintained produced a turn-out of over 50 per cent. Of the remaining 3 per cent., in over half—we aretalking about a very small number—the turn-out improved in the second ballot. So the strength of voting is very good. Indeed, the average turn-out in ballots that did determine whether or not a school should seek grant-maintained status was 64 per cent. Let us compare those figures with the average turn-out in local government which is barely 40 per cent. We have here governing bodies achieved through the parents, who are the consumers of the school system, making the judgment.
What really matters—as comments during the debate, including those of my noble friends, have shown—is the kind of school it is. That is where we should direct our energies rather than concerning ourselves with a hollow outbreak of concern for democracy from the Benches opposite.
The Government have made their policy on grant-maintained status clear. There should be the opportunity at each school for parents to seek grant-maintained, Status and to move out from the LEA umbrella when they deem it ready. That has not been presented as anything other than a lasting and definitive move for self-government. We have never hidden that fact. As the White Paper indicated, the Government firmly believe that self-government is best for state schools and we remain firmly committed to that end. We have not taken the road along which we were tempted by noble Lords on the Liberal Benches and made every school become grant maintained. We believe that that is a choice which should be exercised by parents.
Parents know when balloting that they are being allowed to choose the appropriate form of control for that particular school, now and for the future. Parents have that option—an option which was not even available before the 1988 Education Reform Act. The option is clear and the decision to seek grant-maintained status is only made when each school is ripe for grant-maintained status. Indeed, we make it clear in the information leaflets that go to schools when they are seeking grant-maintained status that they are making a decision for all time. There is no hiding that fact at any point.
I emphasise to noble Lords that this is a choice by parents, and that they have the option of seeking grant-maintained status. The Government are not forcing parents to seek grant-maintained status: it remains a voluntary decision for them. The Government are committed to ensuring that parents receive full and balanced information on the subject of grant-maintained status which will give them every opportunity to make an informed decision when voting in a ballot. If, for whatever reason, parents are not convinced of the merits of grant-maintained status
186
for their school at a particular time, they are perfectly able to vote against the motion and to reconsider at a later date. Indeed, some of them do just that.
The Bill is about choice, diversity and meeting local needs. Parents have the choice, as exercised through the ballot and further confirmed through proposals, before a school obtains grant-maintained status. Having exercised that choice, it is only reasonable to allow the school to settle down in order to operate at its best under its new status. I note that the amendment suggests that there should be a period of five years before a school could seek to relinquish self-government. I appreciate the intention of that period of restriction on the length of time between ballots. Clearly, it is supposed to limit disruption, but I cannot agree that the length of five years would sufficiently meet concerns about the stability of a school which had assumed self-governing status. How could stability be achieved if at the end of five years the governing body had to change its system of ' management and funding arrangements, knowing that in another five years the system could be changed yet again? A school could be continually switching, as I have said, from one form of control to another, causing perpetual change in the system of management, which would be in the Government's view and in my view a recipe for disruption. Once the choice for self-government has been made, it is only fair that the school should be given every opportunity to stabilise and progress under its new status.
I must come clean with my noble friend Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn. I will not join him in the Lobby if this amendment returns to this House with a proposal for a 15-year period. The decision we are discussing is properly thought out and it allows for a full gestation period and a proper consideration. After all, it is the good running of the school with which we should be concerned. The school takes a considered view over whether it would like more control over its own affairs. That is what the decision is about.
The provisions of the Education Bill are intended to last a good deal longer than five years. We should ask what are the practicalities of a system that would allow schools to shuttle back and forth in and out of local authority control. Such a decision to keep seeking change could mean a lack of continuity. Our Bill will provide that, when 75 per cent. of secondary (or primary) pupils in an LEA are in grant-maintained schools, responsibility for securing sufficient secondary or primary places for the area will transfer to the Funding Agency for Schools, though an LEA may apply to be relieved of this responsibility at an earlier stage. There is already one local authority beyond the 75 per cent. point and a number are very close to it.
Bearing this in mind, let us look at the possible effect of this amendment in an LEA where the trigger has been reached, or indeed where all of the LEA's schools have achieved grant-maintained status. What if one school then, for its own reasons, decides to relinquish self-government and be maintained by the local authority which has already run down its services for controlling either primary or secondary schools? In those circumstances we should not forget that when an LEA ceases to be the umbrella body for schools in

187
its area, it is unlikely to continue to be staffed-up to manage schools. The LEA may itself have reorganised better to meet functions other than maintaining schools. It would have to look again at re-organising in order to manage one school and potentially others. Having relinquished responsibility for most of the pupils in the sector, it would have to resume responsibility for some of them. The school's resources for central administration would have to go to the LEA. In the circumstances the LEA might decide that maximum delegation of those resources would be sensible; then what advantage would there be for the school to return to the LEA maintained sector? Overall, opting back and forth would be a recipe for little but chaos and confusion, producing a total lack of stability in which to manage a school to deliver quality education. If the LEA is reluctant to take the school back what could be worse than the school opting back to an LEA that does not want to control that school? Is that a good arrangement for a school?
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, was exceedingly selective in his quotation from the Ofsted Report published at the end of March. For while Ofsted does not yet (I underline the word "yet") observe statistically significant differences in performance between grant-maintained schools and local authority schools with otherwise similar characteristics—that is for the obvious reason that the schools in question had hardly been in the new sector for any length of time—nevertheless it observed many improvements in grant-maintained schools that give grounds for confidence for the future. In particular the report noted:
"improvements in the allocation of resources within schools; an increase in provision especially for books and equipment; improvements in teachers' morale, pupil discipline, general attitude and school ethos; doing more for allowing school premises to be made available to local communities and taking more than their fair share of children with special needs".
All of those observations strike me as absolutely correct. They confirm my own observations obtained during my visits over the past year to local authority and grant-maintained schools. I conclude that self-governing status will lead to higher standards in our schools.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was concerned about the position in Stratford. While that was a regrettable situation, Stratford was a good example of how a governing body was taken over by the system provided by us and brought back on track in good time. My noble friend Lady Young reminded us all of the years during which the children of William Tyndale School were allowed to be subjected to the most appalling conditions when the school was failing them. The LEA did absolutely nothing about that.
My noble friend Lady Cox and my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch both gave examples of schools. I wish to give one more example which concerns Derby Moor Community School. We in the department were most disturbed at the nature of the complaints which were brought to our attention. We find it highly regrettable that third parties apparently sought to interfere in the ballot process. There were
188
allegations that parents have been intimidated on their own doorsteps and the Electoral Reform Society subsequently reported to us indications that ballot papers had been tampered with. I do not wish to name names but in different complaints alleged bullying tactics have been adopted to persuade voters to vote in a particular way. There have been allegations of attempts to collect ballot papers and attempts to get unauthorised people to complete ballot papers. There have been substantial campaigns of misinformation in which statements have been made where the intention seemed to be to alarm parents who were taking part in a ballot on the future of their own children's school. Those complaints are not dreamt up; they are real. Members of the Committee opposite cannot keep burying their heads in the sand and pretending that these things do not happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, talked about chopping and changing. It is precisely that argument that we are deploying here against this amendment. The noble Lord referred to the work of the Local Government Commission. The LEAs we are discussing may not exist in the same form as they existed when schools left their control. They may not exist at all as a whole new authority may have taken their place. Indeed a local authority may not even want a grant-maintained school to come back under its control.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: The Minister has only half-quoted me. She is aware that I went on to suggest that a period of five, seven or even nine years might be more appropriate. The Minister should have added that.
Baroness Blatch: That is still a short time in the life of a school. The point has already been made that when staff are recruited they like to think that their school will retain its identity. I put my cards on the table. I do not believe we should place any time limit on this matter. We should make the system democratic and people should make their own choices. I end where I started. I believe that this Government have done more to take the politics out of governing bodies than was hinted at by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. There are more parents on governing bodies now than ever before. They are elected to the governing bodies by parents. There are more teachers on governing bodies than ever before and they are elected to governing bodies by teachers. The governing bodies themselves fill vacancies. That is not an undemocratic system. It gets away from the former system of local government appointees. Formerly when an entire LEA became Conservative, it took over all the governing bodies in its area, as did Labour if it took over an entire LEA. That politicisation has now been removed from the system. I believe that this amendment is an important amendment. I hope the Committee will now agree that this matter could not have been dealt with at Question Time as we could not have done justice to this point.
The Shadow Minister responsible for education in another place has said:

189
"We oppose opt-out in principle because it is wrong. It is wrong in principle for a group of parents to be able to hijack a school".
I rest my case. This side of the Committee believes in a democratic process that was violently opposed by the other side of the Committee. We believe that that democratic process should be allowed to go ahead. For the sake of stability and for the sake of good schooling we ask that this amendment be rejected.
Lord Judd: I am diffident about intervening again in this debate because we have an extremely long night ahead of us. The amount of time available to us to give these vital matters of democracy and education the attention they deserve will be all too limited, as indeed it was in another place.
I begin by making the point that when the Labour Party spokesman on education in another place, Mrs. Taylor, made the observation to which the Minister referred, she was making an honourable point in the context of democracy. She stated the position of the Labour Party. The Government stated the position of the Government. In the traditions of our democracy the public as a whole should then be given an opportunity in a democratic election to decide which they favour. We do not accept the business of attrition, to which we have already referred in these proceedings, whereby if people in a particular school do not make the decision which the Government favour, they will be asked to continue voting on the issue year after year until they do.
Baroness Blatch: I must correct the noble Lord. There is nothing in the Bill which requires parents to vote for grant-maintained status. I have said that a great many times but the noble Lord refuses to believe it. All that is asked is that governing bodies consider whether to start the process. It is the parents who ballot and the parents who determine whether or not to seek grant-maintained status.
Lord Judd: The Minister is quite correct. The Bill says that every year the governing body will be required to consider the matter. However, it is a little disingenuous of the Minister to suggest that that is merely an academic debate which will take place every year and that it is not intended to bring about a vote. The Minister shakes her head, but I do not see the point of taking up the time of governors in their voluntary service if the intention is not to try to secure a different outcome from that which was achieved on the previous occasion.
I turn now to one or two substantial points which have been raised. The first point is that when the Minister says that the Bill transfers democracy from traditional democratic structures to parents she must make it plain that power is being transferred to one generation of existing parents. That is the point. In this part of our deliberations we question whether that one generation of parents should be able to make a decision, which is irreversible, for all future generations. That is the issue: If we are moving to a form of parental democracy in schools then it must be a form of democracy which takes into account the
190
future, and future generations, as much as the present. That is the issue, and it has not been answered at any point in our deliberations so far.
I should also like to pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others. I would take second place to nobody in my unqualified condemnation of intimidation, as I would take second place to nobody in my condemnation of ballot rigging in any form or any attempt at ballot rigging. However, surely the reason for our condemnation is that we believe in freedom and democracy. We should therefore be considering how we can enhance that freedom and democracy. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said so tellingly in the debate, the paradox in what we are putting forward is that we shall be producing a more secure environment, in which parents can make a more objective decision about the future because they know that they will not be binding all succeeding generations of parents for all time and that succeeding generations will have the opportunity to return to the issue and make their own decision. That is also an important point which has not been dealt with adequately.
Another point came out in the debate, which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, emphasised in talking about education becoming a political football. She will know that I have a genuine and deep personal respect for her and her contribution. Indeed, we serve together on the governing body of a college of education and see a great deal of each other. I have a great deal of respect for the commitment and experience which she brings to that role. However, I am a little surprised by the noble Baroness, as I was by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. They suggested that there is a difference in character between the degree of instability which results if the possibility of reverting from one status to another is being debated and that which arises when parents, teachers and children are anxious about such a bothersome debate arising yet again each year, and using up a great deal of time and energy, and whether they can be certain that their school's present status will continue.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I should like to reiterate the point that I made earlier. The stability to which I referred is in the governance of the school. The debate can be as lively as one wishes, but I am concerned that the school should remain in a system of governance for a sufficient period of time to settle down for the forseeable future.
Lord Judd: That is where I find the noble Lord's position ludicrous. The governance of the school will be every bit as disturbed by a debate as to whether or not the governors want there to be another vote as it would be by a debate on whether or not the school was to change its status. That would be a real debate and very disruptive. I do not believe that the noble Lord, with all his experience of the reality of the politics of educational institutions, does not know exactly what I am saying on that point. Of course he does.
I return to the central issue about which we feel very deeply in putting forward this sincere and genuine

191
amendment. We believe that we must have a system whereby, if democracy is given to parents, it should be given to all parents and not just one generation.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: We have had an interesting and hard fought debate and have covered just about every point there is to cover on this disputed topic. I have been called plausible, enticing and beguiling. I am not sure whether to take those remarks as compliments, or perhaps they referred to my arguments.
I should like to pick up a few points made by one or two of the speakers before addressing the Minister's remarks. In doing so I shall reinforce some of what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said. Like the noble Lord, I do not deny the experience mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I condemn it as strongly as anyone. That was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and others. That experience is thoroughly bad and must be condemned. However, that cannot be a reason to deny all parents everywhere their choice for all time. It seems to be a case of hard cases making bad law. When one puts it against what we are principally standing out for here—namely that parents should be allowed to choose—bad though everything that has been said in that regard may be, I do not believe that intimidation is endemic to LEAs rather than to any other system. But to deny all parents everywhere their choice on that basis is not right. After all, even intimidation is better than no choice at all.
Noble Lords: No!
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Parents have no choice to come back under the present scheme.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out that it was the opponents of grant-maintained status who were making the running in this debate. So it is, but we hold a brief for those many parents and governors who, as I said in my opening remarks, share our view. Therefore, it is not only on our behalf that we are making this case; it is on behalf of parents who also feel as we do about grant-maintained schools. Statistically there are bound to be a great many of those.
We have dealt briefly with the question of parents or governors playing ping-pong, or flip-flop. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, raised that issue. One point that has not been made is that all such proposals have to go to the Secretary of State, quite apart from the fact that I do not believe that the governors and parents themselves, if one trusted them, would be foolish enough to become involved in such a game. There is always the long-stop of the Secretary of State. Therefore there is a double check against any untoward instability in schools going backwards and forwards.
I was as attracted as other noble Lords by the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, of lengthening the period, because I would not nail my colours to the mast on five years. For an exciting moment I wondered whether the noble Baroness would accept
192
that proposal. She did not, and it has gone down the drain and there is no need to talk about it further. There would have been a case for extending it.
I was a little confused by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He argued that it was hard to opt out and quoted all the clauses relating to opting out, but without mentioning that we have made it harder to opt back in again. Therefore it is not as though people would be saying, in his words, that "Opting back is experimental, let's give it a go". It is a union in the same sense as anything else in life. Do people go into marriage saying, "There is always divorce, we can always get out if we want to"?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Some people do!
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: It is one of those decisions in life—is it not?—which in practice can be reversed if things go wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, made this point. It is one of the chief points I wish to raise. If one gives people a choice one takes risks. They are inseparable. One cannot give people a choice and then expect them to do everything perfectly. That is not how democracy works. I accept that if one gives parents the choice to opt back, as we suggest, there is the risk that some rogue people will cause disruption. They may exercise their choice badly. They may not like grant-maintained status, or whatever. That risk is inseparable from giving people choice.
Much of the debate went off that basic point with many interesting red herrings. They have occurred in debates on previous amendments and will doubtless arise again. The issue comes back to the question of choice.
I always admire the Minister, in particular the way that she makes the very best of a not very good case. She referred to motives again. The less said about that the better. According to the Minister, we—perhaps not myself, but the party opposite—were not the right people to talk about democracy, the grant-maintained issue and so on. I shall leave that matter on one side: it is, I believe, a red herring. We should be looking at the merits of the case.
I agree with the Minister that it matters what kind of school it is and what goes on in it. We hold different views on the types of school but I am at one with her on that factor. The problem is the one-way approach. I believe that the noble Baroness has much in common on this issue with the late Henry Ford: you can have any colour so long as it is Blatch!
The Minister raised the point that if a school wished to opt back and there was not much of an LEA to opt back to, that would be a bad thing. Of course it would. If there were no proper home to go to, no governing body in its right mind would seek to opt back. If it did, it would be foolish; and the Secretary of State is a long stop to prevent that. I do not believe that there is much in the argument about what one opts back into. No one would wish to follow such a course; and one has the Secretary of State as a long stop.
I conclude on the basic principle of parental choice. We went round the houses with many interesting

193
arguments. I had sympathy with the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Many noble Lords opposite argued in the manner of special pleading. They sought to get round the fundamental point. It comes down to the basic question of giving parents a choice which should not be irreversible.
I have not sensed any give from the Government —quite the reverse. For those of us who believe in the amendment, I do not consider that there is any alternative but to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 157BB) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Con tents, 169.
6.1 p.m.
Schedule 5 [Governing bodies of grant-maintained schools]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley) moved Amendment No. 157C:
Page 177, line 26, at end insert:
("( ) In the case of a governing body incorporated under Chapter IV, any governor of an elected category appointed before the date of implementation of the proposals shall hold office for the prescribed term.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns parent and teacher governors in schools which are established as new self-governing schools by the funding agency or by promoters. To set the amendment in context, it may be helpful if I explain some of the arrangements surrounding how the governing bodies of such schools are established.
When proposals for the establishment of a new school have been approved, the funding agency or the promoters will put together a list of appointed governors who will form the core of the governing body. These appointments are subject to the approval of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. There may, however, still be a number of years before the proposals are due to be implemented. During this period the governing body should not consist solely of appointed members: other governors, such as parent and teacher governors, will also be needed to provide the necessary balance of interests on the governing body.
Clearly there will be no pupils or teachers before the implementation date: parent and teacher governors cannot therefore be elected in the normal way. The Bill therefore provides that, before the date on which the proposals are implemented, the governing body can appoint such governors. Regulations will, of course, ensure that these appointees satisfy certain requirements. For instance, we may regulate for any person appointed as a parent governor to be the parent of a child of compulsory school age; and for appointed teacher governors to satisfy the requirement that they would be eligible to serve as a teacher at the school. I think the Committee will agree, however, that these appointments should be temporary, stop-gap measures and that appointed governors should be replaced by suitably elected governors as soon as is reasonably practicable after the establishment of the school.
This brings me on to the amendment itself. As the Bill stands, all parent and teacher governors in a school being established as self-governing will have terms of office of four years. This could lead to a parent or teacher governor being on the governing
196
body of the school for a number of years after it is established without necessarily being representative of the usual electoral bodies. The amendment will allow us to make regulations to specify the terms of office of these appointed parent or teacher governors. This will also allow us to determine precisely how soon after the electorates are in place normal elections should be conducted.
Without wishing to prejudice the process of consultation that will take place on those regulations, we feel that it would be appropriate for elections to be held in the first term after the school is up and running. This requirement would mirror that for schools being established in the LEA sector.
The amendment merely ensures that the parents and teachers in new schools have the opportunity to elect representatives to the governing body as soon as the school is established. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: Can the Minister clarify and underline one or two points? First, I notice that the length of office is not stated in the amendment. Can he comment and clarify the situation? Can he explain whether there is an additional power for the Secretary of State in that respect and, if so, what it would be? For example, could he prescribe an extension?
I also wonder whether the Minister could clarify the point that as the provision applies for an incorporation, that is before the school is functioning, we need to know in some detail how parent and teacher governors are to be elected.
Lord Henley: Details of how the parent-teacher governors are elected is something we will come to later. As regards the first question, the noble Lord asked for how long the new governors would be appointed. As the noble Lord appreciates, the first governors have been appointed. The point of the amendment is so that we can make provision to elect new governors representing the parents, as I suggested, as likely as not following consultation in that first term. So there are properly elected parent governors representing the parents of the school. They would then, I believe, remain in office until the usual elections the following year, or whatever, in the normal way.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 158 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 158A:
Page 178, line 4, leave out from ("among") to end of line 6 and insert ("persons who are eligible to be lay members.
( ) A person is eligible to be a lay member for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) above if—

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

(b) he does not have, or has not at any time had, any connection with—

(i) the school, or

(ii) any person who is a member of, or employed by, the governing body of the school,

of a kind which might reasonably be taken to raise doubts about his ability to act impartially in relation to the school.").

The noble Baroness said: The effect of this amendment is to remove the requirement that lay

197
members of admissions appeals committees of grant-maintained schools be appointed from a list drawn up by the Secretary of State and appointed. Perhaps the Committee will forgive me saying so but it was a rather bureaucratic system. We now believe that the requirement that lay members must be appointed from a central list is too bureaucratic a solution to the problem of ensuring that lay members are properly independent. We believe that it would be more within the spirit of local management and local discretion to allow admissions authorities to make their own choice, subject not to the appearance of the desired candidate on a list held by the Department for Education, but rather to certain safeguards designed to help ensure that the individual is truly independent.
We propose to table a further amendment at Report stage which will require governing bodies and local authorities to seek applicants for lay member positions by advertising the criteria, for example, in local newspapers. We believe that this will act as a further safeguard to help ensure that lay members are independent and comply with the spirit of the Parent's Charter. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: As I understand it, the original idea, when the Parent's Charter was put forward, was that appeals committees for hearing appeals from parents against governing body and LEA decisions over school admissions and permanent exclusions should include independent members. That was to ensure that parents had a fair and independent hearing. However, in the deliberations I seem to recall that it was felt that as members of appeals committees were chosen by governing bodies and LEAs, they would not appear to be sufficiently independent.
Then it seemed to me that we progressed to the position where it was learnt at an early stage that what was then envisaged was that the public appointment unit and the Cabinet Office would maintain the list. However, when the Bill was brought before us, it provided for the Secretary of State to maintain the list.
I should like to be quite clear about this point. The amendments obviously remove that responsibility from the Secretary of State and define "lay members". There seems to be a slightly different definition for grant-maintallied schools compared with that for county and voluntary schools, although perhaps that is not of major concern. It will cheer the Minister up when we say that this proposal can be welcomed, in that the Secretary of State must have seen at long last that there is a limit even to his capabilities, powers and responsibilities. It would certainly be an impossible task to maintain a central list of perhaps 5,000 people to do this work on paltry expenses.
However, the solution of defining an independent member as a "lay member" is not altogether satisfactory; after all, presumably that member will be chosen by governing bodies and LEAs and thus the problem identified in the Parent's Charter will not be met. I wonder whether the Minister can clarify the situation.
198
I wonder also whether the Minister will clear up one point of detail; namely, will a lay inspector, under the terms of the Education (Schools) Act 1992, be able to be a lay member for the purpose of Schedule 15?
Baroness Blatch: I am not certain of the answer to the final question, but I shall let the noble Lord know. It is an interesting question. I suspect that the answer may be yes, but I shall not guess at it at the Dispatch Box.
I detect a meeting of minds about the principle of having lay membership, the principle of independence and the need to have as little bureaucracy as possible surrounding the issue. The noble Lord is right when he refers to the thousands of names that would need to be held centrally, whether it is a matter for the Cabinet Office or for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. As the noble Lord will know, it is not just a question of keeping a list. Every time a school wished to appoint a lay governor to an appeal committee it would have to refer to the whole of the list and choose from it; there would have to be biographical details, contact points and so forth. So we thought that the matter would be better managed at a local level. I must say that I have some personal claim to trying to make the system more manageable.
We have taken the view that we ought to set down very firm criteria about what is meant by independence—in other words, it should characterise someone who is not a member of the local authority and has not had any connection with the school. At the end of the day, whoever makes the choice, and whether the list is kept by a local authority or a third party, nationally or locally, there will always be some subjectivity in choosing from a list for a school. Also —and this safeguard may meet the noble Lord's concern—if the person who appeals has a view about bias (after all that is the person who wants a fair hearing) and is sufficiently concerned that there might be bias, it is possible for him to make a complaint to the Secretary of State. I think that that is the better way to do it. I shall give the noble Lord an answer to the specific question that he asked.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: I wonder if I am in order in asking a few questions in preparation for a later debate regarding the use of the same words as are used in this amendment—a point which rather nonplussed me. Within a couple of days I have to get my mind clear on another aspect of the Bill which refers to a "lay panel". So I presume that I am in order in raising the matter now. I do so not in order to pre-empt a debate later on, but to wonder whether the word "lay" means the same thing here. I refer to the special educational needs tribunal. The Bill says that there will be a panel of persons,
"referred to in this part of the Act as the 'lay panel'".
This amendment mentions "lay members". Does that mean exactly the same thing? The people cited in this amendment will be,
"without personal experience in the management of any school".
The more it reads on, the clearer it becomes that they are never to have had anything to do with schools. Later, in reference to special needs—an area which interests me particularly though I shall leave this

199
argument until later —I do not know how on earth a person with no experience relating to special educational needs will play any part. So I wonder whether the word "lay" means the same thing.
With regard to this amendment, on the question of impartiality, surely it does not mean the same as "independence". Some of the most independent people I have known have been amongst the most biased in many of their beliefs, though none the worse for that. The amendment does not say "independent"; it says "act impartially". There is a newspaper in Northern Ireland, in County Fermanagh, which is called the Impartial Reporter. I leave the matter at that. It is rather nice to find something in Northern Ireland that is impartial. "Impartial" is quite different from "independent". Yet the Minister and my noble friend Lord Judd used the word "independent". The meaning is quite different. So what do we mean? I do not wish to pre-empt the coming debate on special educational needs, but I wonder whether "lay" has the same meaning and whether we are talking about "independence" or "impartiality". They are different things.
6.15 p.m
Baroness Blatch: I am not certain which particular part of the Bill the noble Lord refers to. I wonder if he can help me by explaining where the reference to "lay panel" occurs.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: That expression appears later, at page 100. The Bill refers to a "lay panel" to deal with the tribunal for statementing.
Baroness Blatch: We are talking about two very different things. I shall write to the noble Lord about the "lay panel", as it refers to another part of the Bill. Here we are talking about a panel that listens to parents who feel aggrieved that they did not get a place for their child in a school. It is an admissions panel. For that reason, one would expect the school to be represented on the panel, together with the governing body and whoever was responsible for making the judgment about whether or not there was a place for a particular child.
I happen to believe that the noble Lord makes a good point about independence. I accept all that the noble Lord has said on that matter. It is "impartiality" in the sense that what the parent sitting before that panel wants is a totally objective hearing. The parent did not get a place for the child in a school and has reasons for feeling aggrieved. Those reasons ought to be properly judged. To make it easier to make the judgment, it is essential that all schools, whether they are local authority-maintained or grant-maintained, have published criteria against which they accept children. Once a school is full to capacity—which is the point at which this question arises—it must resort to properly set out criteria for accepting young people. It is against that list that the judgment will be made. The panel must include not just the school representative—the school would suggest that, wouldn't it?—but somebody who is sufficiently
200
impartial and independently minded to give the parent a fair hearing. I shall write to the noble Lord about the lay panel as it applies to another part of the Bill.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask how we define "lay" and which people would fit in to that group which is "independent" or "impartial". How will the panel be composed in each local authority area? Will somebody ask for nominations which they then send in in the same way as the Honours system will now be operated; or will people in London know somebody in Birmingham who could be a lay member? How will a person become a lay member?
Baroness Blatch: The important point is that first of all "impartiality" needs to be set out. The definition of "impartiality" will include somebody who has, and has had, nothing to do with the school and who is not involved with the immediate local authority and has had nothing to do with that authority. The choice will be decided on questions of that sort. But at the end of the day if the parent who received the hearing had a suspicion that somebody was, for example, politically in tune with the chairman of the governors, that would be very good grounds to ask for another lay person. That suspicion would certainly be grounds for a parent to complain.
But at the end of the day there must be somebody who does not have a vested interest or who had some real connection with the school and/or the local authority, who can stand back from the case being put by the school as to why it did not accept the child and the grievance being put by the parent as to why the parent thought the child should be accepted. There are some very clear criteria set down against which that judgment is made. But at the end of the day a lay person can always be subject to challenge.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps I may repeat my question. I may not have phrased it in the right way. Is there in the Bill a clause which says that lay persons will be appointed by someone? In other words, how can one become a lay member?
Baroness Blatch: The whole point of the amendment is to replace what is in the Bill. Instead of taking what was in the Bill—namely, a very centralised compiling of the list—it is sought to make it a more locally determined matter. The criteria and regulations that will surround that provision flow from what goes on the face of the Bill. That there should be a lay person on the panel is established in primary legislation; and the responsibility should be as set out in these two amendments. But the detail that flows from that provision will follow in regulations.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 178, line 6, at end insert:
("(5) The instrument shall make provision for securing that, where functions are conferred on the governing body by regulations made under section 49 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (appraisal of performance of teachers) which include the appointment of any person to conduct the appraisal of the performance of the head teacher, the person appointed has no

201
connection with the school, the head teacher or any person who is a member of the governing body, of a kind which might reasonably be taken to raise doubts about his ability to act impartially in making the appraisal; and in this sub-paragraph "head teacher" has the same meaning as in that Act.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 159 and 290 are addressed to securing—I say with some diffidence—the greater impartiality of the two-yearly appraisal of the head teacher which is already required by statute. Perhaps the word here should be "independence". In my introduction to the amendment it may be that at some time we use the term "independent" when we mean impartial. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, that independence is a very different concept.
For grant-maintained schools the present arrangement is that the school's governing body, which includes the head, has a choice of whom to appoint as the two appraisers. In the case of LEA schools, the governing body appoints one appraiser and the LEA appoints the other. There is no requirement for impartiality or indeed independence in the appointments process.
The proposed wording to secure impartiality is taken from the Government's own drafting—not only the amendment that we have just been discussing but the Education (Schools) Act 1992, paragraph 3(5) of Schedule 2—to ensure that no member of an inspection team had a connection with the school. That is the basis of the drafting. We believe that evaluating the head's performance should similarly be informed by a standard of impartiality.
The effect of Amendment No. 159 is to integrate rather better the impartial four-yearly inspection reports of the school by Ofsted into what the school does on a year-by-year basis by bringing an equal degree of impartiality to bear in the annual reviews of the head teacher's performance within a two-yearly appraisal cycle to remove or at any rate to minimise the risk that appraisers might give an unduly optimistic view of the head teacher's performance and achievements.
The requirements for appraisal of the performance of teachers come from the 1986 Act. The first national regulations to implement appraisal were made in mid-1991. Each appraisal cycle lasts two years. Half of the teachers in post in September 1992 had started their appraisal by then. An appraisal interview in each year of the cycle leads to a written appraisal statement with an annexe of targets for action.
I know that the Government place great stress on the importance of the four-yearly inspections by Ofsted's registered inspectors. It seems that the measure proposed in this amendment would help to limit the danger of school governors drifting perhaps into an attitude of complacency between the four-yearly inspections. The amendments are not intended to disturb any of the features of successful appraisal schemes but to secure further assurances of good practice. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I understand and indeed sympathise with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in her plea for fairness. But in my judgment fairness
202
lies at the heart of our present arrangements for head teacher appraisal. The regulations require that each head teacher be appraised by two persons, one of whom should be a head teacher from a similar category of school. The involvement of two persons, rather than just one, already affords a degree of objectivity.
I am always baffled by the sensitivity of this issue. In industry and commerce—for as long as there has been an industry and commerce—people are appraised by their peers. It happens and works rather well. In this case there is a second person present for the appraisal.
Although it would be counter-productive to allow teachers—even head teachers—to choose their own appraisers, we suggest that local education authorities and governing bodies take seriously any representation that an appraiser appointed by the appraising body would be unsuitable. Indeed, it would be no service to either the school or the person being appraised to have a sycophantic, nepotistic appraisal of that person. In that too, in the guise of the second person, there is a valuable safeguard against abuse.
Thirdly, Regulation 11 of the School Teacher Appraisal Regulations establishes a formal complaints procedure. If a head teacher has a grievance arising out of the appraisal process, he can ask for a formal review. The local authority, or the governing body in an SGS school, must then appoint two independent review officers, who have played no part in the appraisal complained about. If they uphold the complaint, they have the power to amend the appraisal statement in agreement with the original appraisers or order a new appraisal to replace the old. So if there is any abuse of the process, it can be remedied. I am used to speaking of grant-maintained schools but I am now back on track and referring to self-governing schools.
The system is fair and, on that ground alone, I should argue that these amendments are not necessary. In fact, there would also be practical difficulties for schools if these amendments found their way on to the statute book. The local education authorities and governing bodies of these schools are responsible for arranging the appraisal of all teachers, including heads. The amendment would obviously restrict the field of potential appraisers of head teachers and make the task of arranging appraisals much more difficult, most acutely in self-governing schools. It could also lead to a great deal of uncertainty about exactly how "impartiality" is to be interpreted in any given case, and there would be time wasted in arguing about the matter. The point about impartiality and the difficulties that it presents was well made on the last amendment.
I think that it would also disrupt the implementation of statutory appraisal. We are now almost exactly half-way through the implementation period. The regulations specify that all teachers in the maintained sector shall be subject to an appraisal cycle by September 1995 and that,
"a number equal to 50 per cent. of the total on 1st September 1991"

203
must have begun the first year of their two-year appraisal cycle by September last year. A high proportion of this first tranche are head teachers. To impose this requirement now would mean undoing carefully thought-out arrangements. The value of the time, training, and financial resources already invested in this implementation process would be undermined by such an interruption.
It is not even as if we are aware that there are problems with head teacher appraisal. Far from it. All the evidence is that appraisal generally is bedding in very successfully. That is all the more reason not to change the rules now. The year 1995 will be the time to judge whether changes are necessary, and if they are, to make them. If we do, there will be no need to amend primary legislation. These are regulations made under the 1986 Education (No. 2) Act. My right honourable friend will be able to amend them in 1995, if the need is there. If the noble Baroness believes that the appraisal regulations require amending now, it is open to her to persuade my right honourable friend of the need to do so. But to bind him and his successors by statute in this Bill would be going too far. For that reason I wonder whether the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that response. She referred to the question of grievances on the part of a head teacher who is the subject of an appraisal. That is not the point of the amendment. It is in fact the obverse of that coin that I am trying to avoid—too much complacency.
I am glad that the Minister moved away from the term "fairness" to "objectivity". It is objectivity which the amendment seeks. I have always envied those who are in a system which provides for appraisal because it is a valuable tool. I take the point in regard to the possibility of amending the regulations rather than including the point in primary legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 159,4 not moved.]
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Content of articles of government for grant-maintained schools]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 159B:
Page 178, line 38, at end insert ("including functions specified in section 76(2A) below.").
The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee, in moving Amendment No. 159B I shall speak also to Amendment No. 159C. Perhaps I can first refer to the consequential amendments and the material covered by them.
We are dealing with Clause 76 and maintenance grants. Our purpose is to require the Secretary of State to make regulations so that he has to fund equitably grant-maintained schools and local education authority schools in a specific area. The amendment is not intended to, and does not, cover new grant-maintained schools which were not previously LEA maintained.
The clause governs the payment of money to grant-maintained schools to cover their main
204
recurrent costs. Such payments are supposed to equate to the money given to an LEA-maintained school through its delegated budget plus the value of free, or so-called free, services provided for the school by their maintaining LEAs. However, there is real anxiety about the bias towards funding of grant-maintained schools as it is perceived. Surely, schools should be funded equitably. It cannot be right that the resources that the state devotes to the education of its children should be affected by the occurrence of a parental ballot for grant-maintained status. There is little justice, we would suggest, in the present funding arrangements.
After 1988 the position of the Government was that grant-maintained schools should receive an appropriate share of public funding as compared with other publicly funded institutions. The idea of grant-maintained status was intended to be sold on the intrinsic merits of self-government rather than by cash bribes. Indeed, Mr. Baker, when holding the office of Secretary of State, made a number of statements to that effect during the run-up to, and the passage of, the 1988 legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Education and Science, said at the Report stage of the Education Reform Bill:
"The Government's intention is that the financial effect of opting out should be broadly neutral—for the school, for the national taxpayer and for the local ratepayer … we intend the financial position to be broadly neutral".—[Official Report, 27/6/88; col. 1188.]
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, then Minister for Defence Procurement, answering for the Government at Third Reading, said,
"They [grant-maintained schools] will not be funded any more generously than they would have been had they remained with their local education authority".—[Official Report, 17/7/88; col. 490.]
That was all confirmed explicitly in DES circular 10/88 at paragraph 53 which said that a grant-maintained school's funding should,
"fairly represent what the LEA would have been likely to provide for the school had it continued to maintain it including expenditure on services provided centrally".
More recently, statements by Ministers have been less clear cut. Kenneth Clarke, in his 1991 speech to the North of England Education Conference, tacitly admitted that the first schools to achieve grant-maintained status had been more generously funded but implied that that generosity would not last when he advised more schools to opt out while the going was good.
In a letter dated 7th August 1991 the Prime Minister told Mr. Doug McAvoy, general secretary of the NUT, that the Government had made no secret of the fact that grant-maintained schools got preferential treatment in allocating grants to capital expenditure. He said,
"We look favourably at grant-maintained schools in order to encourage the growth of that sector. I am delighted to see that numbers are continuing to grow rapidly".
Nevertheless, the official line is still that grant-maintained schools receive only a proper estimate of what LEAs would have spent had they continued to maintain those schools. But the reality is different. In fact the reality of inappropriate over-funding has been well documented. In a report prepared for the

205
Association of County Councils, the consultants Coopers & Lybrand demonstrated that, on the initial funding methodology, the entire education budget of an authority could have been lost when just over half of its schools had opted out. The same study also demonstrated that the allocation of LEA central service costs pro rata to pupil numbers benefited secondary schools at the expense of primary schools because the latter, as smaller institutions, required a much greater level of central support.
To become more specific, there was a celebrated case where the DES calculation included a proportion of the Section 11 specific grant from the Home Office (to provide English language support for non-native speakers) which was allocated to a grant-maintained school at Old Swinfen in Dudley in spite of the fact that none of the projects covered by the grant were located in that school. There is also an element of double counting in terms of administration and management. While the DFE looks at all of an LEA's central expenditure to work out the grant-maintained schools' share, it takes no account of its own expenditure in the direct support of grant-maintained schools. The estimated out-turn in 1992-93 was, I believe, £1,450,000. There were 278 grant-maintained schools operating at that point, making an average per school of £5,200.
The references in the amendment to the three preceding financial years are intended to draw attention to another important aspect of maintaining parity. Up to now the calculations for grant-maintained funding have been based on the budgetary information for schools and their LEA in the same financial year as the grant-maintained school grant was payable. That is as it should be, but it has tended to mean that grant-maintained schools do not receive the final details of their budgetary allocation until a little way into the financial year.
For the current 1993–94 financial year, the DFE decided that the main part of a grant-maintained school's funding—the central annual maintenance grant—would be that which the school would have received had the school remained LEA maintained. However, for the additional funds to replace the central services that the LEA supplies, the Government decided that figures from the 1992–93 financial year should be used. That will have a disastrous effect as many LEAs have reduced their central services because of the unfavourable local government settlement and their decisions, required by the Government as part of their local management of schools policies, to delegate more to schools.
Grant-maintained schools will be comparatively over-funded for key services such as caretaking, cleaning, grounds maintenance, refuse collection, staff advertising, interview expenses and audio visual repairs. We suggest that that is unacceptable. I understand that the local authority associations, on behalf of their members, have been suggesting ways that the calculation of the grant-maintained budgets can be speeded up while retaining the use of current year data.
We have a long night ahead. I can and will give, if asked, specific examples area by area of what I am talking about. But perhaps it will suffice to say that we are proposing to make a stand against Clause 77 because of the same kind of rationale that I explained previously. Special purpose grants raise exactly the same principles as those raised in the amendment to Clause 76. Indeed, we are putting forward our amendments as they affect Clause 78—capital grants —because we want to ensure that the level of funding available for capital grant for the grant-maintained sector within an LEA area is the same as capital expenditure approved for LEA-maintained schools within the same LEA area. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I believe that in this group we are taking some of the amendments to Clause 76. I am particularly interested in Amendment No. 168 that seeks to establish the principle of a level playing field. In an earlier debate the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that she did not much like the phrase "level playing field". I can only assume that she has never had to play rugby football uphill, whereas my noble friend Baroness Young and I have both had to do it. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has also played on the same pitch.
Baroness Hamwee: I have never had to play rugby, even downhill. However, I have had to play the game of trying to run a local authority on a field which may not seem level. It was merely the jargon to which I objected.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I believe it is very useful jargon.
The Earl of Longford: Am I right in thinking that it was the noble Lord who tackled my daughter, Antonia, when they both played rugger together at Dragon School?
Lord Jenkin of Boding: All I can say to the noble Earl is that I wish I had! I believe that it was my younger brother. I have certainly tackled my noble friend Lady Young; we have played on the same rugby field.
We are seeking to establish that there should be equality of treatment between grant-maintained and local education authority schools. I have been asked to raise this point by the London Boroughs Association which, somewhat to my surprise, has been unable to have the matter aired in another place. We are seeking to ensure that the funding that schools receive is decided on a strictly equitable basis without reference to which kind of school the children are attending. My intentions, which I believe are much the same as those of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, are to clarify exactly where the Government now stand on this matter. It may be that the Minister will be able to give me a perfectly clear answer.
I should like to give two examples where it is felt that there has not been a level playing field. The first concerns the amount retained by the local authorities for administration purposes; that is, the provision of payroll and personnel services, legal advice and matters of that kind. In the first tranche of

207
grant-maintained schools the notional budget of the particular school was calculated and it was assumed that local authorities would retain 16 per cent. of the money for central administration of those particular subjects. When the school opted out it took with it the actual sum that would have been delegated to it by the LEA plus an add-on equivalent to 16 per cent. of the notional school budget, whether or not that had been the actual amount retained for the school. It might have allocated to the school more than 84 per cent. and therefore retained less, but when the school became grant-maintained the full 16 per cent. went with it. Where there is not one school but several schools in an area, each of which appears to be taking a disproportionate share of central administration costs, one can reach a point where in theory the local authority has nothing left at all for administration because it has allocated all of it to the grant-maintained schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to the Coopers & Lybrand report that threw a flood of light on this subject. They found that in some local education authority areas the 16 per cent. add-on would exceed the budget available if all secondary schools opted-out. I believe I am right in saying that since then the percentage add-on has been reduced so that as more schools opt out and become grant-maintained the amount is less.
Another area of concern is that the cost of specialist curriculum advisers—one thinks of advisers on science and technology, modern languages and so on—cannot be reduced as schools opt out. In practice, unless cuts can be made elsewhere in their budget the local education authority will be bound to reduce the number of such advisers and the comprehensiveness of the advice available to LEA schools across the range of the curriculum will be reduced. In some areas the amount of money remaining with the LEAs will not be enough to provide an adequate level of central services.
I cannot believe that that is the intention of the Government. The amount of grant allocated to grant-maintained schools and the money therefore left with the local authority should be broadly the same for each pupil, though obviously in the case of primary and secondary pupils the figures are different. But it does not seem to have happened quite like that. I would be most grateful if my noble friend could throw some light on it. In one London borough it has worked out quite unfairly between two schools. In Croydon where two schools became grant-maintained the smaller one, because it was the first to opt out, received —80,000 more. It received an enhancement of 15 to 16 per cent. The second school which opted out later was slightly larger but got only 10 per cent. As a result it ended up with less money. I am sure that that is not intended, but I know that the London Boroughs Association will be grateful if, when my noble friend comes to reply, she can indicate the Government's intention. If they look at this and it turns out that there have been inequities, perhaps they can take steps to put them right.
6.45 p.m
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may support the various amendments. I will give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Lucas: I have an amendment in this group. With your Lordships' agreement, I will speak also to Amendment No. 168A, which is in this group, and the small technical amendment, Amendment No. 304A, that goes with it. These amendments seek to make grant regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. We know very little of what the grant regulations will look like but they will be enormously important. Our school system has grown up over the past 50 years on the basis of local provision, local prejudices, local priorities and a certain amount of local pork-barrelling. There is a wide diversity of provision not clearly related to need, as has been shown by the publication by the further education funding councils of the funding rates of further education colleges.
In any change to a nationally consistent system there will be winners and losers. It will be crucial to know who they are and why, to monitor and review the situation and to gain acceptance of changes through understanding them. Financial regulations are a key part of the system. We can already see in the local management of schools that, for instance, it has been made impossible for small schools to maintain their senior staff. Where they have a group of people who are relatively expensive they now find that they have to dispense with some of them. In one case of which I know it is impossible for any teacher, except the head, to remain with the school for longer than about five years.
We can see in the proposals of the further education funding councils (though it is early days yet) that there may be severe pressure on extra-curricula activities as a result of funding based on outcomes that they propose. They will not take into account the initial states of the colleges, particularly the buildings that they have inherited. That puts at a disadvantage those colleges which have bad buildings when the change is made. They propose to make no allowance for small colleges serving local communities. That may well disadvantage those communities. They have adopted funding arrangements that discriminate against mixed science and humanities courses.
Clearly, funding arrangements are important. These kind of decisions taken at a delegated level are important to the way in which the school system runs. In the section of the system we are talking about, because the population is even less mobile than that in further education, there is even more potential for national financial regulations to induce marked changes in local educational provision. We need to have an opportunity to review the grants regulations as they emerge and over the early years of their operation. An affirmative rather than a negative procedure would seem to be appropriate.
Baroness Hamwee: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I had not gone far enough through the grouping of amendments. I support the amendments spoken to by the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord

209
Jenkin, and wish merely to add one point. I hope that the Minister can confirm that, of the various criteria assessed by parents in judging whether to vote for a school to become grant-maintained or to stay within the local education authority, the question of, call them, bribes, goodies or incentives should not be on the agenda and that what is important is the autonomy and the style of the school and the other things that go with grant-maintained status.
The Minister looks puzzled but I have been at meetings where parents have said, "But should we not be considering moving towards grant-maintained status because we will get more money?" The question in their minds is as simple as that. If we can dispose of that question, we will have done a good evening's work.
Baroness Blatch: I was looking puzzled, first, because the noble Baroness, without evidence, called them bribes. I was puzzled about that.
Baroness Hamwee: I do not call them bribes but I have heard them called bribes.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness did in fact call them bribes. I am responding only to what I heard the noble Baroness say. I say to her, yes, indeed, when parents are considering that they will get more money, they are absolutely right because they are going to get their share of the central costs in addition and they are going to get a per capita sum of money which relates to in-service training. It is very important that they know what those sums are. We do what we can to give them that information. Indeed, we are in a position now to be very specific about that, and that becomes part of the bank of information that schools have. It is information, not bribes. But I shall address the specific points as I respond to the amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: I wonder whether the noble Baroness will give way for a moment. I am hoping that it will be made quite clear to parents that the money they get is money that is required for particular purposes; in other words—I am sorry to use another piece of jargon—the bottom line is the same. The Minister is in fact confirming this. It is important that it should be confirmed and known by parents to be the case. The impression that many parents have is that they will end up with a greater sum of money after they have met the various requirements to run the school.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness misses a very important point. What they get is what the local authority would have spent on them for particular services. They are indeed named when the school receives its allocation of money. The whole point of becoming grant-maintained is for the former, local authority school to make its judgment about how that money should be spent. The rationale for taking independence within the state system is so that they will make a judgment at school level and not mirror precisely what the LEA would have spent that money on.
210
I am in some difficulty about the amendments. As they are very technical I have to ask a number of questions. I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Jenkin and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is not in his seat, whether the criteria referred to in Amendment No. 168 would apply at the point when the Government set standard spending assessments for local authorities or only once budget decisions had been made by the LEAs themselves. The answer to that question is material to the way in which I understand the amendment.
I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Judd. a question on Amendment No. 168B. Which of the three conflicting principles in Amendment No. 168B is the dominant one: that the AMG should be based on the retail prices index; or on a guess as to what the former LEA would have spent on the school, or indeed on the average of the three years' funding before the school became grant-maintained? The amendment is unclear on that point. The noble Lord appears to want to create a permanent baseline linked to past LEA spending on the school. That could be very inappropriate over time. Which is the link that he is advocating?
How would the amendment allow for pupil number changes at a school? How would he account for that, given that he is talking about a fixed point in time? How would a school be funded where it was not with the LEA before it was grant-maintained; for example, either because it was a new school or because of LEA boundary changes? Those are important questions that I need to have answered so that I properly understand the amendments.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: As my noble friend mentioned my name first, I have to say straightaway that I cannot answer her questions. When the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Select Committee in another place he was concerned to point out that the SSAs to the local authorities on which the grants are based will not take account of the fact that some authorities, like Sheffield, spend much more on education than the SSA, whereas other authorities, like Birmingham, spend much less. Therefore, I am not in a position, I fear, to answer her question. I shall, if I may, bounce back another question. It seems to me that there is an issue here which needs to be discussed quite urgently. I hope that she or one of her fellow Ministers will be prepared to meet a small delegation from the London Boroughs Association where I am sure these matters could be thrashed out. If she could answer that, we could perhaps resolve the problem.
Baroness Blatch: I can certainly give that promise to my noble friend. I should also say, however, that I believe that we have met the London Boroughs Association on these very matters. The amendment states:
"In making grant regulations the Secretary of State shall ensure that the criteria for allocating funds for the provision of education to pupils …"
Therefore, what is important is the point at which that is done—whether it is done at the global level or when the LEA is allocating its money to the schools. At LEA level the playing field is level, as I shall go on to

211
argue in a moment. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Judd, could answer the questions that I put to him on his amendments.
Lord Judd: The Minister should be aware that the local authority associations are putting forward proposals on how this could be handled. If the noble Baroness can give an assurance that the points she raises, which are perfectly fair, can be discussed in detail with the local authority associations and that she is prepared to look at the situation again in the light of what happens in those discussions, we shall of course reconsider the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I shall give general responses and speak to the system as it applies. It will then be for noble Lords to decide where the links should be made. They are questions which can be answered only by the noble Lord.
Amendments Nos. 159B and 159C would introduce an overly prescriptive element into the articles of government of grant-maintained schools. Schedule 6 already applies for an extensive list of material for inclusion in the articles and is not the right place for a list of the functions of the Secretary of State or the funding authority in respect of any of the various types of grant. As far as concerns the annual grant cycle, the grant regulations which will be laid before Parliament will be the place for many of these details.
Amendments Nos. 168 and 168B are clearly about equitable treatment of funding for grant-maintained schools and LEA schools. I believe that the arrangements we have in place now for the annual maintenance grant of grant-maintained schools and the AMG arrangements we have proposed for the future already achieve such equitable treatment. Much of what my noble friend has said has properly been addressed and most of those concerns have been met. But we need to compare notes following the debate.
I assure the Committee that we have a concern to see fair and equitable funding of both LEA and grant-maintained schools. The main form of funding for grant-maintained schools, and the only one which is paid for from local authority funds, is the annual maintenance grant. That is currently calculated to include three main elements. The core element is based on the local management of schools' scheme of each former maintaining authority. On top of that there is a percentage addition to reflect the LEA's spending record on services it has provided centrally to its remaining maintained schools. The final element is for school meals which is again based on the level of the individual LEA's spending. Members of the Committee will therefore see that the calculation of AMG is equitable and takes account of the funding in each LEA.
I say to my noble friend that his particular point about 16 per cent. and 15 per cent. central add-on has been totally dealt with. The figure that applies is the actual sum held back by the local authority. The percentages are running at something below 10 per cent. for many schools. It is higher for primary schools than it is for secondary schools, but it relates to what the local authority holds back.
212
For the future we have proposed the gradual introduction of a common funding formula for grant-maintained schools. That will provide a new alternative way of calculating AMG. That will be a vitally important option in areas—and there are many already—where a significant number of schools, but not the majority, are in a particular phase and are grant-maintained and not local authority maintained. The CFF will distribute in each LEA area a total based on the relevant standard spending assessment for the local authority concerned. It will do so using a formula which is as simple and as transparent as possible. Transparency will be absolutely essential.
We shall pilot the common funding formula in a small number of areas from April 1994. One consultation paper about the CFF has already been issued last December. Further papers will follow this year. Indeed, there are already local authorities which are keen to be involved in that experiment.
I believe that Amendments Nos. 168 and 168B would introduce uncertainty in a number of key areas. I have named one. I ask the noble Lord, whose amendments are before us, for further clarification on certain points. As I have said, I accept the questions. If we are to vote on these amendments, as I suspect we shall, it is absolutely beholden on the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to tell us precisely what the links are to be.
I shall be grateful for clarification if it comes. If not, then the Committee will be invited to vote on wholly indeterminate links in these amendments. I am not convinced that these amendments would deal fairly or satisfactorily with the future funding of grant-maintained schools. I hope that the Committee will see the good sense and fairness in both our current arrangements for AMG, which will continue for many schools for some time, and of the common funding formula which will gradually replace them. Both will provide for schools a level of funding which is equitable and which recognises their particular circumstances and extra responsibility compared with local authority schools in the area. For those reasons I cannot accept Amendments Nos. 168 and 168B.
I now turn to the amendments of my noble friend Lord Lucas concerning the affirmative procedure. I can understand his concern in wishing to make these regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That would allow the other place and your Lordships' House the opportunity to debate the regulations prior to their being made by the Secretary of State, rather than after their making as is the case with negative resolutions.
In considering those amendments it is important to remember that this Bill is the first to be subject to the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers. A copy of its report, which was published on 1st April, is in the Library. I know that the committee has already given careful consideration to all relevant points in its scrutiny.
The report of the Select Committee is meant for the guidance of the House. It is not in the nature of instructions to the House. However, it is interesting to note that the committee raised no questions about the intention for regulations under Clause 76 to be subject to the negative procedure. Where it did have concerns

213
it made references. Neither did the committee make recommendations for change. That is very important. The Committee should take strong account of that. The grant regulations in question already exist under Section 79 of the Education Reform Act 1988. Clause 76 is essentially a re-enactment of that section and not a new provision. The regulations have been made annually since 1989 and have been laid before Parliament under the negative resolution procedure. Those arrangements appear to have worked well. The negative procedure has not precluded debate on the regulations.
Two years ago the other place debated the 1991 regulations after the Opposition prayed against them. This year's regulations are scheduled for debate in May, once again in the other place, as the result of an Opposition prayer. In the light of history, I am not minded to support the introduction of the affirmative resolution procedure. Moreover, I believe that the time delay which that procedure can add to the business of introducing regulations, and any urgent amendments to those regulations, would be unhelpful. There is a detailed annual consultation process with local authorities, with the grant-maintained schools and others before each year's set of regulations is made. I would not want to see that process become cramped if it can be avoided.
In conclusion as regards these amendments, I believe that the current negative procedure will continue to serve Parliament well in respect of these particular regulations. There is scope for full and adequate scrutiny under the current arrangements. But the real danger of accepting the amendment is the delay which will occur to the proper financing system. I hope that my noble friend will take that into account when he considers what to do about his amendments.
Perhaps I may refer to one or two points made in the debate. It was said that local authorities do not have enough money to meet their administrative responsibilities. The cash protection provisions which have been referred to apply to schools operating as grant-maintained schools before 1st April of this year. That is an end to the old arrangements. Moreover, they apply not to the totality of their grant, but only to that small element which refers to LEA central costs. The local authorities were told of the provisions last November so that they could budget accordingly. There is no reason why we should be unable to fund their continuing responsibilities to their own schools.
We shall of course keep the cash protection arrangements under review and will continue to bear in mind the cost to the LEAs. We have indeed met some of their worst fears and concerns as a result of the very constructive meetings with those bodies, including the LBA.
The Government believe that it is right, in order to give certainty, for the central cost add-on to be based on 1992–93 figures. For the noble Lord, Judd, who made this point, it should be noted that allowance has been made for compulsory delegation of cleaning and grounds maintenance for 1993–94. That has been fully taken into account. For many local authorities, moving to individual add-on percentages represents a
214
reduction in the add-on as compared with the fixed rate of 15 per cent., which is the point that I made to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. Local authorities are continuing to use the fixed average. We have moved away from that.
Over the years, and because of cash protection and the central cost element, schools that became grant maintained early enjoy higher central cost amounts rather than schools which became self-governing later. But the arrangements are always clear. It is felt right that the schools should not have to adjust spending downwards, having let contracts and so forth, faster than cash protection applies.
The last point and, for the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the most vexed one, is the one that I now come to and it concerns capital grants, the subject of Amendment No. 169A. As regards this amendment, I wonder whether I detect a misunderstanding of how the capital funding for LEA schools actually works. In their case there is not a grant regime, but a long-standing system whereby local authorities receive borrowing approvals. My right honourable friend approves annual capital guidelines on the basis of bids submitted by local authorities in respect of the schools which they maintain.
So it is important to note that this amendment would not work as it stands. The drafting implies that a formula exists by which capital funding can be determined, but that is far from the case. The other point which the noble Lord did not include in his equation when he was doing some interesting arithmetic, is that local authorities, in addition to annual capital guidelines and permission to borrow, are also allowed to apply their own capital receipts. On top of that they can also rate for capital. All of that was left out of the equation.
It has been claimed that the current capital grant system is unfair to local authority schools. However, as in previous years, each grant-maintained school's entitlement to capital grant continues to depend on the relative merits of its bids and the total sum available for allocation to grant-maintained schools. It would be a mistake to believe that the funding of grant-maintained schools is at the expense of schools remaining in the local authority sector. Ministers decide the allocation of public spending, looking at competing priorities across all the public services. They allocate separately to the local authority and grant-maintained schools. Less money for grant-maintained schools would not necessarily mean more for local authority schools.
We have made no secret of our intention to set up grant-maintained schools on a sound basis. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to the letter from my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I do not intend to detract from what was said in that letter. Many local authorities have had wholly inadequate arrangements for maintaining their capital stock. As I said, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made it clear in that letter, released to the press in the summer of 1991, that we look favourably on grant-maintained schools in allocating grants for capital expenditure. It needs also to be noted, but only in passing because I do not make it a core part of my

215
case, that in certain local authorities many of the schools were sorely neglected compared with other schools. However, in all the circumstances, I believe that the treatment is fair, and I therefore reject Amendment No. 169A.
Lord Judd: I am grateful to the Minister for her full reply. I shall deal first with the point about capital grant. Our amendment is designed to include a requirement that there be parity of capital funding between grant-maintained schools and the remainder of the public sector. There is, in our view, inequality currently at a number of levels. In the first instance, local authorities are given capital allocations which, as the Minister has argued, represent a sanction by central government to raise loan finance; that is, by borrowing money.
On the other hand, grant-maintained schools are, as the Minister explained, given cash grants which carry no revenue implications. In terms of the previous inequality of central government practice, there has, in this case, been no pretence at even-handedness, and we would not suggest that there has been.
From the approval of the first grant-maintained schools much higher levels of capital expenditure were allowed to them. In extreme cases the annual allocation to a single grant-maintained school may even exceed the total sum agreed for the smaller LEAs. The Government's justification, as we understand it, was that they were making up for the previous underfunding by local authorities. I do not believe that that statement has ever been fully justified. We do not see it as a convincing explanation, as central government apply global limits on the amount of capital spending they wish to see LEAs undertake at levels which are approximately one-third of the sums that LEAs estimate that they need to spend.
In the past, local authorities have managed to spend above the amounts set by central government by using capital receipts and other devices. Although that performance cannot be sustained, more than two-thirds of LEAs have felt compelled regularly to spend above education capital guidelines in recent years.
The DFE sent a letter to grant-maintained school governors in the summer of 1992 indicating that some of the more ambitious projects that they might have been contemplating would be unlikely to attract funding. Their spending plans are still relatively generous. As part of the Autumn Statement, the DFE announced plans to spend £501 million on grant-maintained schools over the next three years. For the financial year 1993–94, something like one-third of the available capital has been allocated to grant-maintained schools, as we understand it, even though only 2 per cent of schools are currently grant-maintained.
Even taking account of any increase in the numbers of grant-maintained schools in the coming year, and that such an increase will be concentrated more on the secondary level, with a greater demand for capital expenditure, that is, nevertheless, way above any reasonable estimate of a fair apportionment among publicly-funded institutions.
216
Another problem caused by favourable funding in general for grant-maintained schools is, we would argue, that it is not sustainable. The present arrangements for 1993–94, and for cash protection of central AMG—both of which deliver artificially inflated budgets for grant-maintained schools —is bound to lead to future reductions just to restore the original LEA funding level, or is the Minister going to tell us that the Treasury proposes to increase expenditure on the school service by several billions of pounds?
All this will introduce a level of financial instability even greater than that experienced by LEAs under pressure from capping. In two or three years' time, schools which have opted out will be subjected, as surely as day follows night, to substantial cuts in their inflated budgets as the inducements for opt-out are withdrawn.
The Minister has already referred, with some pride, to the fact that one LEA already has over 75 per cent. of its secondary pupils in grant-maintained schools. Of course the LEA is Hillingdon. But is the Minister aware of the desperation felt within the primary sector in Hillingdon as a result of the chaos caused to Hillingdon's services to all schools due to the bizarre funding arrangements for 1993–94? If the primary schools in Hillingdon were to opt out in procession, Hillingdon's school budget would run out before all its schools had been able to opt out. What would Ministers do about that situation? What message can they send to the primary schools in Hillingdon? What funding levels will apply in Hillingdon if all the schools opt out? Are the Government going to spend several million pounds more than Hillingdon borough council on its schools? How soon before some intervention in Hillingdon becomes inescapable?
The two key points that the Minister has failed to acknowledge, which render the present arrangements inequitable, are that direct AMG is based upon the 1993–94 figure, while the central AMG is the percentage add-on which applied in 1992–93. In a period of increasing delegation under LMS, that delivers more than 100 per cent. of the budget in either year under the LEAs' LMS scheme. The cash protection of central AMG just compounds the problem.
We contend that the present situation is anything but fair. We also contend that it is not sustainable and that big dangers and problems lie ahead for the opted-out schools. To be absolutely fair, we have heard the points that the Minister has made in the debate. If she is prepared to meet us and give a firm undertaking at this stage that, in view of all the points made by Members on all sides of the Committee, she will reconsider this matter before going firm, we shall reconsider our position on the amendment. If she cannot do that, I shall be compelled to divide the Committee.
Baroness Blatch: I would be less than honest if I were to say that I could take all this back and look at the whole matter again. The noble Lord leaves more questions than he gave answers. In Amendment No. 169A, to which he has spoken mostly in his summing up, he asks that the grants to grant-maintained

217
schools should equate to the grants to local authorities. We do not make grants for capital to local authorities. It is an impossibility unless one changes the whole system.
In Amendment No. 168B the noble Lord has not said how one avoids the contortion of relating, having regard to the value of the RPI, an equivalent to the amount that the LEA concerned would have provided to the school had it continued to maintain it, including an amount equivalent to the value of services provided to the school by the authority, calculated by the reference to the average of the three full financial years preceding the establishment of the school. I hope that the noble Lord is not inviting the Committee to vote on the amendment.
Lord Judd: I am again grateful to the Minister. I am disappointed. I should have rather enjoyed a review of all this with her. I am sorry that we shall not be able to do that. It would have been rather fun. As she does not feel inclined to meet us on that point, it is clear to us that our amendments make it abundantly plain that the Secretary of State would have a responsibility for ensuring even-handedness, and a level playing field. Because we believe that that should not be just left to chance—indeed the Minister herself said she favours that position—we believe that it is best to press the matter to a Division.
7.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.159B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 126.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Longford, E.

Airedale, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Nicol, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ogmore, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Parry, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Peston, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Eatwell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ennals, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Galpern, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Glenamara, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Serota, B.

Grey, E.

Shepherd, L.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hamwee, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Strafford, E.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hooson, L.

Thurlow, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Howell, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jeger, B.

Warnock, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

White, B.

Judd, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Listowel, E.

Young of Dartington, L.

Lockwood, B.

218

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Kimball, L.

Kindersley, L.

Arran, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Kitchener, E.

Astor, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Barber, L.

Lindsay, E.

Belstead, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Blatch, B.

Liverpool, E.

Blyth, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Boardman, L.

Lucas, L.

Borthwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish,L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brentford, V.

Margadale, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Marlesford, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Marsh, L.

Cadman, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Milverton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monson, L.

Carnock, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

ChalkerofWallasey, B.

Mottistone, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Moyne, L.

Coleraine, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Cox, B.

Norfolk, D.

Craigmyle, L.

Northbourne, L.

Cranborne, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cross, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Pender, L.

Denham, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Prior, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Radnor, E.

Downshire, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Elles, B.

Rennell, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Elton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Savile, L.

Ferrers, E.

Seccombe, B.

Flather, B.

Selborne, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sharpies, B.

Gisborough, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strange, B.

Goschen, V.

Strathclyde.L.

Guildford, Bp.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Harlech, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Swinton, E.

Harvington, L.

Teviot, L.

Haslam, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Torrington, V.

Hemphill, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater. V.

Hives, L.

Vivian, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hooper, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Hothfield, L.

Wise, L.

Howe, E.

Wynford, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Young, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

7.26 p.m.
[Amendment No. 159C not moved.]
Viscount Astor: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In doing so, I suggest that the Committee stage begins again at 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1993
7.27 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th February be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is the latest in a series of such orders, which have been presented at intervals of approximately two to three years to deal with various routine financial matters. The most recent previous order in the series was the Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. The main purpose of the orders is to increase, as necessary, statutory limits imposed by Northern Ireland legislation on certain financial transactions and to deal with other routine matters with a financial content.
I shall deal briefly with the substance of each of the main articles. Articles 3 to 11 are associated and, taken together, they provide enabling powers for the establishment and management of trading funds in Northern Ireland. To a large extent the articles simply replicate the corresponding GB legislation, which is the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 as amended by the Government Trading Act 1990. They are an extension of the reforms introduced some years ago in Civil Service financial management and continued with the Next Steps initiative which created the first executive agencies.
Article 3 provides the general power 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 and no advance list can be set out at this stage.
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 there is 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. Perhaps I
220
should make it clear that this 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.
Articles 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 Act (Northern Ireland) 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 which 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 Parliament and the general public. This measure will bring the position in Northern Ireland into line with that in Great Britain.
Article 13 would enable a Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General, in his corporate capacity, to purchase property leasehold. The only effect of this provision will be to place the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General in the same position as his Great Britain counterpart who already has such a power. I understand 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.
Article 15 provides that fees paid to the Registrar of Companies in respect of his functions under the various companies orders should be paid into the Consolidated Fund. At present the Department of Finance and Personnel must direct how these 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 this difficulty and simplify procedures generally. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th February be approved.—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the Minister proceeded at an extremely fast pace indeed. I was just able to follow him. I wish to thank the noble Earl for his explanation of an extremely short order which is dry, technical and, in part, not easy to grasp.
However, as the Minister says, its main thrust is in Articles 3 to 11 which set up the financial framework for trading fund agencies. The Minister confirmed that it mirrors the Great Britain next steps agencies

221
legislation. I am particularly glad that the Minister made the very clear statement towards the end of his speech that the order does not pave the way for privatisation. For that reassurance my noble friend Lord Morris and I are predictably grateful. Privatisation will require its own separate legislation.
However, to return to the order, will the Minister explain whether it will be necessary to obtain parliamentary approval for the setting up of an individual funding agency? The Minister referred to the Government Trading Funds Act 1973. If I have correctly understood that legislation, no trading fund can be set up in Great Britain without an affirmative resolution of Parliament. That is an important principle which, on my reading of Articles 10 and 11, appears to be missing from the order. If that is so, that is a safeguard which Northern Ireland, under direct rule, is denied. The Minister may say that there is another safeguard in its place.
I am sure that the significance of this short and dry order should not be underestimated. As the noble Earl explained so clearly, his purpose is to provide a new framework for more efficient and effective public services for the benefit of customers and taxpayers, although they were not named by the Minister. This side of the House heartily endorses that objective provided that there are the necessary safeguards. I have a few reservations on that point.
Again, the funding agencies are, in a sense, a form of devolution as the day-to-day management of the service will be devolved from the Secretary of State or the Minister to an executive head of an agency which is itself external to the department. I recognise that the imposition of direct rule on Northern Ireland means that Ministers in the Northern Ireland department such as the noble Earl, Lord Arran, shoulder particularly heavy burdens of responsibility in addition to the punishment of extremely heavy travelling to and from Northern Ireland several times per week and also travelling within Northern Ireland itself. Therefore, to my way of thinking, it makes sense to devolve the day-to-day control and management of the provision of services in Northern Ireland so that Ministers are not overloaded with detail and can devote more time to policy formulation.
That leads me to a line of questioning. Perhaps the Minister can help by giving an indication of how many civil servants are currently employed by the Northern Ireland Office and other central government departments in Northern Ireland. Will he also give us an indication of how many are likely to be transferred to executive agencies over the next five years?
I noted that the Minister was careful to say in his speech that he did not believe that it was possible to produce a list of likely candidates for the status of a funding agency. He said that it is a step-by-step procedure which must be decided at a particular time. However, I find it difficult to believe that the Government have not set their sights upon some ripe services which they see as candidates for funding agency status. Notwithstanding what the Minister said, I press him to give a list of possible candidates. If he says that he cannot do that, I ask him to identify
222
what will be the criteria and tests for determining whether a particular enterprise is a candidate for funding agency status. For example, do the criteria relate to matters of administration? If so, to which matters of administration do they relate? Do they relate to the nature of the service to be provided by the enterprise? Such an indication would be helpful.
Turning now to Article 6, can the Minister explain how the department decided upon the figure of £50 million as the borrowing limit for a trading fund? That might possibly give us an indication of the scope of the order. I see that under paragraph 7 of the article the borrowing limit may be increased to £100 million by order to be approved by "the Assembly". But in the absence of the Assembly, will it be necessary to obtain parliamentary approval? Alternatively, will that be a decision of the head of the department? If parliamentary approval is not required, it seems to me that that omission would be another illustration of the inadequacy of direct government.
My second main line of questioning relates to the relationship between the Minister and the Next Steps Agency. That obviously raises the question of accountability to Ministers and, ultimately, to Parliament. I note that the order provides that the agency will be under a statutory duty to submit accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland in a form to be agreed by the Department of Finance and Personnel under this awfully complex Article 8. As I see it, I welcome the article because it provides at least two important safeguards which are appreciated: first, that the accounts have to be in a form to be approved by the Department of Finance and Personnel; and, secondly, that the accountants themselves have to be approved by the Comptroller General.
But as I am not an accountant and I do not have an understanding of the details of Article 8, can the Minister confirm that the provisions of the article follow the corresponding GB provisions? I have a feeling that he said in his opening speech that they do, but could he go just a little beyond that and tell us that in fact they are the best accounting practices known to man? That would be helpful.
Apart from the two safeguards that I have just mentioned, can the noble Earl tell us whether the Minister himself can intervene in the affairs of the agency if he has good ground for believing that things are going wrong? If that is so, can he say where in the order is the power to intervene? In addressing the last couple of questions to the noble Earl, I am very conscious that he is the Minister to whom the Social Benefit Agency in Northern Ireland is accountable. I should be most grateful if he could explain to the House how the relationship in practice between himself and the agency works.
There is yet one other aspect which is especially important in the Northern Ireland context. What assurances can the Minister give the House that the agency will act fairly, with integrity and with impartiality towards its customers in receipt of its goods and services or, indeed, to its staff in terms of promotion within the agency; that is, whether the customers or the staff come from the Nationalist and

223
the Catholic community or the Loyalists and Protestant community? I am sure that we are right to ask the Minister for those assurances in the Northern Ireland setting.
I turn now to my final point. Can the Minister tell us what happens to the people employed by the funding agency when the agency is wound up? Article 9 deals clearly with the trading funds on cessation of the service. The order is much concerned, and quite rightly so, about customers and taxpayers. But we are also concerned about the employees. That is why I conclude by asking a few questions about the staff whose contracts will be transferred from the Civil Service to the agency. What happens when the agency is wound up? Will their present terms and conditions of employment within the Civil Service be protected? Further, upon cessation and winding up of the agency, will they be transferred back to the Northern Ireland Civil Service upon suitable terms and conditions?
Those are the questions that seem to me to be relevant in considering the order. Subject to the few reservations that I made, we support the order. However, we would welcome the Minister's assurance on the matters that I raised.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, we have before us an order of daunting technicality. Although the Minister's clear and kindly light—for which we are most grateful—led us at the beginning, the gloom still encircles my own understanding. However, in so far as I do understand it, I should like to ask the Minister one or two other questions. The fundamental question that I have bears on the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. How arm's length are the trading agencies? For example, are they directly comparable to the seven Northern Ireland Civil Service agencies? Are they to be directly accountable in their status, in their arm's length relationship, to the Minister and to the Government? The accountability of any hived-off agency must be a matter of public interest. That must be particularly so where public money is concerned, as it is with the trading funds.
As I read the order, under Article 7, it appears that receipts and payments are not to be treated as part of public income and expenditure. But can the Minister say what that actually means for the process of Estimates and for the appropriation orders and debates that we have to deal with in this House and in Parliament? If we are to say that the trading fund is a Next Steps Agency, then the issues which have been raised frequently in this House about such agencies come into play. For example, will the trading fund set annual objectives, as it is hoped that Next Steps Agencies will? Further, will there be an annual report which is not simply a financial report but one which reports on the variations of performance against those objectives? If that sort of management system, is not available, it means that the release of those agencies from—as I am sure they would see it—the tyranny of the parliamentary Question becomes licensed because there is no way of judging how well or badly they are performing the functions for which they were set up to perform in this semi-detached way. That is a
224
particular problem in Northern Ireland where we have a move from the ideal of democratic rule to direct rule to, in this instance and in the Next Steps Agencies, indirect rule.
My final point concerns Article 14. It is a very specific point. I notice that the article increases the limits on housing issues from the Consolidated Fund to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The noble Earl will know better than I how close upon the existing limits the Housing Executive already is. Is that provision in the order with the intention of increasing the headroom for funding to the Housing Executive? If that is the purpose, it will come as very welcome news to the executive and to people generally in Northern Ireland. With the exception of those queries, I have nothing to add. I wait with interest to hear the noble Earl's reply.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I hope he can clear up a point that I have in mind. It seems to me that Article 3 is the key article as regards the establishment of the trading funds. Article 3(1)(b) states that the whole object of the trading funds is to improve the,
"efficiency and effectiveness of the management of those operations".
I am sure my noble friend will be in the vanguard of that. I hope he can confirm a point I have in mind, if not tonight then at a later stage. It occurs to me that some of the services that are performed by the excellent agriculture department might well fall into the category of a trading fund. The order we are discussing would assist in promoting the efficiency of the management of that department. My noble friend could therefore obtain considerably better value for money and assistance from that department. I believe that is what the order, and in particular Article 3, seek to achieve.
Everything said by my noble friend the Minister tonight reiterates the benefit of the order. The Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland is well known to many of us here. He will ensure, with his vigilance and efficiency, that this order, and in particular Article 3, engender the efficiency and improvement in management that it is designed to achieve. I thank my noble friend for explaining the order so clearly. I look forward to hearing his reply to other noble Lords who have spoken, if not necessarily to myself.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for their questions and the points they have made. I am sorry if I spoke somewhat too quickly for the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. Judging by the penetration of his questions, I believe that he probably understood the order all too well. For that reason I hope to give both he and the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, some illuminating answers.
I shall deal first with the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, with his usual courtesy, gave me advance notice of. I appreciate that the order is technical. There are approximately 31,600 staff in the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Northern Ireland Office, of whom approximately 26,000 come

225
from the Northern Ireland Civil Service. It is expected that around 75 per cent. of them will be in agencies when all launches are completed in 1996. I can confirm that the establishment of trading funds would be subject to negative rather than affirmative resolution. While the Government recognise that this procedure is not ideal, in the circumstances of direct rule it is the only practical way to deal with the majority of Northern Ireland legislation.
If it were possible to create a local administration in Northern Ireland with legislative powers, local politicians would have greater scope to debate and to decide legislation for the people of Northern Ireland. However, I can confirm that there are no immediate candidates for trading fund status. The major test for trading fund status is that a specific government activity must have the capability of becoming self financing. That is to say, it must be able to meet its costs out of its receipts without receiving support from votes. Capital expenditure is financed by borrowing from the Exchequer. Trading fund status will therefore make possible a much more businesslike and efficient approach to the delivery of government services.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to the £50 million limit stated in Article 6. That is an aggregate figure and, in the absence of any specific determining factor in Northern Ireland, it has been set by the drafting convention at one-fortieth of the corresponding figure in the GB legislation of £2 billion. Extensions up to the £100 million limit will be subject to negative resolution.
In Article 8 the provisions on management and accounting are identical to those in GB legislation. The article also states that a trading fund will be under the control and management of the responsible department. In other words, funds remain part of the government service and Ministers as heads of departments are ultimately responsible and would take appropriate action if they felt it necessary. The powers of the responsible Minister to intervene with the respective agency in the Northern Ireland Civil Service are no less than for any other part of the government service.
In addition, agency chief executives, such as the chief executive of the social security agency, have especially formulated and direct accountability to the Minister for the achievement of targets. I realise that this matter also slightly concerned the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. In addition, the relationship is set out in the agency document and the key targets are announced to Parliament each year. For example, I set the targets for the social security agency and the new child support agency. I regularly monitor those targets.
On much the same subject, it should be undeistood that staff employed by an executive agency remain civil servants. Their terms and conditions remain the same unless the chief executive negotiates changes to them. In the event of an agency being wound up, the aim would be to redeploy staff in the Northern Ireland Civil Service.
226
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to the need to ensure that agencies treat their staff and clients fairly and with integrity irrespective of their religious background. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, realises that agencies are bound by the same fair employment laws as other organisations. In addition they have behind them the strong determination of the Government to ensure fair treatment for all. Indeed, the citizen's charters published since February 1992 are further evidence of the Government's intention to deliver services of a high standard.
As regards staff, the agencies will continue to be subject to the equal opportunities policies of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, the monitoring of which is undertaken centrally by the service's equal opportunities unit. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, asked to what extent the trading fund agencies were held at arm's length. They are not really at arm's length at all as such. The accounting officer for each trading fund is directly responsible to Parliament for the fund's activities. The relevant Minister will continue as usual to be answerable for all policy matters relating to the particular fund. In addition, the usual government accounting and audit controls will continue to apply to the fund's activities. The chief executive certainly has the authority to get on with executive tasks within the framework document which I set.
My noble friend Lord Lyell raised a rather technical point. Rather than give him an incorrect answer, I would prefer to write to him.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: 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 7.59 to 8.30 p.m.]

Education Bill
House again in Committee on Schedule 6.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 178, line 41, at end insert:
("( ) the head teacher, and").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 160 on behalf of my noble friend, who unfortunately had to leave the Committee because of a previous engagement, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 255, in her name and mine. I should also like to say a word about Amendment No. 160A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Elton, which covers some of the same areas as Amendment No. 160.
The purpose of the two amendments is to ensure that in each school, whether grant-maintained or local authority run, articles of government clarify the role and functions of the head teacher, particularly in relation to the role and functions of the governing body. Amendment No. 160 does that for grant-maintained schools by amending Schedule 6 to the Bill. Amendment No. 255 amends Clause 225 to make

227
similar provision for local authority schools. In the case of local authority schools, that amendment is not such a simple task, as I shall explain in a moment.
My noble friend and I have tabled the amendments after extensive discussion with the National Association of Head Teachers. The association is concerned that, despite general agreement that the quality of a school depends above all on the head teacher and the quality of his or her leadership and management of the school, there remain some vagueness and blurred borderlines concerning the precise responsibilities and functions of heads which still, in practice, lead to problems in individual schools.
The National Association of Head Teachers had various suggestions to make as to how the Bill might be amended to help resolve those problems. It seems to me and my noble friend that the best way forward is for the Bill to ensure that in local authority as well as grant-maintained schools governors should sit down with the head teacher and think through the precise nature and borderlines of the head teacher's functions and responsibilities, for which he or she is answerable to the governors at the end of the day.
For example, which members of staff does the head teacher select or appoint? Is it all staff, or is the governing body to be involved in certain appointments? Is staff discipline entirely the head teacher's responsibility? What about the dismissal of staff? What about the discipline of pupils? The governors having established a pay policy, is it operated entirely by the head teacher? And so on.
In relation to appointments, Amendment No. 160A in the name of my noble friend Lord Elton, to which he will doubtless speak in a moment, suggests a slightly more prescriptive provision. I shall be interested to hear what he and the Minister have to say about the subject. My own feeling is that different schools may well want to have different appointment policies, and in the case of local authority schools the local authority may have policies of its own which have to be taken into account. In any case, the meaning of junior and senior appointments is not the same in various parts of the country or even in different schools. It seemed to my noble friend and to me that the important point was that the policy should be thought through. Our amendments would mean that that was done and that articles of government would have to be proposed.
I shall listen with great interest to what the Minister has to say about the amendments. I believe that they are very important. The quality of schools depends upon what the Bill has to say concerning head teachers. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take the matter seriously and will either feel able to accept Amendments Nos. 160 and 252 or will come back with similar amendments herself. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: Perhaps it would be a useful moment for me to speak to Amendment No. 160A. I am entirely in agreement with my noble friend, who has just moved an amendment which has a very similar purpose. She is quite right to say that the success or failure of a school depends more on the single factor of the contribution of the head teacher than on any
228
other factor. It is important that the head teacher should have a degree of control sufficient to ensure that he or she can run the school in a way which suits him or her and which will deliver the policies which he or she has promised to the governing body.
As my noble friend said, different schools have different needs. Different head teachers have different styles and different governing bodies have different expectations. Therefore it would be wrong to set on the face of the Bill exact details as to who should decide what. However, I am aware that the most lively concern of head teachers relates to the control of the staff who teach under them. That is understandable. In my amendment, which also relates to Schedule 6, I have sought to make certain that the head teacher shall have responsibility for selecting junior staff for appointment by the governing body, which is the employer, and shall be consulted by the governing body on the appointment of senior teachers.
My noble friend rightly pointed out that in statute there is no such thing as a junior or senior teacher. Indeed, what is regarded as senior in a village school may be regarded quite differently in a comprehensive school with 1,500 pupils. My amendment would require a definition of a junior or senior member of staff. It could well be that the amendment could be improved simply by adding words so that it would read:
"The articles must make provision for the headteacher to be responsible for the day to day organisation, management and control of the school, including the selection of junior staff as defined in the articles for appointment by the governing body".
I have no proprietary interest in the amendment. I do not prefer it above the amendments in the name of my noble friend. Like her, I ask the Government to choose a route which resolves the issue rather than leaving it in doubt. Where there is doubt there will be friction. Where one has friction between the governing body and the head teacher one has a school which will be a great deal less efficient and satisfactory than it would be if they were working together.
Lord Northbourne: I support the intention of the amendments. I am entirely in sympathy with the idea behind them. However, I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that making mistakes in hiring and firing teachers can be extremely expensive nowadays under the current employment legislation. It is important, therefore, that proper arrangements are made for consultation between the head teacher and the chairman of governors, or whatever may be appropriate. The words "subject to the policy of the governing body" will have to be in the Bill.
Lord Hylton: It may be appropriate at this point to quote a Polish proverb which states that a rotten fish stinks from the head downwards.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Follow that!
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I have no intention of following that. I wish to address my comments to Amendment No. 160AA, which refers to teacher training. It is a different topic which is grouped with this set of amendments. The intention of the

229
amendment is to secure that continuing attention is given by grant-maintained schools to teachers' professional development.
The current provisions in respect of the contents of articles of government for grant-maintained schools are given in the first place by Section 38 of the 1988 Act, which is being replaced by Schedule 6 to the Bill. Further detail is then given in the form of the Secretary of State's model articles for grant-maintained schools. The model articles currently contain the following statement in paragraph 18:
"It is the duty of the governing body to make arrangements with respect to the … in-service training and professional development of teachers at the school".
Amendment No. 160AA seeks to improve that in two ways. The first is by requiring the governing body to consider the matter annually. Such a requirement should properly be reserved for matters of importance, and we think it appropriate in this case. The second is by using the wording "the requirements for the in-service training and professional development of teachers" in place of the wording "arrangements". The different emphasis that we seek is actively to promote consideration of the needs of individual staff members rather than merely an overview of the existing arrangements.
In particular, the existence of arrangements might be nullified without a suitable budgetary commitment being made by governors each year. Amendment No. 160AA, of course, provides for the involvement of the head teacher, whose advice to the governors would be most crucial in the matter.
The Minister may well agree with the importance of in-service and professional development but perhaps holds a different view about the best technical way of improving present arrangements. A commitment to incorporate the substance of the amendment in the model articles of government would probably be sufficient for the purposes of the amendment. However, I await with interest the Minister's reply.
Lord Addington: I wish to speak briefly to the amendment to which my noble friend Lord Redesdale has put his name. The position of the head teacher should be borne in mind. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, it influences everything else in the school. We should know a little more about the professional relationship between the head teacher and governors. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
Also we should seek a more constructive approach to in-service training than appears in the Bill as currently drafted. We should then have some way of enhancing the quality of staff already in schools.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: It is absolutely true that the relationship between the governing body, the head and the proper running of the school is an important issue. Amendment No. 160 in the name of my noble friends Lady Young and Lady Carnegy seeks to amend paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 6 by adding a specific reference to the head teacher. Paragraph 2(1) requires the articles to specify as regards each function relating to the conduct of the school which person or
230
body is to be responsible for its exercise. That provision includes specific references to such bodies as the Secretary of State and the governing body. It does not include an express reference to the head teacher. That does not mean, however, that the articles cannot specify the functions to be exercised by the head teacher in relation to the conduct of the school. In fact, that is precisely what happens under the present articles for grant-maintained schools. The head teacher is included in the general category in paragraph (e) of Schedule 6(2) (1).
Despite that, I should like to consider whether there should be such a reference and, if appropriate, bring forward an amendment at a later stage in the Bill. I believe that it is an important subject. I should like to give it more thought.
Perhaps I may say this to my noble friend and curtail unnecessary debate. I believe that my noble friend Lord Elton also raises an important point. He has already hinted that there is room for thinking again about the wording of the amendment because there is the point of the definition of a junior teacher. However, the principle raised by the amendment is important. I wish personally to give it more thought between now and Report stage. I hope that my noble friend will agree that I should take the matter away and give some thought to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, supported the principles of the amendments. Clearly I shall consult with him between now and Report stage if I come to any conclusions. I venture a personal view. I believe that the judgment about the professional development needs of a teacher must reside with the head. Head teachers are charged with the professional responsibility to make that judgment. In line management terms, of course they are accountable for that because they are accountable for the proper running of the school, and it would be for the governing body to have a view about the proper judgment being made by a head teacher. However, I venture that as a personal view. Clearly that will be part of the consideration between now and the next stage of the Bill.
I turn now to the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, Amendment No. 160AA. It deals with in-service training references in articles of government. That I find more difficult. The details of the articles of government for grant-maintained schools as set out in Schedule 6 to the Bill provide a broad framework for the conduct of the school. However, Schedule 6 is not exhaustive. It already requires grant-maintained schools to include certain requirements in their articles of government. Among those are existing Education Reform Act staffing requirements such as an employee's right to appeal against dismissal.
As I have mentioned already, Clause 53 requires that the initial instrument and articles of government shall be as prescribed in regulations. The Bill, quite rightly, does not seek to deal with every possible part of the conduct of a school, including the training needs of staff. Clause 52(2) (b) expressly makes clear that the instrument and articles can make provisions other than those specified in the Bill. It is not necessary to include all requirements concerning the management

231
of the school on the face of the Bill. There will still be scope to include these in regulations. That links with the point that I made in response to the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
It is therefore unnecessary to add further detail in the Bill to what will be contained in a grant-maintained school's articles of government. This is not something required of grant-maintained schools. But we would expect that the regulations to be made under Clause 53 would include provision for all grant-maintained schools to make arrangements in their articles of government with respect to the induction of newly qualified teachers at the school and the in-service training and professional development of teachers at the school. That might follow the terms already set out in the model articles of government for existing grant-maintained schools. We shall, of course, be consulting relevant bodies about the content of these regulations and, once again, I can assure you that the concerns expressed here will be taken into account when drawing them up.
I hope that Amendment No. 160AA and the other two amendments will be withdrawn in the light of the fact that I shall give considerably more thought to the matters between now and Report stage.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank everyone who has supported Amendments Nos. 160 and 255. My noble friend did not refer to Amendment No. 255. I made the specific point that it states something different. Will she examine the principle of that as well? It is important, although it is a different point.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry, my noble friend is right; I did not refer to Amendment No. 255. I have sympathy with the head having clear responsibilities in all schools—I have already made that clear—including local authority schools, although the situation is different. There, LEA schools are less self-governing in the sense that we now all understand the situation. That must affect the functions of the head teacher. Behind all that is the relationship in grant-maintained schools between the very serious responsibilities of' the governing body and the ability of the head professionally to run the school.
However, the amendment would conflict with the current provision for making articles of government for local authority schools, the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. Nevertheless, I am sympathetic and, together with the other two amendments, I am happy to consider the matter between now and Report stage.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am most grateful to my noble friend and look forward either to amendments being tabled by her or, if she wishes, perhaps she could meet my noble friend and myself to discuss the matter. That being the case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 160A not moved.]
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 160AZA:
Page 179, line 7, at end insert:
("( ) The articles must request the governing body to assist local authorities in the exercise of their statutory child
232
protection functions and to comply with any circulars and guidance issued under section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 and section 27 of the Children Act 1989.").
The noble Lord said: The objective of the amendment is to ensure that all schools have a duty to assist local education authorities with their statutory child protection responsibilities and to ensure that all children in their charge receive adequate protection from abuse. Under Section 27 of the Children Act 1989 and Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, local education authorities have a duty to assist local authorities in the exercise of their statutory responsibilities for child protection. Accordingly, all schools under LEA control are required to adhere to local authority child protection guidance and circulars to provide relevant information, to attend court proceedings, if necessary, and generally to act in accordance with local child protection procedures.
It is significant that the NSPCC and others are concerned that schools opting out of local education authority control will no longer be bound by local child protection mechanisms. The issue of child protection becomes more dissipated as schools are decentralised under the new system.
The NSPCC provides specialist training for teaching staff on child protection procedures. Indeed, the society published for teachers a guide on child abuse intended to complement the Department of Education and Science's circular: Working together for The Protection of Children From Abuse: procedures within the education service, which should be available in schools to all teachers. Furthermore, as part of the NSPCC's preventive work, I understand that it provides for school pupils awareness teaching on child abuse.
Teaching staff and education professions have a vital role to play in child protection. Teachers are particularly well placed to identify cases of child abuse. Apart from their parents, children see more of their teachers than of any other group of adults. Teachers are often well respected and children will confide in them. Teachers are also familiar with normal patterns of childhood behaviour and therefore should be able to identify subtle or significant changes in behaviour or educational performance, which can be the outward symptoms of abuse.
The Government themselves place emphasis on the role of educational professionals. In Working Together (guidance issued under the Children Act, 1989) they state:
"all staff in the education service—including those in grant-maintained and independent schools … should be aware of the need to alert the social services, the NSPCC or the police, when they believe a child has been abused or is at risk of abuse".
Despite government intentions that present mechanisms should extend to protect children in the growing grant-maintained sector, I understand that the NSPCC has evidence derived from its network of over 80 child protection teams and projects that co-operation of grant-maintained schools in existing procedures has not always been fully understood or automatically forthcoming.
In some cases, LEAs have contended that they have no role in referrals made by staff located in the

233
grant-maintained sector, while in other instances schools outside LEA control have refused or been reluctant to allow teachers the necessary time to attend child protection case conferences or court hearings. Such situations have arisen precisely because there is no explicit duty upon schools to assist. Of course, as is very evident, there are competing demands on teachers' time. But co-operation in local arrangements is essential if children are to be protected and prevented from being abused. The NSPCC, for example, has drawn attention both to an absence of resources and to an unwillingness to commit additional resources to employ teachers to cover colleagues' absence, enabling them to attend protection hearings or conferences.
What are the effects of this non-co-operation? Schools refusing to co-operate risk jeopardising the personal safety of children and in some cases perhaps even their lives. Refusal to release teaching staff so that they may attend case conferences or protection hearings deprives those proceedings of vital detailed information and of the insight gained by teachers through close and continuous contact with the child. When hearings are compelled to depend on written submissions from teaching staff, submissions which cannot be open to immediate clarification or challenge, that may lead to unnecessary delays or to only a partial understanding of the child's situation. At the same time, teachers may be excluded from important discussions and decisions on how to respond appropriately to the behaviour of an abused child on an individual level in the classroom or generally at school.
Similarly, teachers may not receive the necessary training in the recognition of early detection of child abuse and operation of local procedures. Consequently, they may lack confidence and find themselves ill-equipped to deal with cases of abuse as they arise. Teachers may become unwilling to report their suspicions or to participate in child protection procedures in future cases, knowing that they will face difficulties in securing the full support of the school authorities.
It is important, along with the NSPCC, to commend those measures which some grant-maintained schools and individual teachers within the sector are convincingly taking to ensure child protection. However, I believe that co-operation between the relevant authorities and educational professionals should not be left to chance or just to the positive efforts of a few individuals. Child protection must be a priority, underpinned by a duty upon governing bodies to ensure full co-operation by their schools. The passage of this Bill provides a key opportunity to ensure that children attending schools in the grant-maintained sector receive the vital support and protection from abuse which should be their right.
The purpose of Amendment No. 246ZB is to protect children from the possibility of the presence on the governing body of someone who would be unacceptable. In speaking to it, I should say that we are well aware of the dangers of insensitive behaviour
234
where the protection of children is at issue. However, one must always bear in mind that suspicions may prove to be unfounded or allegations unsubstantiated. In protecting children we must take care also to protect the rights of individuals to be presumed innocent.
The amendment, carefully balanced, seeks to do both those things. There is an initial power to suspend where the authority or the governing body, as appropriate, believes that there is good cause for concern. However, the new clauses are careful to state that the initial step is taken on the grounds that the governor,
"appears to present a risk".
The suspension must then be approved by the Secretary of State before it becomes permanent. Until that point, suspension is a precautionary step, not to be lightly undertaken, but equally not in itself a declaration of guilt. It is presumed that before suspension is confirmed, there would be detailed consideration of the case and the opportunity for representations to be made. One might draw a parallel with the way in which an allegation against a member of staff is dealt with, where suspension—should that be judged appropriate—is simply an interim measure, pending further investigation.
I am sure we would all agree that this area is very difficult. At stake, on the one hand, is the welfare of the children. I believe that that must be paramount. It would be wanton irresponsibility to apply any other principle. But at stake, on the other hand, is the good name of the individual. The sensitivity of the subject can hardly be over-emphasised. I hope that the new clauses strike the right balance. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Addington: On these Benches we support the thrust of the amendment. We look forward to hearing what the Government have to say. The issue is very important, and we should have more guidance in this area. It is one where natural holes have occurred. We are interested in the Government's reasons for blocking the amendment.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I have no comments to make on Amendment No. 160AZA, in which I see a number of merits. But I am distinctly uneasy about the wording of Amendment No. 246ZB, and indeed of 246ZC. Amendment No. 246ZB reads:
"If at any time a governing body are satisfied that any member of the governing body is unfit to discharge the functions of a member on the grounds that they appear to present a risk to the physical or emotional well-being of pupils".
The intention is obviously a very good one, and I entirely agree with the remarks made by the noble Lord who presented the amendment. But it is extraordinarily nebulous. And it is not at all clear to me how a member of the governing body presents a risk to the physical or emotional well-being of pupils. It is not clear to me how members of the governing body, other than teacher-members, come into contact with pupils. Obviously, if we are talking of teacher-members in the other provisions, it would be a teacher at the school. I do not understand what sort of opinion or activity is referred to. I think we must be

235
explicit. What is that member of the governing body supposed to be doing or opining? I find the idea vague and I see that it could be twisted.
In Amendment No. 246ZC the phrase,
"Where the local authority has good cause"
could no doubt be challenged in the courts. But if the other members of a governing body think that Mr. X is rather an undesirable person, they could say that they were satisfied and in that case I am not sure that there would be any recourse in the courts. I should like clarification on that point. The phrase,
"Where the local authority has good cause",
relates not only to county or voluntary controlled schools but also to grant-maintained schools: The provision allows the local authority effectively to suspend a member of the governing body of a grant-maintained school.
Clearly if there were real grounds to fear that child abuse was occurring or was likely to occur, which is I believe what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, implied, then it would be right to give the local authority a power to intervene. But the whole thing seems exceptionally nebulous. I think that we must ask the noble Lord to be a little clearer. How does that "bad egg" on the governing body notionally present a risk to the emotional well-being of pupils? If it is simply a question of the expression of opinions, I think that this is a very doubtful amendment.
Lord Judd: Perhaps. I may deal with that very important point. We are dealing not only with the protection of children, which is, as I have said, of paramount consideration for us all, but also with the most important issues of civil rights, reputation and so on. It is a difficult path to tread.
Perhaps I may assure the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that the amendment is not plucked from the air. It is put forward in the context of genuine concern about real situations that have arisen. Perhaps I could briefly say a word or two about the context.
I would not suggest for one moment that many child abusers will attempt to become school governors. Furthermore, it is quite unlikely that governors would usually have much opportunity to present such a threat to pupils. The noble Lord is right. However, by becoming a governor, a child abuser may have the opportunity to become known as a figure of authority to children and obtain relatively free access to school premises. Governors, rightly, may well help out at school events. I suggest that it would be complacent to suppose that out of over 3,000 school governors there is none whose motives are questionable and who might not attempt to take advantage of that position. Serious allegations come to light. For that reason we believe that there should be means by which rapid action can be taken.
It is obviously proper that the rights of any individual who is subject to such allegations should be respected. I am sure that we are all agreed on that point. However, such consideration needs to be balanced against the importance of protecting children, as in the child protection legislation generally. The law currently fails to achieve such a balance in relation to school governors. That is why we move the amendment.
236
I want to be helpful, and obviously we want to proceed. We have a lot of business to get through tonight and there is a lot of pressure. I hope that the Minister, who obviously shares this concern, will be able to say something reassuring. So long as the spirit of what we say is taken on board and we receive convincing reassurance that something will be done, we shall be very willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Elton: If the noble Lord, Lord Judd, had moved the amendments simply to draw attention to the delicacy and importance of the matter under discussion, I would have had more sympathy. In the light of what he has just said, I remain as mystified as I was before. He answered the question of my noble friend Lord Renfrew about how the proposals would work. As he rightly says, this is a sensitive area. He is giving the members of a governing body collectively the right apparently to blast the reputation of one of their members to smithereens with little chance of recovering it through the courts. I hope that my noble friend will be careful about that.
I rose to my feet in order to ask my noble friend, without notice and therefore with no expectation of an immediate answer, whether, if she returns to the subject, she will be able to tell us a little about the tensions between the need on the one hand for confidentiality in regard to warnings about the possibility that the child is at risk of non-accidental injury—which is another term for abuse but which goes rather wider—and, on the other hand, the need for parents to have access to school records.
I am aware that there is a confidential non-accidental injury register which was, I believe, instituted as a result of work in this Chamber following the Maria Caldwell case many years ago. That register is confidential except to professionals.
But if a child is believed by its teachers to be at risk of non-accidental injury, or possibly in receipt of such injury, and moves to another school in another local authority area (it happens all the time when people move jobs), it is very important, indeed vital for the safety of the child, that that information should travel with it. The only way of which I am aware that one could rely on it travelling with a child is in the school records. But what teacher will readily put a note on the child's school record to the effect that the child is at risk of non-accidental injury from its parents if those parents have access to the records.
I hope that my noble friend either by more graphic enlightenment during these exchanges, or, more likely at the next stage, will be able to enlighten us on this very important issue, which, for a handful of children, may mean the difference between life and death.
Baroness Faithfull: In my experience the right method is for there to be a good relationship between the education department and the social services. If there is a good and understanding relationship, the school will refer the case to the social services department under the Children Act 1989 or an earlier children's Act. That is usually done by way of a case conference between the education department and social services. Not a great deal is put down on paper at that stage. Together, the education department and

237
social services make a plan and decide what is to happen in that particular case in those particular circumstances.
Lord Swinfen: I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, but the two other amendments to which he spoke appear to me to be trial by innuendo. Therefore I feel that a better way should be found of removing school governors who could possibly be a danger to the children at their schools. In particular, if a local authority is to have a governor removed, it will have to discuss the matter and to make a decision. Presumably that decision would be open and the school governor, if innocent, would have no recourse to clear his name afterwards or to any damages. That decision, being an open decision would be published in the local papers. I fear that mistakes could be made. There should be another and more satisfactory method found to deal with this matter.
Earl Russell: I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, says. I want to say a brief word in support of Amendment No. 160AZA, which has my name attached to it.
It has not been brought out sufficiently that the local authority has a statutory duty in this respect. We are ready enough to reprove and criticise the local authority if it does not discharge that duty, and indeed sometimes if it does. In the course of discharging that duty it may possibly require access.
Most institutions are ready enough to take up a defensive mentality when someone from outside criticises a member of that institution. It is perfectly possible to imagine a school saying, like the mythological Oxford college porter when the police were told that there was a murder in the college: "You can't come in 'ere, Sir. You 'ave to speak to the Dean, Sir". There should be something to deal with that situation.
I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said about the good relationship between the education department and the social services department. That is crucial. But where a school has opted out, there will not be an education department to help out in the process. It is not utterly unimaginable that a school that has just opted out might have a bad relationship with a local authority and, with even more defensive reflexes, might not co-operate with the local authority in carrying out its statutory duty. So long as that duty rests on it, it must be able to discharge it.
Lord Hylton: I should briefly like to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said about the importance of the good relationship between an education authority and a social services authority. When the Minister comes to reply perhaps he can take particular pains to deal with the case which has just been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell; namely, what happens to a school after it becomes grant-maintained, where that same relationship may no longer apply. Can he also deal with the related
238
point as to what happens about records and passing on information when parents and their children cross boundaries between authorities?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I do not know whether the Committee remembers a recent debate on the selection and training of those involved in the residential care of children. One of the difficulties encountered in that debate was that under recent legislation which stems from our membership of the European Economic Community, we now have no way of preventing undesirable members of other Community countries from entering this country and thus possibly our education system. I do not know whether I am being helpful to my noble friend but I feel that this is an area which we should bear in mind. It may render much of the amendment irrelevant.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: I agree with all Members of the Committee, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that these are important amendments. It is worth taking time to air them and say a few words. I hope that I can give the noble Lord and the NSPCC the appropriate assurances that Amendment No. 160AZA is unnecessary. I shall then go on to deal with the other two amendments.
My right honourable friend has already announced his intention to make grant-maintained schools and CTCs subject to the provisions of Sections 27 and 47 of the Children Act 1989 which require co-operation with local authorities acting on behalf of children in need or investigating child abuse. The department has written to the chairmen of the CTC Governors' Forum and of the GM Standing Advisory Committee, and will shortly be writing to the schools concerned, to explain the Secretary of State's intention. The Secretary of State will then make an authorisation under Sections 27 and 47 bringing both GM schools and CTCs within their scope. That should be sufficient to ensure appropriate co-operation by those schools and colleges with local authority social service departments.
I am grateful that the noble Lord mentioned the guidance which states that the schools should be aware of the dangers of abuse. I underline that guidance and what the noble Lord said. The schools should be prepared to inform the appropriate agencies where such abuse occurs. I underline also the point made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull and repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, of the need for good relations between both social services on the one hand and LEAs on the other or, in the case of a school that has recently opted out, of the new grant-maintained schools. Bringing in Sections 27 and 47 should be sufficient to meet those specific concerns. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel that it is not necessary to press Amendment No. 160AZA.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 246ZA and 246ZB. Again I understand the concerns that pupils should be safeguarded against the risk of abuse by those who, by reason of their position—a position of authority as the children perceive it—have access to schools and contact with pupils. We all share a concern that pupils

239
should not be subject to such a risk. That said, I do not believe that a provision which targets governors has any place on the face of the Bill.
In explaining the existing protections within regulations, I shall describe the position in LEA-maintained schools. There are similar protections in the model articles for grant-maintained schools which, subject to this Bill, will in future be governed by regulations.
Existing regulations for LEA-maintained schools provide that a serving governor who is convicted of any offence carrying a custodial sentence of three months or more without the option of a fine must cease to hold office. And a person who has at any time in the past been convicted of an offence carrying a prison sentence of five years or more cannot take up office as a governor. Disqualification also applies to persons with convictions carrying lesser prison sentences.
These provisions were drawn up with great care. They serve to ensure that individuals who are not fit to be governors of our schools are prevented from taking up or continuing to hold office. The test of fitness is whether the person in question has a criminal conviction—of whatever nature, and including child abuse—which the courts have considered serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence of a particular length. A boundary is drawn to exclude offences which the courts, having regard to all the circumstances, have viewed as less serious.
The effect of the regulations is therefore that a serving governor would continue in office while a criminal investigation was in progress. If there is a conviction which brings into play the disqualification provisions of our regulations, then the governor would be removed from office. If there is no such conviction, then the disqualification provisions do not bite.
I have considerable anxiety in regard to the two amendments. I appreciate that the noble Lord was trying to do the almost impossible task of finding the appropriate balance. That is important when we are dealing with the question of an individual's civil rights. However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Swinfen that there is a danger that it may amount to trial by innuendo, in that the amendments give governing bodies powers to act beyond the scope of the criminal law. In circumstances where the police had decided against investigating an allegation of child abuse, or where the courts had found a governor not guilty or decided against a prison sentence, the amendment would allow governing bodies and LEAs to suspend the governor from office. I do not believe it is a sufficient argument that governing bodies and LEAs will use their powers sensibly. I am sure that in 99 per cent. of cases they will do so. But we should be careful about granting powers to governing bodies and LEAs unless we believe that there will be circumstances in which they would use them. I do not believe that such circumstances are not already covered by the disqualification provisions contained in existing legislation.
Following the point made by my noble friend Lord Renfrew, it is important that we are clear about the
240
circumstances in which governing bodies will have access to schools and contact with pupils. That was certainly the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. By virtue of their office they can expect to be welcomed into schools. It is by visiting schools that they acquaint themselves with the life of the school community and so perform their function better. But I must stress that governors do not have the freedom to enter schools as they will without the permission of the head teacher who is responsible for the internal organisation and management of the school. Nor do their positions as members of a governing body give them any right to expect unsupervised contact with pupils. I believe that we must keep in perspective the potential risk represented by such occasional visitors to schools.
I turn to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Elton, which I appreciate was raised without notice. I believe that the point was also touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. As I understood it, a teacher might be loathe to put on a pupil's record that the pupil was at risk from his parent or parents because the parent or parents might at some later stage see that record. I certainly understand the point that my noble friend makes, and I will consider whether further safeguards are necessary. We can come back to this at a later stage.
With those assurances and my description of how we see things working, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that his amendments are unnecessary. I believe that the later two are not only unnecessary but undesirable. They do not recognise the realities of governor contact with pupils and will give governing bodies and LEAs powers that go beyond the criminal law. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw or not press all three amendments.
Lord Judd: I am grateful for that very considerate reply. Obviously, this is a very important issue. In recent years there has been a lot of social evidence of cases where sensitive steps have not been taken in time and calamities have arisen. When that happens all hell is let loose—not least in this Chamber—and everybody asks why action has not been taken in time. The noble Lord in his helpful reply has managed to persuade me that Ministers take this issue at least as seriously as I do and are determined to see that the right guidance and advice is given to schools on this matter. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 160AA not moved.]
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 160AB:
Page 180, line 15, at end insert:
("Ethos and Values
—(1) In the case of any grant-maintained school established under section 46 of this Act, the Articles must include a mission statement setting out—

(a) the objects and strategy of the school;

(b) the spiritual, moral, and social values of the Governors of the school; and

(c) the religious and denominational character of the school if any.

(2) The Articles must include a statement of the policy of the school in relation to—

(a) behaviour, discipline and citizenship;

241

(b) mutual respect and tolerance between:—

(i) staff and pupils and the community;

(ii) persons and groups of different race, colour or ethnic origin;

(iii) persons of different gender or ages;

(iv) persons and groups of different creeds, beliefs and opinions.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 160AB, I also wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 160AD, 160BA and 241. I acknowledge at once that the wording of these amendments may need technical improvement if they are to be brought back at a further stage of the Bill. Clause 46 offers an invitation to promoters to apply for grant-maintained status for new schools. In his introduction to Choice and Diversity the Prime Minister said that the White Paper enhanced parental choice by opening the way for greater variety in education through the formation of new schools and by the encouragement of specialisation.
In this country today there are some 91 independent Christian schools operating on a shoestring. Parents and teachers suffer very great financial disadvantage in order to give children the denominational Christian education that they believe is important. This group is eager to be taken into the family of grant-maintained schools.
The Moslem community in this country, which now comprises about 2 per cent. of the population, feels very deeply the injustice of its present exclusion from the educational partnership arrangements enjoyed by the Church of England, the Roman Catholics and the Jewish community. There are also non-religious groups, such as the Steiner schools, which believe that they have an important contribution to make to the education of this country. They want to be part of the new national family of grant-maintained schools. And there will be others.
I believe that there is anxiety in this House and in the country that if we open this door some of the new grant-maintained schools might become hotbeds for the promulgation of unacceptable values of one kind or another or might encourage a ghetto mentality among their pupils. The kind of unacceptable values I have in mind are those which encourage hatred or prejudice, ideas about the role of women in society, attitudes to the family and so forth. I believe that it is very important to try to ensure on the face of the Bill that all new entrants to the national family of grant-maintained schools will be responsible and accountable.
How can this be done? After much discussion the solution that has been suggested to me, which seems to me to be the best, is entirely to duck the hot potato of actually attempting to lay down boundaries of acceptable values, but rather to ask each school itself to set out its philosophy and values on certain specified issues. That declaration would then become part of the articles of government of the school and all that would remain to be done would be for the national inspectorate, when making its inspection, to ensure that the school is doing what it said it was going to do.
I should like to turn briefly to the detail of the amendments. Amendment No. 160AD clarifies that the Secretary of State rather than the governors promulgates the articles of government. I understand that the amendment is unnecessary and I shall withdraw it when it arises. Amendment No. 160BA requires the Secretary of State to consult with the promoters and the governors of the school before they agree the final form of the articles. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the amendment applies only to new grant-maintained schools, so it does not apply to the great family of county and voluntary aided schools which may or may not become grant-maintained schools. It applies to new grant-maintained schools being started by promoters or sponsors. I believe that it is important anyway that new grant-maintained schools should have the opportunity to establish their identity and to have that identity proved before they go into business.
Amendment No. 160AB, which is in a sense the meat of the matter, adds another sub-paragraph to Schedule 6. It requires schools to set out in their articles of government their policy and attitudes on certain specified issues. It may be here that I have got the issues slightly wrong. This may be a matter for discussion and my wording could be changed.
In the context of Amendment No. 160AB I should like to draw the Committee's attention particularly to the second part of the amendment. I have used the phrase "behaviour, discipline and citizenship". I have introduced the word "citizenship" because I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that behaviour and discipline are only part of the much wider picture about the way in which a school is run. At a recent meeting of the all-party children group the headmasters of four schools were invited to come to speak to us. Each one brought with him a senior pupil. They talked about their schools and about the school councils. Perhaps I may take the time of the Committee for a moment to read a little from the presentation which was given to us by a very personable young lady called Rebecca, aged 10, from Muswell Hill School. She said:
"Our school is lucky to have a school council and I think every primary school should have one. It puts children's views forward so that the teachers don't make the wrong decisions. Our council has made a lot of decisions to improve the school. For example, the state of the toilets has been improved by changing the toilet paper from nasty hard paper to soft paper … The water fountains weren't working. They have made them work".
There are a great many other things such as a survey on bullying. They have done something about litter and so forth.
I would also like to draw the Committee's attention to the wording of the amendment relating to tolerance. It is a wording which goes a great deal further than a simple equal opportunities' amendment. The Committee may feel that the wording is over-elaborate, but I believe that the issues it covers are crucial and need to be spelled out.
Amendment No. 241 refers to the inspection of endowed grant-maintained schools by the national inspectorate. It confirms that the inspectorate is required, to inspect not only the secular activities, but also religious education and worship, but only in so

243
far as it is necessary to ensure that the school is complying with its articles and to report on its spiritual, moral and cultural development of the pupils. That inspection will be additional to the inspection which is carried out by the inspectors appointed by the diocese to cover religious education and worship.
There are three possible objections and I should like briefly to anticipate them. It has been suggested that the promulgation of values which are unacceptable to society would in any case be outside the law and could therefore be dealt with by the courts. I do not believe that that is necessarily the case. By way of example, I can tell the Committee that I am assured by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, that the teachings and practices of the Unification Church, which is better known as the "Moonies", were not outside the law and yet they were profoundly repugnant to most members of our society.
It may be argued that an increase in the numbers and variety of maintained schools could lead to a ghetto mentality in some of them. I suggest that ghettos are caused by oppression and a sense of injustice. The new faith-based, grant-maintained schools will have to follow the national curriculum, national testing, and they will have to be regularly inspected. If the Committee is minded to approve these amendments, the schools will be unequivocally committed to abiding by the ethos and values which they have proposed and which were agreed when they were founded.
It could be argued that the Secretary of State already has enough powers to deal with these matters. That may be technically true, but it is certainly not well known. Those powers are sometimes difficult to apply. It is important that people in this country should feel comfortable with these new schools. By having these amendments, or something like them, on the face of the Bill, the Committee and the public will be reassured that any expansion in the number and variety of faith-based, grant-maintained schools need not be a threat to themselves, their children or to the communities in which they live. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Cox: I wish to speak very briefly in support of these amendments which seek to ensure, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has said, that the new grant-maintained schools promote acceptable values. I believe that the amendments are prudent and far-sighted in what they hope to achieve.
As the Committee may know, I have for many years supported the idea of allowing new schools, including new religious denominational schools, to opt into the state sector. Under Clause 46 they may indeed have this opportunity. I would like to repeat how much I welcome that provision in this legislation.
Of the new schools now eligible to apply for opting in, many will be denominational. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has said, there are some 90 Christian schools belonging to the organisation Christians in Education. There are also Jewish and Moslem schools keen to apply for state funding. The long-suffering Yesodeh Hatorah schools serving the
244
Jewish community in North London, have been striving unsuccessfully for nigh on 20 years to obtain voluntary-aided status. More recently, Moslem schools such as Islamia School in Brent, have been applying for state funding and so far unsuccessfully.
Many people have expressed their misgivings on these developments, some publicly and many privately. They are especially concerned about extending state funding to new, non-Christian, religious-based schools. However, I have to say that, by contrast, I very much welcome these proposals. For example, I believe that to reject the Islamic community's wishes for state-funded Moslem schools, would be to deny the principles of natural justice. While we have long-established Anglican, Roman Catholic and Jewish schools, we cannot deny other faith communities the same rights to an education based on their own sacred beliefs and moral values. Such a denial would also violate the right, enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, of parents to have their children educated according to their own religious beliefs and philosophical convictions. Such a denial might also engender feelings of anger and rejection in the Moslem community.
However, I am sensitive to the point frequently made to me that all religious faiths may contain some elements which suffer from extremism. Christianity and Islam are no exceptions. It would be unacceptable to use taxpayers' money to support schools which promote values incompatible with the basic values of democracy, especially those which might threaten tolerance and pluralism.
Amendment No. 160AB addresses those worries by ensuring that a newly proposed grant-maintained school's mission statement specify how it intends to promote tolerance between persons of different race, ethnic origin, gender, age or creed. The schools inspectorate, Ofsted, should ensure that each school complies subsequently with its mission statement. The Secretary of State's powers will ensure that any school, which is not promoting tolerance in accordance with its mission statement, may, after due process, be excluded from receiving further state funding.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be sympathetic to the spirit of the amendments. They are not just a safeguard against the misuse of taxpayers' money. More importantly, they are a safeguard for children and for respect of the values of tolerance and pluralism in our multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-faith society.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Perhaps I may intervene on one small point. I imagine that in Amendment No. 160AB the reference to Section 64 as it appears on the Marshalled List should read Section 46. I believe that there has been a misprint. Section 64 deals with something different.
Lord Northbourne: Yes, it should be Section 46.
Lord Renton: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, although I do not commit myself to the wording of his amendments. We now have a varied and complex multi-faith society, but we have

245
had necessarily to legislate in a somewhat general way in the Bill. When legislating, we should take note of the reality of the situation in our society. We have a multi-faith society.
Those of us who are Christians hope and believe that our society will continue to be mainly Christian in attitude and sentiment. However, that desire should not prevent us from doing justice to other faiths if they are acceptable and recognisable. My noble friend Lady Cox rightly said that the new types of schools should be able to opt in to the state structure. In my opinion they should not be forced to do so. They should be given the opportunity, and it should be a voluntary movement. That is what I hope is the purpose of the amendments. If we want a contented society, we should try to treat all religious bodies of an acceptable kind in the same way.
Lord Hylton: I support the amendments. For many years I have been active in support of integrated schools in Northern Ireland. Those schools came into being amid the greatest possible difficulties simply and solely because parents wanted them for their children. If one supports such a development in Northern Ireland, it is only logical to support parental choice in England, Wales or anywhere else.
I am aware that there are considerable anxieties lest new schools arising from particular faith communities lead to the indoctrination as opposed to the education of children. That is why it is so important that the amendments specify mutual respect and tolerance.
We are well aware that in France, for example, there has been a massive controversy in schools about the wearing of a garment called a chador. We are also aware that in Iran, which has a fundamentalist government, people such as the Baha'is are severely persecuted. There have also been considerable difficulties for Christians in countries such as Sudan, Egypt and Pakistan.
Those are the types of situation which we are anxious to avoid in this country. I hope that the Government will take the amendments extremely seriously because they have the potential to end anxiety in this country and to enable new schools to come forward in the grant-maintained sector, if that is appropriate, on a better basis than might otherwise be the case.
Lord Elton: I had supposed that Clause 46 had been designed for the proposals for brand new schools. The amendments treat the clause as though it were also a vehicle for the introduction of existing schools. I hope that my noble friends are right but, if not, that some other means can be found of achieving the ends which the amendments seek.
The group of amendments addresses two pressing issues. The first is how to bring into the existing system good schools which will add strength to it and which subscribe to the religious and moral traditions of this country, which are sadly weakened. The second issue is how to cope with the development of denominational schools which are not of the Christian faith and which too many people see as a real threat to our society. The basis of that fear is in part the fear of a
246
different religion, which would be diminished on acquaintance. But it is much more the fear of the unknown. The charm of the amendments is that they create a system of absolute transparency so that we the people will know what is happening in those schools, what is proposed for them and whether that is taking place.
That relates to a debate which we had two years ago concerning the inspection of denominational education. I hope that my noble friend will look at that issue between now and Report. That transparency will give the confidence that we need in schools which subscribe to what I hope will remain minority religions in this country. If that confidence can be obtained, and if we can see that the extremists are in a minority in all religions, there will be the beginnings of the possibility of a growth of confidence between different ethnic communities in our cities. That is to be earnestly prayed for.
I hope that my noble friend will not underestimate the great importance of the principles addressed by the amendments and will recognise that they go a long way towards securing those principles in a workable way. I hope that she will consider them with great care and that on Report we shall see in their place proposals which are a little more workable.
Baroness Blatch: I do not underestimate the importance and significance of the amendments and the principles which underly them. I am grateful to my noble friends and to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for their thoughtful remarks on this important subject. Like them, I fully believe that the moral and spiritual mission of a school is vital. I hope that I shall be able to reassure them that the Government take the moral and spiritual dimension very seriously and that existing legislation, together with the action which we have in train, already offers significant protection against the possibility that schools will harbour values that are offensive to the majority.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is currently consulting on a requirement on schools to set out in their prospectus a statement on school ethos and values, including details of the way in which they meet their duty to secure the moral, spiritual, social and cultural development of their pupils through the national curriculum, through religious education, and more generally.
The national curriculum council has just published guidance on the moral and spiritual dimension of the curriculum. Furthermore, Circular 7/92 noted our commitment to requiring from 1993–94 that all maintained schools should include in their prospectuses a statement about the way in which they seek to secure the requirements of the Education Reform Act in this respect.
We touched on related issues during the course of our debate last week on amendments to Clause 46. I said then that when considering an application for a new GM school my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will consider the suitability of promoters to run a new GM school. Clearly he will

247
not approve proposals from promoters whose values run counter to those expressed in my noble friends' amendments.
The existing model articles of government for self-governing schools also already contain relevant provisions. They require that it be the duty of the governing body:
"to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups".
There are also a number of other provisions relating to self-governing schools which secure the ethos of the school.
It might be helpful if I set out the procedure for making the articles of government of a GM school. That will be done under Clause 5·3 of the Bill in regulations made by the Secretary of State. We will of course be consulting widely on these regulations. Governing bodies will be empowered to suggest alternative provisions to the Secretary of State but he will have the final word. Amendment No. 160AD is therefore otiose: there is no question of the initial articles of government being made by anyone other than the Secretary of State. Similarly I am not persuaded that Amendment No. 160BA is practicable. The articles of government should conform to a model or one of several models. It is not possible or desirable to make bespoke articles even for every new GM school where statutory proposals are published under Clause 46. But I am ready to reflect further on whether the standard articles of government for such schools might contain additional provisions relating to the school's ethos. With those explanations and reassurances I trust that Amendments Nos. 160AD and 160BA will not be moved. I hope that the dialogue between the officials of my department and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and others will continue on these matters.
Amendment No. 160AB would make it a requirement that the articles of government for self-governing schools include a mission statement and a statement on the behaviour and discipline of pupils including their mutual respect and tolerance towards others. I am not persuaded that the amendment will work as it stands. The purpose of the articles of government is to set out how GM schools should be conducted. Many of the articles impose duties and obligations on the governing body such as those that I have already mentioned. I see little point in requiring that the articles include statements of policy rather than specific obligations to conduct the school in a particular way. And some of the information that the amendment would require to be included in the mission statement would already be public knowledge: the religious and denominational character of the school will have been included in a school's proposals for self-governing status.
But I am attracted to the notion of allowing governing bodies to exercise their functions with a view to securing, for example, that the school is conducted in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance. I hope that I shall be allowed to resist this particular amendment to the Bill and to consider these issues further. I should like to consider whether the wording and content are appropriate and, if so, whether
248
reference to moral and spiritual values should be made in Schedule 6 or whether these are matters best left to the articles themselves.
Amendment No. 241 concerns inspections under Section 9 of the Education (Schools) Act 1992. All inspections carried out under Section 9 of the Schools Act by a registered inspector will cover the way a school promotes the spiritual and moral development of pupils across the curriculum. The registered inspector will state his findings in a published report, and the governors are required to publish an action plan in response, setting out the action they propose to take to remedy any deficiencies identified.
In addition, in any. school which offers denominational religious education, either by virtue of its trust deed or a statement annexed to statutory proposals, the governors are under a duty to arrange for the inspection of that denominational provision, under Section 13 of the Act. The Section 13 inspector, who is solely appointed by the governors, will also be able to report on the way in which a school is meeting the requirements of its trust deed in terms of pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. The Section 13 inspector will also look at the content of private acts of corporate worship, such as mass. That report, and the governors' response to it, will also be published and made widely available so that parents and others can see that the school is delivering its religious ethos in a satisfactory manner. Those are important safeguards to preserve the character of a school.
Just before I conclude, I should like to say a few words to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. He mentioned very specifically the integrated schools in Northern Ireland. I very much agree with him. Apart from being a successful policy, I actually think that it is quite a courageous policy. I hope that, along with me, Members of the Committee will recognise the efforts of Dr. Brian Mawhinney in setting them up. They bode well for the future of young people in Northern Ireland. However, I hope with those reassurances and explanations that my noble friends will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Elton: As my noble friend referred to Section 13, I should point out that that is in fact the section which was debated and to which I referred. She raised an important point. The welcome I gave to the amendment was, in large part, due to the fact that it would produce transparency for the nation as a whole as to what was going on in those highly specialist religious enclaves—that is, both Christian and otherwise. Section 13 provides that,
"an inspection under this section shall be conducted by a person chosen by—(a) the foundation governors, in the case of a controlled school; and (b) the governing body, in any other case".
However, that is not the case. It is an internal fix, or can be seen as such. It just does not answer the point. We are seeking to open up the whole field of religious instruction to inspection, not by any sort of inquisitor but by someone who will be able to see whether what is going on is in accordance with what has been agreed with the Secretary of State as proposed under subsection (1) of Amendment No. 160AB.

249
My noble friend the Minister talked about an inspection by a Section 13 inspector appointed by the governors under criteria which are laid down elsewhere externally. I hope that, in her reflections, my noble friend will bear in mind the following: first, that we need an answer on the principle as to whether this great evil of the ghettoisation of minority religion can be removed by bringing the schools into the national system; and, secondly, whether that can be done in a way which promotes the confidence of the rest of the country. It must of course promote the confidence of the minority. Being excluded at the moment, it is not surprising that they do not have such confidence. If my noble friend takes the essence of.the amendments on board, she will realise that they are very important.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I should like to say a few words before my noble friend responds. I tried to listen very carefully to her reply to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. However, I have a feeling that she did not entirely pick up the point that what is proposed is a positive approach as opposed to laying down that which should not be. Although the amendment may not fit in easily with the ideas of the moment for the articles of government of schools, I believe that a way should be found somewhere—whether it is in the articles or elsewhere—to get the process moving. It is really extremely imaginative and might work in such a way that possibly nothing else could. This is such an important matter. I hope that my noble friend will carefully consider the angle from which the noble Lord has approached the issue before we reach the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness Seear: I wish to say from these Benches how much importance we attach to the possibility of other religions being drawn into the whole framework of religious education within schools. Tomorrow at 10.30 in the Moses Room the Moslems are to hold a meeting about this very matter. The position will be difficult if they believe that this kind of approach is being rejected.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I give general support, as I believe I did when we were discussing this matter on a previous occasion. However, I am a little confused as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, spoke to Amendment No. 241 which deals with inspections. There are a number of amendments on that matter. I would not wish the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to be recorded as the only statement on inspections. I hope that that aspect of the matter can be left until we reach the relevant part of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: I say to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour what I have said a number of times during my response to the amendment. I wish to take this provision away and reflect on a number of issues that have arisen during our discussions. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for what he has just said. I do not believe we should look at this form of inspection in isolation from other inspections that will take place in these schools.
I understand the tensions, sensitivities and concerns of the Committee, but I also believe that there will be
250
some overlap between general inspections and specific inspection of the quality of Mass, for example, or specific inspection of the quality of worship in a Moslem school, and/or a Jewish school. That issue will need some careful handling. I accept the advice of the right reverend Prelate that the matter we are discussing should not be considered in isolation. However, I shall reflect on the entire debate between now and Report.
Lord Northbourne: I am most grateful to Members of the Committee who have supported the amendment and to the noble Baroness for her kind comments. However, I do not feel that the points she was able to make from the Dispatch Box entirely cover the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has often put his finger on the nub of the matter as regards the concept of transparency. He also put his finger on the nub of the matter in relation to the Section 13 inspection, which constitutes an inside job. We must try to find a way in which the Section 9 inspection can cover these issues without offending the sensibilities of the existing Churches or anyone else. That is what I hoped I had achieved. Perhaps the noble Baroness will feel I have achieved that when she studies the debate.
I was troubled by the idea of standard articles. If we are looking for choice and diversity, we cannot really have standard articles. If we are looking for different sorts of schools, we must allow for the possibility that the schools will wish to have articles that vary in some specific elements. The richness of the concept of grant-maintained schools would be weakened if it were not possible to have some variety in the articles on sensitive issues. It may be that the prospectus of a school is the right vehicle for the governors to state their intentions in this regard, but I am not at all sure about that. I am not at all sure that a prospectus has to be approved by the Secretary of State whereas the articles do. That matter needs some further consideration. I do not wish to waste the Committee's time. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that she will take these matters away and reconsider them. I hope we may be able to work together to achieve agreement.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that I may reply to the noble Lord so that the reply is on the record for the purposes of any subsequent debate. When I referred to standard articles, I referred to standard articles with additional provisions. The additional provisions would take account of the particular characteristics of individual schools. I talked about standard articles as they related to all schools and then additional provisions as they related to particular characteristics of individual schools.
Lord Northbourne: I understand that many of the provisions would be standard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 160AC not moved.]
Schedule 6 agreed to.
10 p.m.
Clause 53 [Initial instruments and articles of government]:
[Amendment No. 160AD not moved.]
The Duke of Norfolk The Duke of Norfolk moved Amendment No. 160B:
Page 29, line 42, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall, in respect of subsection (1) above and before prescribing such instruments and articles in the case of endowed grant maintained schools, consult with the Board of Education of the General Synod of the Church of England and the Catholic Education Service and such other persons or bodies as appear to him to be appropriate.").
The noble Duke said: As we read this and related clauses, we can see that there is a good and urgent administrative reason for prescribing model instruments and articles of government for grant-maintained schools. In the case of endowed grant-maintained schools the amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the bodies listed. For us that is important in that, as both the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford and I observed at Second Reading and earlier in Committee, the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are anxious to see clear and unambiguous references in both those important prescribed documents to the distinctive nature and character of church schools.
I am reliably informed that such consultation took place following the passing of both the Education Act 1980 and the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 and the consequential issue of revised model instruments and articles of government for voluntary aided, controlled and special agreement schools. I trust that my noble friend the Minister will confirm that the benefit of consultation and co-operation evidenced in those exercises will be repeated when Clause 53 is finally redrafted. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: I should like briefly to support the amendment, which follows neatly from what we said in relation to standard articles and model clauses. It is desirable to have model clauses. It is hoped that there will be some specific model clauses which will relate to Roman Catholic Church schools, some which will relate to Church of England schools and some which will relate to Jéwish schools. It is entirely desirable that those consultations should take place. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I wish to indicate that in general terms I am in full agreement with the noble Duke. We have consulted together over the preparation of the amendments.
Baroness Blatch: Clauses 53 to 55 of the Bill relate to the instruments and articles of government for self-governing schools. Clause 53 provides for the initial instrument and articles to be set out in regulations. Clauses 53 and 54 allow for those initial instruments and articles to be varied.
The amendments relate to self-governing schools which were formerly voluntary schools or were established by promoters. My noble friend referred to such schools as "endowed schools".
The noble Lords would like to make it a requirement on the face of the Bill that, in the case of those grant-maintained schools which they term "endowed schools", the Secretary of State would have
252
to consult with the Church of England Board of Education and the Catholic Education Service and such other bodies as appear appropriate before making regulations under Clause 53. As I have said, the initial instrument and articles will be made under regulations. The Government will certainly be consulting widely about those regulations. I can assure my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk and the right reverend Prelate that the consultation will include national bodies representing the Church of England and the Catholic Church. That is because we are dealing here with policies which apply nationally. All grant-maintained schools will have their instruments and articles set out in regulations.
Given that commitment to national consultation, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. First, it is not appropriate for such requirements to be included on the face of the Bill. It is not usual to seek to list consultees. Secondly, I do not believe that such singling out of two bodies for inclusion in the Bill is desirable. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, introduced a third name, and there may be more. There are other interests—particularly those of individual schools—which also need to be consulted. I ask, therefore, that the amendment is not pressed at this time.
The second and third amendments, Amendments Nos. 160C and 160D, are less appropriate. They relate to consultation about the instrument and articles of government of individual schools. I do not believe that it is necessary for the Secretary of State to consult the bodies mentioned in the case of amendments to the instruments or articles of individual schools. Under the clauses as they stand, the Secretary of State will consult the governing body of the school before making any change. As my noble friends will know, the governing bodies of endowed schools will contain foundation governors. In Church schools those will normally be appointed by the local diocese. In non-denominational schools they will be appointed by other bodies—for example, by the school's foundation. The foundation governors form a majority on the governing body of former voluntary schools which become self-governing. They will therefore be well placed to consult with and put across the views of the bodies who appoint them. There is also nothing to prevent a school consulting anyone else it wishes about a change to its instrument or articles.
I hope that with that explanation the amendments can be withdrawn.
The Duke of Norfolk: I am not entirely happy with what the Minister says. However, I understand the sincerity with which she speaks. I believe that the initial articles of government are extremely important and that the religious background to them should be considered. However, in view of what the noble Baroness said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. If the situation is unsatisfactory, perhaps I may bring the provision back at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 160BA not moved.]
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Subsequent instruments of government]:
The Duke of Norfolk The Duke of Norfolk moved Amendment No. 160C:
Page 30, line 34, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall in respect of subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) above, consult—

(a) the relevant Diocesan Board of Education (in the case of Church ofEngland endowed grant maintained schools);

(b) the relevant Roman Catholic Diocesan Bishop and Trustees (in the case of Roman Catholic endowed grant maintained schools);

(c) the person or persons named in the school's Instrument of Government as being entitled to appoint foundation governors (in the case of other endowed grant maintained schools).").

The noble Duke said: Clause 54 provides that the Secretary of State may himself modify an endowed grant-maintained school instrument of government, either at his own behest or at the request of the governing body of the school.
While I think that it would be unlikely that the Secretary of State would wish radically to alter an agreed model as described under Clause 53, both the Churches deem it important that, before amending an endowed grant-maintained school's instrument of government, there should be consultation on his part with the relevant diocesan authority.
I would add that we are a mite more concerned about Clause 54(1) (a). Although I am confident that the majority of endowed grant-maintained school governing bodies would rest content with an instrument which they would know was drafted with the co-operation of the relevant national agencies, the possibility of a unique governing body "going native", so to speak, and attempting to undo a carefully-crafted model, which in turn might well undermine the denominational character and composition of the governing body worries us.
I acknowledge that the thrust of the amendment will not stop a governing body from so proceeding. However, a duty to consult as set out in the amendment might well curb potential excesses. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: I support the amendment. I hope that the Government are fully aware that the systems of the major religious denominations which provide schools are of a particular pattern in a city, district or diocese, and that something which happens to a particular school is very likely to have repercussions on all the other schools. That will be seen with force, for example, when a sixth-form college draws its pupils from a wide range of contributing secondary schools. There have been cases which illustrate that point both in London and Birmingham.
Lord Northbourne: I ask the noble Baroness to reconsider what she said on the earlier amendment but relating to this amendment. Perhaps I should have intervened before. Surely we are not talking about any old group of schools, we are talking about the two major partners. It depends on whether we take the figure of the number of pupils or the school population, but between 25 and 30 per cent. of the school population has historically been and is at
254
present subject to a partnership arrangement between the two major Christian Churches and the Government.
Here we are partners negotiating for some of those schools to be free to transfer into the grant-maintained sector. I should have thought that the Churches had a legitimate anxiety, particularly in the context of what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said about the desire of the Roman Catholic Church to make a coherent provision for its flock in each area. If it is not consulted on such changes, that coherent provision will not be possible.
Lord Renton: Whether or not the provision is written into the statute, it is important that in the case of a group of denominational schools within one area—that is to say here, one diocese—there should be an element of consistency in the articles for the governing of each school. We do not want too much disparity. We can avoid that if there is consultation with the diocese in each case. Of course, the governors must be consulted but if only they are consulted, then there may be some disparity.
In saying that, I am not wedded to the idea that we should write it into the Bill because there is a well-known saying about interpretation of statutes to the effect that, if one expresses one thing, one is deemed to exclude others like it. It may be that some other form of consultation as well should be contemplated. Therefore, it may be best to leave it broad and open. However, as a matter of policy, I hope that the Government will bear in mind the desirability of achieving consistency in the way I have mentioned.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I do not wish to detain the Committee because I am sure people are anxious to get on. I thought that this amendment was grouped with the previous amendments, so I am confused. However, now that the point has been raised I should like to say in answer to what the noble Baroness stated on a previous point that, although she is quite right that there is a majority of foundation governors in a grant-maintained school, those foundation governors are not necessarily appointed by the diocesan board of education, but will probably be appointed by the local parish. The foundation governors may not, therefore, bear in mind the whole strategy of Church schools across the diocese as a whole. Thus, especially in the case of the Church of England, there is a case for consulting the diocesan board of education. I recognise that there is some doubt as to whether it is necessary to put that on the face of the Bill. To that extent, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Baroness Blatch: Like the right reverend Prelate, I am confused. I not only believed that my noble friend the Duke, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and other Members of the Committee had spoken to Amendments Nos. 160B, 160C and 160D because we were talking about consultation generally but also I responded to the two amendments relating to Clauses 54 and 55. I made the point that foundation governors

255
are appointed by the umbrella bodies, whether it be the diocesan board or, in another school, the trust foundation.
I am open-minded, I should like to take the matter away and think about it. The one thought I am left with is the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton and the right reverend Prelate. I am not sure, even if we come to an accommodating view about it, that the face of the Bill is the appropriate place for the provision. However, I take seriously on board the principle of proper consultation and the level playing field in these matters.
The Duke of Norfolk: Again I thank the Minister for what she has said. I should like to consider this matter further. I beg leave to. withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Clause 55 [Subsequent articles of government]:
The Duke of Norfolk The Duke of Norfolk moved Amendment No. 160D:
Page 30, line 47, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall in respect of subsections (1), (2) and (3) above, consult—

(a) the relevant Diocesan Board of Education (in the case of Church of England endowed grant maintained schools);

(b) the relevant Roman Catholic Diocesan Bishop and Trustees (in the case of Roman Catholic endowed grant maintained schools);

(c) the person or persons named in the school's Instrument of Government as being entitled to appoint foundation governors (in the case of other endowed grant maintained schools).").

The noble Duke said: The amendment seeks to put in place a not dissimilar safety valve to that which I have adverted in Amendment No. 160C. On balance—and it is a fine balance —the careful drafting of model articles is even more important than the instruments. The articles set out in great detail the statutory and respective roles for governors, the head teacher and the management of the school. That includes, inter alia, provisions for the oversight of both religious and secular curricula, the admission of pupils, disciplinary arrangements and the appointment and dismissal of staff, both teaching and non-teaching.
It is of the utmost importance therefore that, before replacing or modifying this key working document, much of which in the case of the grant-maintained schools will in model form carefully reflect the denominational ethos and character of the school, the Secretary of State should consult the relevant diocesan authority. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I wonder whether the Committee will allow me to take this amendment, together with the other two amendments, and consider all three between now and Report stage.
The Duke of Norfolk: I am willing to withdraw the amendment. Perhaps we may bring it forward again at Report stage if the Minister has not been able to make the changes we ask for.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Categories of governors]:
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 160E:
Page 184, line 10 at end insert:
("Support Staff Governors
(1) "Support staff governor" means a governor elected by the non-teaching staff at the school.
(2) To qualify for such election, the person must himself when he is elected be a member of the non-teaching staff at the school.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 160E, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 161, 162, 163, 161C, 161D and 162A.
Amendment No. 160E seeks to ensure that school support staff are placed on the governing body. School support staff are a diverse group which includes caretakers, secretaries, technicians, bursars and accounting staff. At present they are unrepresented on school governing bodies. It seems to us that it is anomalous for teaching staff to be represented on the governing body when the support staff are not. We believe that all staff have a contribution to make to their school regardless of their occupation.
The current position reflects a view which is all too often found in government that support staff are somehow second-class staff. The absence of a support staff governor is even more anomalous in special schools, where the majority of staff will be non-teaching staff. In those schools the support staff can additionally be house parents, other welfare helpers, interpreters and other specialists, whose direct input, especially in terms of their own expertise, would be useful to the governing body.
We accept that some may be unhappy with the idea of an additional staff governor. We would have no objection to the appointment of a further non-staff governor to balance the situation.
Perhaps I may now address Amendments Nos. 161, 162 and 163. The purpose of Amendment No. 161 is to encourage the appointment of one parent governor from among the parents for children in any special unit of a grant-maintained school. The purpose of Amendment No. 162 is to ensure that in a grant-maintained school that was previously a county school there is at least one governor with an understanding of special educational needs.
With Amendment No. 163 the purpose is to ensure that in a grant-maintained school that was previously a voluntary school there is at least one governor with an understanding of special educational needs. Where there is provision at a school for a group of pupils with special educational needs, the work and understanding of the governing body of that school may most helpfully be informed by the parent of a child placed in that position. Such parents will have a particular perspective on the work of the school that may assist the governing body in considering the school's approach both to the specific provision and to the children with special educational needs more generally.
The proposed amendment would not make an absolute requirement that one parent governor should be the parent of a child with specialist provision but simply that that should be the case where it is
258
reasonably practical. Governing bodies will increasingly need an understanding of special educational needs issues, particularly in view of the proposed requirement in Clause 153(4) to publish their policy on special educational needs.
The willing and able parent of a child in specialist provision at the school would bring particular insight, understanding and skill to inform the school's policy. In carrying out their new duties governing bodies need to be able to draw on an understanding of special educational needs, whether it comes from the parent of a child at the school or from another source.
Many governing bodies have recognised the importance of their existing duties and have appointed a special needs governor to assist them in meeting their responsibilities. The passage of the current Bill provides an excellent opportunity to establish good practice more firmly. The proposed amendments to Clauses 60 and 62 will ensure that, as county and voluntary schools respectively become grant maintained, they appoint at least one governor with recent knowledge and understanding of special educational needs.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 161C, 161D and 162A. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that first governors do not outnumber other governors of a grant-maintained school and that one of the first governors is appointed by the local authority.
Clause 60 of the Bill requires that the instrument of government of a grant-maintained school would provide for the first governors to outnumber the other governors. This continues the concept of the Education Reform Act 1988; namely, that the first governors should be in a majority and should include parents and community business representatives.
Ensuring that the first governors always outnumber other governors means that those who establish the school have a natural majority and can continue to press the original philosophies of the school without being challenged. The value of the amendment is that it would ensure that the number of other governors is equal to the first governors and that they do not therefore have that natural majority.
The second of the amendments would ensure that the local authority is able to have a representative on the governing body of a grant-maintained school. It is an important amendment. While the local authority is no longer responsible for running the grant-maintained school, the funding arrangements for grant-maintained schools have an important effect on the local education authority's schools. Since grant-maintained schools operate within the framework of the maintained sector, it is important for the local authority to be aware of what is happening in the grant-maintained schools within its boundaries. Having a governor on a grant-maintained school enables a formal link to be created between the local authority and the school. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I support the amendments in this grouping. I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 161A and 161B. The purpose is to allow two teachers to sit on the governing body and to present their views. Teachers are probably one of the most important groups in the school and their views will be invaluable

259
to a governing body. The argument about having two representatives rather than one has arisen in a number of contexts. I shall not go through the argument again.
However, I should like to raise one aspect; namely, that a teacher governor, especially in a religiously oriented school, might put forward a view that is not shared by the entire staff. By having two teacher governors, a more balanced view can be given to the governors.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like briefly to support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in regard to Amendments Nos. 161, 162 and 163 which are in my name and the name of my noble friend Lady Warnock. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, explained the position clearly so I shall not say a great deal.
The amendments are important, particularly now, because under Clause 153(4), governing bodies will have to publish their policy on special educational needs. I underline what was said by the noble Lord on Amendment No. 161, that it would not be an absolute requirement to have a parent governor from within a special unit in a grant-maintained school, but only where it is reasonable and practicable to do so.
When schools become grant-maintained, they are given greater autonomy and have continued responsibilities to children with special needs. They have much greater independence from their previous sources of support to meet those needs. I therefore agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that it is surely time to stress that. I hope that the Minister will recognise that in his reply and if he can give an assurance that the requirement will be contained in guidance, I shall be content and will not move the amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I speak to Amendment No. 161. As the father of a mentally handicapped child I must confess that I was tempted at first sight to support it. However, on closer inspection it appears to have two defects. The first is the general difficulty that the expression,
"where it is reasonably practicable to do so",
is possibly already a little vague when it applies under Clause 57(4) (a) to parents of ordinary pupils at a school. However, I suggest that the expression,
"where it is reasonably practicable to do so",
may be even more difficult to apply to what may be a small number of parents in a school.
The extent of the first difficulty may depend on the number of parents with children in the school with special educational needs. The number of those children and their parents may depend upon how widely one draws the definition of children with "special educational needs".
I tabled an amendment to Clause 152 which, if accepted, would exonerate children suffering from mental handicap from the general presumption in that clause that all children with SEN should be educated in schools for children without mental handicaps. The trouble is that, in my view, "special educational needs" covers a broad range of needs. It may cover all forms of physical handicap as well as mental
260
handicap, about which I am particularly worried, and it also legitimately covers dyslexia and many other causes of learning difficulty, as the jargon has it.
At this stage of the Bill I make no further comment on the vagueness of the meaning of the expression "special educational needs". I merely point out that it is extremely vague and it is therefore difficult to decide who are the parents who are to be the subject of the amendment. For my part I hope that our present enthusiasm for educating mentally handicapped children in normal schools will wane. Whether or not that hope is granted—as I am sure that it will be in the fullness of experience—the definition of SEN seems to me to be already so vague as to make this well-intentioned amendment unworkable in practice.
Lady Kinloss: I support the amendments of my noble friends Lady Darcy and Lady Warnock. The amendment only asks that, when it is reasonably practicable, it is desirable to have as a parent governor the parent of a child with specialist provision in the school who would be able to bring specific insight, understanding and skills to the governing body.
Lord Swinfen: I too support the generality behind Amendments Nos. 161 to 163. Where a school caters for special educational needs there should be at least one governor on the governing body who has knowledge of those specific special educational needs. As my noble friend said, there is a wide variety of special educational needs and not all schools will cater for them all. In fact, it is probably better that they cater for only a small band of special educational needs at any one time because then the job will be done properly.
I believe that there should be a governor who is aware of those specific special educational needs so that, even if the school does not have all the information, that governor would know where to obtain it. Not everyone can know everything.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: We must keep a sense of proportion. There may be a mainstream school with 100 pupils. We say that two or three may have a hearing difficulty and two or three may have an eyesight difficulty. I hope that there will not be any mentally handicapped children there because that is wrong. I am all against mentally handicapped children being in mainstream schools. It is ridiculous. It holds back other children and embarrasses the mentally handicapped children. I speak as the father of one.
Let us bear in mind that subsection (2) of Clause 57 says that in the case of a primary school not less than three and not more than five shall be parent governors, and in the case of a secondary school the figure is five. Suppose that there were 100 children in a school and only half a dozen had special educational needs. It would be utterly disproportionate to say that one of the five governors should necessarily be elected. Is he or she to represent those with hearing difficulties, those with eyesight difficulties, or what? In the unlikely event of 40, or even 20 or 30, out of the 100 children, having special educational needs in a

261
mainstream school—I have never heard of it happening—there would be some reason for the suggestion.
I dislike disagreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). I nearly always agree with her and generally vote with her, but on this occasion I must implore her to think again.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. As I understand the amendment—if I am wrong, I will find out —one is talking about a designated unit for pupils within a grant-maintained school. One is saying that where possible one parent governor from that unit should be elected, where practicable. One understands that there are lots of different disabilities, but the parents of a child with special needs have a general understanding of special needs. I contend that they bring a perspective and understanding of those pupils and their needs.
Lord Renton: We should be grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing attention to that point. However, the designated unit may be a very small one containing only a tiny proportion of the children in the school.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): In that case it would not be practicable to have one.
Baroness Warnock: The more competitive schools become, the easier it is for people to overlook the fact that children with special needs —whatever their disability—tend to be marginalised without someone on the governing body to speak for them. Whatever the disability the child or parent may have, I believe it is the case that parents of children with disabilities understand one another and understand other children with different disabilities. I hope that they will be constantly acting as gadflies and saying that children in the school with special needs need to be treated with as much consideration and given as many chances as other children. The amendment is a simple one and framed in as flexible a way as possible. It may well be that in certain schools what is proposed is not a possibility. Nevertheless, it is an ideal to which one should look in composing the governing body.
Lord Elton: The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), mentioned specialist provision, which is referred to in Amendment No. 161. She also spoke to Amendment No. 162, which deals with schools where there is no specialist provision, in which case the remarks of my noble friend Lord Renton have a very strong bearing. I would support him on that.
I want to speak only briefly to bring us back to the first amendment in the group which deals with support staff. What my noble friend Lord Renton said about particular categories of governor in small schools applies with equal force there. A small school has a small board of governors and a limited choice of people who can go on it. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, knows very well that I am strongly of the view that members of the non-teaching staff are important members of the staff of the school and have
262
a notable and important effect on the way in which children behave in those schools and profit from those schools. Therefore, I have no reason to act harshly against them. But it is very desirable that, if there is an appropriate member of the support staff, if the school is the right size, and if there is a vacancy on the board of governors suitable for that person, that person should become a member of the board of governors. But that can happen under the Bill as it is presently drafted. It is desirable; it is not essential; and there will be occasions when it is not possible. I hope that the noble Lord does not press his amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may press the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, on what she said because I am sure she will agree that special educational needs encompass, as I mentioned, physical handicap, mental handicap, dyslexia, and other causes of learning difficulty which may be the result of some particular form of violent home background and may be reflected in the child. Is the noble Baroness saying that each one of these categories should be represented by the relevant parent governor? I am sure she will agree that they all require very different treatment. I may not be sufficiently familiar with the Bill but I do not see that the clause necessarily makes provision for the particular unit to which she referred.
Baroness Warnock: Children with different disabilities will have different forms of education in the school. But, given the policy that has to be published for each school for children with special needs, it is important to have a member of the governing body who may have the special duty of ensuring that the policy is carried out. It is one thing to publish one's plans and policies and quite another to make sure that the children with disabilities have the support and, for example, the use of the swimming pool or the gymnasium on equal terms with children without disabilities. That is just one example.
It would be helpful if there was someone who has a special interest in this area or who is a parent of a child and therefore naturally has a special interest. I would certainly not suggest that all children with special educational needs will require the same amount of support, but we do hear a lot nowadays about a whole school policy which includes children with special needs. It is very important that the governors should be fully aware of what that whole school policy is and do as much as they possibly can, probably through one member of the governing body who is specially interested in it, to ensure that that policy is carried out. I do not think that the amendment hopes to achieve more than that.
Lord Addington: Perhaps I may briefly intervene. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), shows the way forward for the simple reason that someone who has experienced one area of special educational need tends to be someone who is not looking at the system as one that is running properly. He is looking at the way things break down. The moment one does that the system starts to be looked at in a different way.

263
For instance, if one is catering for people who have conceptual learning difficulties such as dyslexia, the way in which lessons are constructed has to be looked at and also the type of teaching. That means one would probably be better adapted for dealing with people who have hearing difficulties because, once again, they need new teaching techniques. We then take a step sideways and it is realised that there are a whole new set of problems. I agree that the term "special educational needs" is something of a blanket expression. One of these days one hopes that we shall be able to break it down into more specific groupings.
A person in a wheelchair will have motor difficulties and the basic problem is getting to the lesson. That is a new problem. It tends to be the case that once one begins to look at the school functioning along what is generally regarded as normal lines, one has a better chance of spotting these difficulties and being exposed to what they are. When we have an answer to these problems I hope that the Government will give us some idea as to how they are looking to meet them. That will probably help us all when we come to Part III of the Bill.
Lord Henley: We have a number of amendments dealing with, in a sense, whether members of four different groups of people should be governors or representatives on governing bodies of self-governing schools. The amendments relate to SEN, non-teaching staff and foundation governors and a pair of amendments are directed towards the number of teachers on a governing body. Perhaps I may first spell out the basic principle that has guided our views on what the governing body should consist of.
The governing body of a self-governing school is not intended to be purely a representative body. It is there to manage the school effectively. As such, it is not necessary or desirable for all possible constituencies, or permutations of constituencies, to be represented on the governing body.
I turn to the four particular groups. Perhaps I may start with Amendments Nos. 161, 162 and 163, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), which deal with the special educational needs about which we have already had much discussion—and there is much more to come.
They concern three separate clauses in the Bill which deal with parent, first and foundation governors. Amendment No. 161 to Clause 57 deals specifically with self-governing schools which provide specialist SEN provision for a particular group of pupils. For example, such provision may take the form of a unit for pupils with hearing impairments. If the amendment is accepted it will mean that parents of the pupils receiving specialist provision would have their own special representative on the governing body.
The number of pupils receiving the specialist provision is likely, as my noble friend Lord Renton suggested, to be a very small proportion of the number of pupils in the school. As the schools will have between three and five parent governors we believe that it would be inappropriate for a particular group
264
of parents, no matter how few, to be guaranteed their own representative. Their influence might then be disproportionate to their relative numbers.
It is important, again, as my noble friend Lord Renton suggested, to keep a sense of proportion in these matters. I believe that we would all agree that children with special needs who are integrated —we are talking about children who are to be integrated into mainstream schools —should be treated in a similar way to the majority of pupils wherever possible. That is what integration is all about. All governors, and not just the elected ones, will need to take account of the requirements of those pupils.
I am not convinced that there is a need for there to be a representative of any particular group of parents on the governing body, nor would I want to see SEN matters appear to become what one might refer to as a "ghetto subject", suitable only for a particular SEN governor and not a matter that all governors, particularly all parent governors, should concern themselves with.
I certainly understand the notion behind these amendments, but I believe that they raise considerable practical difficulties and may well have significant, deleterious and unintended snags. On those grounds I certainly hope that the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press them.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 161A and 161B tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. They suggest that there should always be at least two teacher governors at self-governing schools. That would mean that the teachers at such schools would enjoy greater representation on the governing body than their colleagues in schools still maintained by the local education authority. At present in all schools, whether LEA-maintained or self-governing, there are either one or two teacher governors. In self-governing schools it is for the governing body as a whole to decide whether there should be one or two teacher governors.
The Government agree that teachers should have a say on the governing body of the school at which they work. They provide valuable professional expertise and can put across the views of those people employed at the school. We do not, however, believe that they should have a disproportionate say on that governing body. Amendment No. 161A does not specify any upper limit on the number of teacher governors. We should not for instance wish to see a situation where the teachers on the governing body outnumbered the parents. The teachers at a self-governing school are employed by the governing body. The governing body is therefore given numerous duties relating to teachers' appointment, pay and conditions and promotion. It is also responsible for staff discipline. A governing body packed with teachers would lead to difficult conflicts of interest and possibly to allegations of unfair practice.
I am quite convinced that the balance of interests on the governing bodies of self-governing schools as set out in the Bill is correct. It is right that schools should be able to decide if they wish to have one or

265
two elected teachers on their governing body. We should remember also that the head teacher is already on the governing body by virtue of his office.
I shall deal now with Amendments Nos. 161C, 161D and 162 spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, which deal with first governors. Clause 60 substantially replicates the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988, in providing that first governors shall constitute a majority on the governing body. The amendments seek fundamentally to alter the balance on the governing bodies of all those grant-maintained schools that were formerly LEA county schools.
Since the introduction of grant-maintained schools we have not received reports that the constitution of the governing body has created problems in terms of the position of first governors. I do not believe therefore that it would be justified to seek to disturb the existing arrangements. Not only would all grant-maintained schools in the future have to subscribe to those new arrangements, but for consistency hundreds of existing schools would also have to have their governing bodies significantly altered, as existing first governors were reduced in number, so as not to outnumber the other governors.
I turn lastly to Amendments Nos. 160E and 163A. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, did not mention the latter amendment, but I presume that he was speaking to it. The amendments will create a further category of governor at self-governing schools. Those governors would be known as "support staff governors" and would be elected by the non-teaching staff. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will agree with me when I say, and echo the words of my noble friend Lord Elton, that support staff do an admirable and indispensable job. Without their hard work many schools would not function efficiently. I am pleased that the amendment has given the Government the opportunity publicly to extend their thanks to them for their service.
I do not, however, believe that a separate category of governor should be created to give support staff a representative on the governing bodies of self-governing schools. As I said, the governing body of a self-governing school exists to run the school effectively. It is not, and should not be, merely a representative body.
There are a number of other points that I should like to make on this subject. First, the amendment relates only to self-governing schools. In schools maintained by local education authorities, there is no category of support staff governors. The amendment would therefore be placing a duty on self-governing schools which is not replicated in other schools.
Secondly, in the vast majority of cases, the number of support staff at a school will be relatively small. That might include those support staff provided by private contractors; for example, in the cleaning, caretaking and maintenance fields. It would not be appropriate for that group of people to have its own representative on the governing body. That would clearly give such people a say on the governing body which is disproportionate to their relative numbers.
266
The Committee will be aware that, if this amendment were introduced, the overall size of the governing body would yet again be increased. I have outlined a number of reasons why this amendment should not be accepted. I should like to stress that I am not saying that the views of support staff or, for that matter, others with whom we have dealt in earlier amendments, are not important. Indeed, they are, as my noble friend Lord Elton stressed. Governing bodies may consult their support staff about any matter and may include their representatives on committees as co-optees. But the Government would certainly wish to see active dialogue and exchanges of ideas between all members of staff and their employers, the governing body.
I hope that for the reasons given the noble Lord will not wish to press his amendments and that in due course other members of the Committee will not feel it necessary to press theirs.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Parent governors]:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 31, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) The instrument shall provide that if specialist provision is included at the school for a designated group of pupils with special educational needs, one parent governor shall be elected from amongst the parents of pupils in that group, where it is reasonably practicable to do so.").
The noble Baroness said: I had not intended to move the amendment but I shall do so in order to reply to what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said. I am less than happy with his reply. I had indicated that I would be extremely happy and would not move the amendments if I had an assurance that the guidance would contain what the amendments sought to achieve, or even an indication that the Government might consider putting those requirements in guidance. I hesitate to launch forth in in the presence of my noble friend Lady Warnock because she knows so much more about the subject. However, I shall do so because the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that he did not want to have mentioned any extra specialist input. He said that the important thing is that the school runs effectively and that children with special needs are treated in a similar way to other pupils wherever possible.
Yes, I absolutely agree, but how does one integrate the children with special needs? They have a special need; there is no doubt about that. The way to integrate them into the mainstream is with understanding. How does one obtain that understanding? All that our amendment sought to do was to obtain that particular perspective, which my noble friend Lady Warnock described. I see that she is nodding and so I feel on slightly firmer ground. One obtains a perspective and an understanding from the parents where practicable, which was provided in Amendment No. 161. Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 do not specify parents; any governor will do who

267
might have other knowledge and, incidentally, a knowledge of special educational needs. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: If courteously and perhaps wisely my noble friend is about to say that he will consider guidance on the matter I hope that it will be related to some extent to the number of SEN pupils in a school. I repeat that my noble friend Lord Renton made a strong point in that respect. If a school has a significant or large proportion of such pupils that changes its character. As catering for them will become a major part of the school's job, it will then be sensible to put something in guidance but not in statute. However, my noble friend should not do that unless there is a significant number of pupils.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may respond briefly and I should like to respond as sympathetically as possible. I see one major practical problem. We are talking about parents electing governors and I do not see how we can issue guidance to parents as to who they should or should not elect. That is not what the election of governors is about. However, I accept what the noble Baroness said about understanding being important. It is most important that all those electing their fellow parents to serve as governors should consider the number of children with special educational needs and whether they needed representation on the governing body. However, those matters must proceed by means of the general education of the population and the attitudes which we all bear. I hope that a debate such as this goes a little way towards furthering those attitudes.
I return to my first point: I honestly do not see how we can issue guidance to parents as to who they should or should not elect.
Having said that, I am prepared to look again at this matter with officials, but I must repeat that caveat as strongly as I possibly can.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I thank the Minister for his reply. I believe that I detected a tiny chink of sympathy which was not present in his original stony reply. I accept that I was probably on the wrong track as regards guidance. I, too, shall consult others on this matter and may return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Teacher governors]:
[Amendments Nos. 161A and 161B not moved.]
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [First governors]:
[Amendments Nos. 161C to 162A not moved.]
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Power of the Secretary of State to replace first governors]:
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 162B:
Page 34, line 39, leave out from ("where") to end of line 40 and insert ("the Secretary of State is satisfied, either upon complaint by any person interested or otherwise, that the affairs of the school have been or are being mismanaged.").
The noble Lord said: In summary, the Secretary of State has two major powers to intervene in the running of a grant-maintained school under Clauses 61 and 64 respectively. Clause 64 serves to repeat the existing provisions of Section 63 of the 1988 Act. The power in Clause 61 is new.
The amendment seeks to query whether Clause 61 is sufficiently comprehensive to cover all eventualities. The Government's drafting of Clause 61 in respect of those measures seeks to limit the possibility of intervention much more tightly than did the 1944 Act. Even where behaviour is unreasonable or where complaints have been made or where a duty has not been discharged, no action is possible unless failure is substantial and persistent, or action or inaction is prejudicial to the provision of education. Whereas the 1944 Act's powers permit effective action to be taken in response to any kind of complaint, a problem in a grant-maintained school must satisfy the tests of Clause 61 before a remedy will be possible. The provisions of Clause 64 by themselves have already been shown to be ineffective and two additional governors are generally unlikely to command a majority to solve a problem quickly.
Amendment No. 162B therefore proposes to substitute the broader condition of "mismanagement" as the trigger for intervention, and it also makes specific reference to action in response to complaints.
That approach should commend itself to the Government since it is similar to the provisions of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. Section 57 of that Act made two important provisions in respect of further and higher education institutions: first, subsection (3) gives the Secretary of State power of direction similar to Section 99 of the 1944 Act—that is, upon complaint or otherwise, where the governing body has failed to discharge any duty; and, secondly, subsection (1) gives him power to remove all or any of the members of the governing body where he is satisfied that its affairs have been or are being mismanaged.
Without this amendment being accepted, the prospects of redress for complainants against GM school governing bodies are significantly worse than they are in respect of the governing bodies of county and voluntary schools or further education colleges. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Clause 61 gives the Secretary of State power to replace first governors in grant-maintained schools: it is a new provision for which there was no equivalent in the Education Reform Act. It provides tough measures for replacing all or any of the first governors of a GM school, but only in the particular circumstances specified; as, indeed, the noble Lord said.
The power can be used: first, when the governing body is guilty of substantial or persistent failure to comply with any statutory duties imposed upon it; secondly, when a report of an inspection of a grant-maintained school identifies that the school is at risk of failing to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education; and, thirdly, where the Secretary of

269
State is of the opinion that an action taken or proposed by the governing body is prejudicial to the provision of education which, of course, is an all-important aspect of that power.
The amendment concentrates on mismanagement rather than action prejudicial to the education of pupils. It introduces slightly different concepts to the condition in Clause 61 subsection (4). It brings in the idea of responding to a complaint in addition to action taken entirely at the Secretary of State's initiative. It also concentrates on "mismanagement" by the governing body rather than
"action prejudicial to the provision of education in the school".
I do not consider the amendment to be necessary; nor do I consider it necessary to amend the clause to provide for the Secretary of State to respond to complaints. There is nothing in it to prevent him from using his power in response to complaints; and, indeed, one likely source of information about a school with problems of this nature will be complaints from parents, governors or other interested parties because that is his method of obtaining his information.
Finally, will the Secretary of State have the necessary power to take action if a school is being mismanaged? I am confident that he has. Under Clause 64 he has the power to appoint additional governors,
"if it appears to him that the governing body are not adequately carrying out their responsibilities in respect of the conduct or management of the school".
Where a governing body lacks particular skills or expertise, the Secretary of State will be able to appoint additional governors who can provide it with help and support.
That action will be sufficient to cope with most cases where there are problems with the conduct and management of a school. It is inconceivable that more serious mismanagement, which would cause the Secretary of State to consider the use of his powers under Clause 61, would not involve action by the governing body which fell within one or more of the conditions for the use of the powers. I must ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I do not propose to press the amendment. I shall study the Minister's response very carefully. However, I must just say that I find it difficult at this stage to understand why there should be different standards of ability to complain for county and voluntary schools or FE colleges. Nevertheless, as I said, I shall read the Minister's answer with interest. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Foundation governors]:
[Amendment No. 163 not moved.]
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 163A not moved.]
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Powers of governing body]:
[Amendments Nos. 164 and 165 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 38, line 11, leave out from beginning to ("or") in line 12 and insert:
("it is part-time education suitable to the requirements of persons of any age over compulsory school age, or full-time education suitable to the requirements of persons who have attained the age of nineteen years,
( ) it is part-time education suitable to the requirements of junior pupils who have not attained the age of five years and the school provides full-time education for junior pupils of the same age").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 181 and 244. All three are technical amendments. The amendment to Clause 99 enables a grant-maintained school which provides full-time nursery education to provide part-time nursery education without that constituting a change in the character of the school. I beg to move.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 166A:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause:
Joint schemes
(".—(1) Two or more grant-maintained schools may enter into a scheme under this section (referred to in this section and section (Making and varying joint schemes) of this Act as a "joint scheme").
(2) A joint scheme may—

(a) authorise or require the governing bodies of the schools to which the scheme applies to establish joint committees constituted in accordance with the scheme,

(b) provide for the meetings and proceedings of any joint committee so constituted, and

(c) authorise or require the governing bodies of the schools to which the scheme applies to delegate, in such circumstances as may be determined in accordance with the scheme, such of their functions as may be so determined to any joint committee so constituted.

(3) A scheme providing for any joint committee must provide for the committee—

(a) to consist only of persons who are governors of the schools to which the scheme applies, and

(b) to include a head teacher of one of those schools, a parent governor of one of those schools and a first or foundation governor of one of those schools.

(4) A joint scheme may authorise or require the governing bodies of the schools to which the scheme applies to exercise jointly, in such circumstances as may be determined in accordance with the scheme, such of their functions as may be so determined; but such a scheme may not provide for the joint exercise of any function relating to the employment of teachers unless it also provides for the establishment of a joint committee to exercise that function.
(5) In relation to any teacher employed in pursuance of a joint scheme, the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991 shall have effect as if he were employed by the joint committee required by subsection (4) above to be established and that joint committee were the governing body of a grant-maintained school.
(6) A joint scheme shall provide for any expenses of exercising any functions in pursuance of the scheme.
(7) A joint scheme shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained (whether in pursuance of a requirement under this Act or otherwise) in the instrument or articles of government for any of the schools to which the scheme applies.
(8) A joint scheme shall not have effect in relation to any matter dealt with in any co-ordinated arrangements for admissions (within the meaning of section 240 of this Act)

271
contained in an agreement approved by the Secretary of State under that section or made in pursuance of a scheme under that section.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 166B, 168C, 171ZA, 187J and T453. These amendments provide for two or more grant-maintained schools to form an association under a scheme and for the approval of the scheme by the Secretary of State. The subsequent amendments are technical supporting amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: I hope that the Minister can just say a few words about the accountability of such arrangements and indeed representation because some anxieties have been expressed to me—I wonder how well founded they are—that the proposal could become a device for blurring the accountability which we are painfully establishing in terms of individual schools. It would be helpful if the Minister could say something about that. The other point which has been put to me—it may just be a romantic dream, but I wonder whether the Minister can comment—is whether in some of these functions there is to be an absolute Berlin Wall between the grant-maintained schools and schools which come under the auspices of the local education authority, or whether there will be any room for association between schools in both categories.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that the Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will forgive me. I have been told that I read out the number of an amendment grouped with the one we are discussing as T453 and it should be 303A. I was being informed of that while the noble Lord was making his first point and therefore I missed it. I hope that he will not mind repeating his first point.
Lord Judd: The Minister is doing extraordinarily well with this detailed Bill. It would be churlish of me not to say so. The way in which she keeps on top of things is exemplary. The point I was making is that some anxieties have been expressed—I am not sure how well founded they are—that arrangements of this kind could lead to a blurring of accountability. We have talked a great deal about how individual schools will be accountable. Some anxieties have also been expressed about representation in these arrangements. We have been saying that there should be a teacher here or a teacher there. But what happens about representation in these kinds of arrangements?
The other point which has been raised—the one I suggested might be a bit romantic, which is a nice thought at this hour—is whether there might be a Berlin Wall in some of these functions between grant-maintained schools and schools in the local education authority sector. Does the Minister envisage any possibilities for schools in both sectors coming together in some of these arrangements?
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for the noble Lord's indulgence towards me and also for his generous comments. There is nothing in these arrangements that precludes individual schools, or indeed a group of schools collectively, working with other schools in the
272
area. The idea of the Berlin Wall must not be allowed to arise. I understand the anxiety the noble Lord referred to.
Further, each school will be signed up to this loose, federal—I hope I may dare use that word—arrangement. Each school will have its own governing body and the joint committee will be formed from these. It will undertake various functions delegated to it by the schools under the scheme. There is no question but that any one school could disagree to that scheme going ahead in the name of all the schools.
The scheme will also determine how schools will fund co-operative activities. There may well be joint funding and purchasing arrangements, the purchasing of in-service training and so forth. We envisage that the schools will give to the joint committee those functions in relation to which there is an opportunity to benefit from economies of scale. Thus the schools may, for example, appoint a joint bursar. But those will always be decisions which are totally consistent with each of the schools in the group.
The scheme will specify the constitution of a joint committee which will consist of governors of schools in the scheme. Amendment No. 166A requires that a joint committee must consist of at least one head teacher, one parent governor and one first or foundation governor so that there is proper representation across the schools. That will ensure that each constituency of the governing body will be represented on the joint committee. The composition of the joint committee will be set out in the scheme. We envisage that all schools will be represented on that joint committee.
Lord Judd: In respect of the relationship between grant-maintained schools and local education authority schools, in any of those arrangements could there be a joining of schools in the two sectors?
Baroness Blatch: I am not sure that I understand the noble Lord's question.
Lord Judd: As I understand it, the purpose of the scheme is that schools can come together in free association or in co-operation for activities which they could undertake more effectively together than on their own. Will there be an opportunity for schools in the local education authority sector to come together with schools in the grant-maintained sector for such purposes or will it be an exclusive club of schools in the grant-maintained sector?
Baroness Blatch: I now understand what the noble Lord is saying. If he is asking whether there can be a federal arrangement of a mix of grant-maintained and LEA schools the answer is, no, there cannot be. Schools participating in such a co-operative arrangement of self-governing schools must be self-governing schools.
Baroness Faithfull: Supposing a grant-maintained school has a very good playing field and a local authority school has no playing field, is it possible for those two schools to unite and use the same playing field?
Baroness Blatch: Absolutely, if they are both grant-maintained schools.
Baroness Faithfull: One would be a grant-maintained school and the other a local authority school.
Baroness Blatch: There is still no reason why there should not be co-operative arrangements between any schools, whether grant-maintained or LEA schools. In relation to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, we are speaking of a formal federal arrangement between self-governing schools, which is one thing. In relation to sensible co-operation between either an LEA school and a grant-maintained school or vice versa, we hope that that is how matters will develop.
Lord Judd: I believe that that is very sad.
Earl Russell: I am fascinated by the amendment. I should like to try to understand it a little better before we leave it.
Although I know that she has listened to a great deal, the noble Baroness may possibly recall my speech on Amendment No. 57 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I expressed a fear then of what I called balkanisation, a breaking down of arrangements for co-operation. Therefore I am naturally extremely interested in seeing put before us arrangements for what the noble Baroness described as a federal relationship between schools. That goes some way to ease those anxieties.
However, when I look at the effect of the amendment I find that there are to be joint committees, powers are to be delegated, there are to be meetings and proceeding. This is beginning to look remarkably like the local education authority under another name. I am tempted to think of this as the Voltaire amendment. As my noble friend Lord Tordoff reminds me, and as I was just about to say, there is only one difference: this is not elected; a local education authority is.
The noble Baroness has read us a great many lectures on the subject of democracy today, but what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and e converso.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Earl has really misinterpreted the purpose of the amendments. This is an arrangement between consenting adults. These are schools which have voluntarily, by parental preference, entered into the grant-maintained sector. They have chosen to make decisions for themselves. They have chosen not to be part of an arrangement in which the local education authority makes decisions for them. But, having come out, they. believe that there may well be a strength in partnership with schools around. They therefore enter into a loose federation to which they voluntarily sign up. They voluntarily submit members of their own governing bodies to come together for the purposes of in-service training, purchasing and undertaking tasks which directly benefit their own schools rather than that a judgment should be made by an LEA. Very often the views of the LEA are superimposed on their schools; those schools are acting in their own vested interest.
274
I believe that the noble Earl has totally missed the voluntary nature of the federation. We are saying that there are two kinds of strength-in-numbers arrangements. One is the voluntary cluster arrangement where there is one joint governing body serving all the interests of all the schools. Each of the schools is represented but the one governing body acts for all the schools. The other joint arrangement is where the schools are independent and for certain specific items or interests they form a loose federation. I believe that that is the proper way to go. If there are LEA-controlled schools outside which are jealous of the arrangement there is a good option for them: become grant maintained and join them.
Earl Russell: I heard that with interest. But does the noble Baroness agree that the people of the area have chosen the local education authority for themselves?
Baroness Blatch: I have spent a lot of time in local authorities. There is an arrogance about local authority members making decisions which ought better to be made by the schools themselves.
Earl Russell: Are we being told that people governing grant-maintained schools will never be arrogant?
Baroness Blatch: No, the governors of those specific grant-maintained schools benefit and dis-benefit from their own actions. But their own actions are in their own interest, whereas a local authority can be making decisions about other people. We have here direct operational control as a unit of management which is very close to the consumer interest—the parents.
11.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I support the amendments with considerable enthusiasm. The amendments provide the opportunity for adjoining schools to come together in order to pool their resources and co-operate as seems most effective for them. I envisage that provision being of considerable assistance in country areas where small schools might find it difficult to be viable on their own. One needs flexibility, in particular in country areas, and the clauses provide this. Adjoining villages seem always to have been on opposite sides in the Civil War or the Wars of the Roses. Alternatively, there were always more Angles than Saxons, or more Saxons than Angles. One must have some factor which enables them to come together in as loose or as tight an arrangement as seems to them appropriate. I warmly welcome the proposals.
Baroness Hamwee: I am a little unclear why it is necessary to provide a scheme for their coming together in the legislation. As the Minister explained, there can be different types of co-operation and joint working.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister three questions, First, with regard to "consenting adults", as she puts it, am I right that, under subsection (2) of Amendment No. 166B, the scheme will,
"cease to. have effect where the governing bodies of all the schools to which the scheme applies agree"?

275
If it requires all the adults—the schools—to agree to end the scheme, that seems a strange example of the way in which consenting adults might operate. In other words, is one of the schools which has already agreed then bound until the others all fail to agree?
Secondly, with regard to quality, the 1992 Act provides for thorough four-yearly inspections. There are new powers of intervention in the Bill if a GM school is mismanaged or the education is "at risk". I should be grateful if the Minister could explain how functions performed by the new joint committee will be inspected, and what powers of intervention will exist or be relevant.
Thirdly, there is the question of teachers' employment. It seems to me that under Amendment No. 166A, subsection (5), the joint committee may employ teachers separately from their employment by the governing bodies of member schools, as though the joint committee were itself the governing body, the employer. Is there not a danger of worse pay, worse conditions, worse job security than if the teachers were employed directly by the member schools?
Finally, the amendments were, I believe, tabled only yesterday. I appreciate that they reflect points that have been made by the Government at earlier stages of the Bill in another place. Given that there has not been the opportunity to consult teacher bodies or any other bodies which will be affected by the provision, would these be appropriate amendments, as the Minister would say, for her to consider and come back to at the next stage? There would then be an opportunity for interested parties to consider them rather than our agreeing to them within 48 hours of their being tabled.
Lord Judd: I strongly support the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and I hope that the Minister will feel able to agree to it. If such a new idea is to be introduced, it would be better if those who will be affected are consulted beforehand so that there can be a broad basis of consent and understanding.
I wish to stress one other point. My anxiety—and I cannot speak for others on this—is that at a time when the community is coming under a great deal of stress and we want to build up a real sense of community engagement and community responsibility, unintentionally—and I have no reason to suppose that it is intentional—the effect of the provision could be a community which is socially divided. If one looks at it objectively, one could begin to see a first division and a second division coming into all kinds of educational activity.
The amendment has too much evidence of haste, as has occurred too often in the Bill. There have not been enough serious analysis of and thought about all the implications in the proposals. I hope that the Minister will, just for once, at this late hour, establish a consensus in the Committee by saying, "Yes, all right, you have some points here, I am prepared to look at them and come back at a later stage".
Baroness Blatch: If my memory serves me well, during the course of today I did just that in relation to a number of amendments. I said that I would take them away and consider them because I believed that
276
the points deserved more debate. I am at a loss on this amendment. Throughout the Bill we have been criticised for being too rigid. The amendments result from trying to find all forms that would make it possible for schools to stand alone and also to co-operate. This is one way of allowing for that flexibility, as was said more eloquently by the right reverend Prelate.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, there is no question of the schools escaping inspection; they are schools in their own right. They lose nothing of the status of individual schools. They simply come together in a federation which allows them to co-operate for the benefit of all the schools. Nor can they directly, as a collective body, employ people. However, if they believe that it would be appropriate to employ one groundsman to serve all the schools, or to employ a bursar to serve all the schools, and if the schools agree, they would make a contribution to ensure that they do it jointly between them to the benefit of each school. The question was posed—
Baroness Hamwee: I am sorry to intervene but perhaps I may pursue this matter for one moment longer. I hope that the Minister will accept that I do not ask these questions in a spirit of aggression, but to establish what the proposals mean.
In subsection (5) of the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 166A there is a reference to:
"any teacher employed in pursuance of a joint scheme".
The subsection then says that the:
"Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act … shall have effect as if he were employed by the joint committee … and that joint committee were the governing body of a grant-maintained school".
I am not clear who will be the employer in that situation. Will the employer be one school that takes a contribution to salary from the other schools that are in the federation; or is the federation the employer?
Baroness Blatch: I was saying that the joint committee cannot employ independently of the governing bodies. It is the governing bodies who jointly become the employer, not this joint committee. The joint committee in itself is only the governing bodies. They become the employer.
Baroness Hamwee: So, in other words, all the governing bodies, as a group, become the employer?
Baroness Blatch: That is all that this federation is.
Baroness Hamwee: Does a teacher who has a complaint against his or her employer have to deal, then, with the federation of bodies?
Baroness Blatch: First of all, if we are talking about a joint appointment, whether it be a joint gardener or a joint bursar, that gardener or bursar would be serving all schools within the federation. If there were a grievance about conditions of service, then clearly there would have to be a mechanism for dealing with that. It would either be because all the schools were behaving badly, or it would be a complaint about one of the schools. But the mechanisms for doing that —whether a committee should be formed for dealing

277
with grievances—will clearly form part of the regulations controlling the way the federation would work. But it is inconceivable that the interests of an employee would be sacrificed; they would be looked after.
I appreciate the particular question that the noble Baroness asks, but I can assure her absolutely firmly that there will be no forfeiting of the protection of employees under these arrangements. They are designed simply to make more sense for, say, a group of small schools or a group of schools that are isolated in the countryside. It is just another mechanism to allow schools to seek strength in numbers.
I have been asked if I will. withdraw the amendments. I have to say that I will not. It is always possible between now and Report stage for Members to take issue with them, wish to amend them or do as they choose. But, if the Committee accepts them, they will form part of the shape of the Bill that proceeds to the next stage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 166B:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause:
Making and varying joint schemes
(".—(1) A joint scheme shall not come into force until it has been approved by the Secretary of State.
(2) A joint scheme shall provide for the scheme to cease to have effect where the governing bodies of all the schools to which the scheme applies agree.
(3) A joint scheme—

(a) may be varied by the governing bodies of all the schools to which the scheme applies if the variations are minor variations or the Secretary of State has approved the variations,

(b) if the Secretary of State so directs, shall be varied by the governing bodies in accordance with the direction, and

(c) if the Secretary of State so directs, shall cease to have effect.

(4) The Secretary of State may—

(a) approve a scheme, or variations, with such modifications as he thinks fit, or

(b) give a direction under subsection (3) (b) or (c) above, only after proper consultations.

(5) In subsection (4) above, "proper consultations" means consultations with the governing bodies of every school—

(a) in the case of a proposed scheme, to which the scheme will apply,

(b) in the case of a variation, to which the scheme applies, or will apply after the variation, and

(c) in the case of a direction for a scheme to cease to have effect, to which the scheme applies.

(6) The Secretary of State may by order specify what descriptions of variation are to be regarded as minor for the purposes of this section.").
[Amendment No. 167 not moved.]
Clauses 66 to 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Replacement of proposed initial first or foundation governors before incorporation]:
11.30 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 167A:
Page 42, line 42, leave out from ("nominated") to end of line 44 and insert ("as a foundation governor by the person or persons who nominate foundation governors in the school.").
The noble Lord said: There is still a long way to go on this Bill. I believe that we can deal with this
278
amendment very briefly as I have had an indication that the Government may be prepared to look favourably on it.
The object of the amendment is to iron out an anomaly under which the clause as it is worded suggests that if a governor retires or dies during the period when a school is being formed, he should be replaced by his fellow foundation governors. The suggestion in the amendment is that he should be replaced by the promoters who are in a position to nominate foundation governors. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this issue and for speaking so briefly. I am aware of the concern that has been expressed about the current arrangements whereby the foundation governors on the existing governing body appoint any replacement foundation governors on the initial grant-maintained governing body that are required while the proposals are under consideration.
We have been considering in particular representations made to the department by the Catholic Education Service to give the responsibility for nominating any replacement foundation governors during the interim period to those normally responsible for appointing foundation governors -that is, the trustees.
As they are responsible for the initial appointments and any subsequent appointments once the school has been incorporated, I accept that it seems somewhat anomalous that the trustees are not entitled to appoint any replacement governors required during the interim period and that the governors appointed by them in the first instance are replaced without consultation with them.
I am therefore content to support in principle the idea that the trustees should be responsible for nominating replacement foundation governors to the initial governing body of the proposed grant-maintained school during the period while the proposals are under consideration. If the noble Lord is willing to withdraw his amendment at this stage, I can give the noble Lord an assurance that I shall ask parliamentary counsel to advise on an appropriate wording and bring back a suitable amendment along those lines at Report stage.
Lord Northbourne: I am grateful for that assurance and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 167E to 167D not moved.]
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clauses 71 to 75 agreed to.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 167E:
Before Clause 76, insert the following new clause:
("Minimum standards of provision
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to determine and publish the minimum standards of provision needed to deliver the requirements of the National Curriculum and to exercise his powers to ensure sufficient books and equipment, the maintenance of school buildings and sufficient resources to limit class sizes for each school to fulfil those requirements.").
The noble Lord said: The Government require schools to deliver the national curriculum and use

279
national tests to monitor the standard of delivery. But those who will the ends must also will the means. Consistent with that approach is the inescapable need for a national common funding formula to ensure equitable provision of resources for schools. There should surely be national limits on class sizes and agreed minimal levels of resourcing for books and capitation. This would provide for level playing fields, with county schools benefiting from additional resources, if the democratically elected local education authority chooses to spend more on education.
More and more schools rely on fund-raising to pay for books, computers, practical equipment, raw materials and, in some places, teachers. All children, no matter how rich or poor their patents, must have the books and equipment for their education. Yet in 1991 four out of five schools had fewer than 10 books per pupil, which is well below the recommended minimum.
The White Paper's proposal for a common funding formula based on standard spending assessments with the more detailed consultation that followed avoids any commitment whatever to a national formula. The discredited standard spending assessment system is the basis for the common funding formula. There are wide variations between the standard spending assessment per head in neighbouring authorities. For example, Manchester's 1991–92 secondary education SSA was £2,985 per pupil compared with £2,549 in next door Salford. The respective figures for Newham and its neighbour Redbridge were £3,436 and £2,722.
The introduction of pupil-led funding has exposed the disparities in levels of finance available to schools. The money available varies significantly between schools even of the same size. Figures showing current variations in school budgets reveal tremendous disparity. How can all children have a fair chance when wide variations exist? Although the Bill adds a national funding agency to the already existing national curriculum and national testing, it does not at present allow for nationally agreed minimum levels of funding for all schools.
The amendment seeks a limit to class size. The bigger the class, the less attention a teacher can give a child, yet class sizes are rising. More than a quarter of all primary-age children are in classes of over 30. Even in secondary schools, where pupil numbers are falling, 10 per cent. of pupils are in classes of more than 30. Limits on the size of classes are needed to give all children a fair chance under the national curriculum and testing.
Furthermore, we should not expect our children to work in schools which are dangerous, which are not weatherproof and which are inadequate for the needs of the national curriculum. Standards for the maintenance, repair and replacement of school buildings must be enforced. Outside toilets, no running hot water, practical rooms without power points, leaking roofs and water running down walls are the conditions facing thousands of children at school every day. Any allocation of funds to schools, with regard to grant-maintained schools under Amendment No. 167E, must provide for decent
280
standards of school buildings to end the decay and inadequacy of school buildings identified by Her Majesty's inspectors.
Regulations governing school buildings were laid down 11 years ago for the protection of pupils and teachers. Unfortunately, the Government deferred until 1996 their enforcement in schools built prior to 1981. Guaranteed standards must be laid down and resourced for all schools to give every child a fair chance. The minimum standards of provision must apply to all schools.
In response to Gerry Steinberg, a Member of the other place, during Committee stage, the Education Minister, Eric Forth, said,
"It would be wonderful if we could devise a simple, elegant, universal, all-embracing, national common funding formula".
To take one organisation as an example, I understand that the National Union of Teachers is developing just such a system of guaranteed levels of resourcing for all schools and that it is to meet Eric Forth to discuss it. That is positive and cheering news.
We are spending many hours discussing the administration and structure of education; we are not perhaps spending as much time as we should be in talking about the substance of education, either in terms of the teachers, who we remember from time to time but who do not seem to be central to our considerations, or indeed the materials and resources which are absolutely essential if any success is to be achieved in the classroom.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: Like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I should love to see a minimum standard for all children in all our schools. Unfortunately, I find the concept of a minimum standard a philosophical will o' the wisp. It is extraordinarily difficult to lay down, in terms of money, pupil-teacher ratios, or indeed any other measurable index, exactly what we are talking about when we speak of the kind of entitlement we would want every child to have.
Every year, as HMI in former days, we used to collect evidence about the quality of education that we observed in schools. Time and again we came back frustrated in any attempt to find a bottom line in terms of resources. We saw excellent education, excellent teaching and children receiving their maximum entitlement of a good education in schools which were poorly resourced; we saw schools that were well resourced but where the education was badly delivered; we saw the misuse of generous resources given by a local education authority at school level, and so forth.
Much as we would all wish to find that kind of formula and devise it simply so that it could be used nationally, it would be an impossible will o' the wisp to pursue. I ask the noble Lord not to pursue a formula of that kind.
Earl Russell: I sympathise with the noble Baroness over finding precise definitions. However, I cannot help thinking that being below minimum standards is a bit like love or flu. When you have got one of them, you know it!
My noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee, at Second Reading of the Bill, said that one of the things he

281
regretted most was that the Bill did not deal with the things which, in our opinion, are most needed to raise standards in schools—funding, class sizes and the provision of books.
It so happens that last Friday I was listening to one of the postgraduates in my college who had a five-and-a-half-year old son in school. She told me that, because he was in a class of 35 and did not have a habit of complying with what he was told, for most of the time he was able to avoid paying any attention to learning to read. She believed that that was beginning to have very serious effects on his educational future. I cannot help thinking that that story is being repeated many times around the country at the moment. I also cannot help thinking that putting that right will do a great deal more to improve standards of education than any of the tinkering with the system of school government that we have in the Bill.
I am well aware of the pressure that the national curriculum is putting on the supply of books. Perhaps I may speak about history, which is what I know best. The national curriculum involves teaching a lot of different subjects from what has been taught before. In particular there is concern for the British dimension of British history. In some cases the books for that are still being written. A school which cannot get the books simply cannot teach what is needed. In asking people who come to university from school what was in their school library, I discover a great many more times than I find it pleasant to say that they simply have not learnt the techniques that are needed because they have never had the tools in the library to do so. They have never been able to acquire the idea that learning is something that is achieved by reading contradictory and critical accounts by different people of the same subject.
On the subject of buildings, I recall one occasion that I believe makes the point in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. When a building is below the minimum standard one feels it. I refer to a school that I saw during the last election. It is in prefabricated buildings. It rests above the ground simply on breeze blocks and is not fastened down in any way. It is wide open to the west. Whenever there are forecasts of strong winds the school has to be closed because it simply is not safe for the children to be there. If that is not below the minimum standard, I do not know what is. That school is in Newbury, and I am going there next Monday.
Lord Elton: The largest class that I was called on to teach was 43, and at that time I would certainly have liked to have a lower limit on class size. But I do not believe that this amendment will achieve that result. Unfortunately, it is an equation with about three unknowns in it, which makes it worse than quadratic. It seems to invite the Secretary of State or funding authority to provide sufficient money for certain purposes to be achieved but not to lay down how they should be achieved.
Here we are setting up a system where a number of schools will be in competition for pupils. Is the noble Lord suggesting that the money shall be directed so
282
that that competition is nullified, that there will be exactly the right number of places in an area distributed among schools, and that those places must be filled? If that is the case, parental choice will be nullified. Is he suggesting that parents shall be able to choose schools to the extent that some schools will expand and others will diminish? Does he suggest that the Secretary of State shall withdraw the money from the diminishing school? If he were to talk about the cash going with the kids I think it would have some attraction. I advance that proposition in a later amendment in relation to children with special educational needs. But in this very general term there is nothing but a recipe for chaos.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: This amendment is drafted in broad, not to say vague, terms and it roams across wide areas of policy. The funding of schools is also, inevitably, a rather technical matter. I shall try to deal with the issues as fully as time permits, though I say now that the amendment should be rejected as it is based on the false premise that it is possible to specify the input required to guarantee a particular educational output. Educating children is not as simple as that.
Perhaps I may give one or two facts. Whatever the view of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and his colleagues of the situation now, it is better than it was when his party was in power in 1979 and before. The record shows that at the national level increasing resources are being provided for education, with spending per pupil in nursery, primary and secondary schools up more than 45 per cent. in real terms between 1979–80 and 1990–91. Within that total per pupil, spending on books and on equipment went up by 31 per cent. in real terms while per pupil expenditure on repairs and maintenance—
Earl Russell: I beg the noble Baroness's pardon. Perhaps I may ask for one point of clarification. Are those figures on books quoted in relation to the RPI or in relation to the increase in book prices?
Baroness Blatch: The figures I gave were in real terms, discounting inflation. If the noble Earl looks at the price of books in schools he will find that I am not very far out with the RPI over the period 1979 to 1991. Spending on books and equipment went up by 31 per cent. in real terms while per pupil expenditure on repairs and maintenance went up by 29 per cent. As my noble friend Lady Perry said, if one is talking about a finite sum of money, one is saying that the best has been done within the sums available to education.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Perry and with the sentiment behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, but if the National Union of Teachers is coming up with this wonderful funding formula which makes sure that the variations to which the noble Lord so disparagingly referred will be ironed out and that all will get an equal allocation, perhaps I may say that that itself is not a simple matter.
One of the reasons for there being a variation of funding across the country is that there are varying needs across the country. It is infinitely more

283
expensive to fund public services in one part of the country from another. Whichever party is in power one will have to address the needs element, and the needs will change even between one child and another. We have talked a great deal today about special needs. The needs of one child will be greater than another. The number of special needs children in one school will require more funding than another school. One will therefore very quickly get into variations.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that what is missing from the Bill are the three most important elements to effect the raising of standards in schools. He referred to funding, books and money. I suggest an alternative list: the quality of staff and the effectiveness of the teaching; family support for the children; and children receptive to learning. I would suggest that those would do very much more to raise the standards of teaching and learning in our schools.
The national curriculum, for the first time, gives to all pupils the entitlement to study a broad and balanced curriculum, including the 10 core and foundation subjects with the associated assessment and testing. I have to add, as an aside—that is, unless the teachers' unions think otherwise. But, while the national curriculum lays down the frameword of what must be taught, as a matter of common sense it leaves individual schools and teachers a sensible discretion as to how it is to be taught, according to local circumstances and the needs of individual pupils.
This includes taking decisions on how the children at each school are organised into classes, taking account of their different ages, aptitude and ability and any special educational needs that they may have. It also includes taking decisions on the proportion of each school's budget to be spent on books and equipment.
The amendment which the noble Lord has proposed would severely restrict the discretion given to governors and headteachers under local management of schools and require them to follow spending rules set down by central government. If this clause were adopted, it would drive a coach and horses through local management of schools, and take us back to the days when those involved in the day-to-day education of our children (governors and teachers) had no say in how it was done. I believe, and most schools also believe, that that is wrong in principle.
The present arrangements for distributing funds for maintained schools allow for local discretion within a national framework. The arrangements sensibly combine the objective allocation of resources between local authorities, again according to need—which means that some authorities receive more than others—with a broad measure of local discretion to tailor spending to suit local circumstances.
Central government grant for education to local authorities is based on pupil numbers, adjusted to take account of local factors, which affect the cost of providing education: notably the additional educational needs of certain pupils, and higher labour costs in London and the south east. There is no breakdown of funds specifically for books, equipment, teaching costs or whatever. That is for local authorities and
284
schools to determine according to their own priorities. This amendment would undermine that discretion and that accountability.
It is worth noting at this point that the record of grant-maintained schools for spending in this area is very good indeed. I find it extraordinary that noble Lords opposite, who in the past have protested that discretion is being limited at the level of local authorities and schools, now seek to hobble it in this way. The amendment assumes that it is a simple matter to quantify the level of resources sufficient to ensure the delivery of the national curriculum. On the contrary, it is remarkably difficult. We are dealing with 24,000 schools and 6 million children. How do you decide on the number of books to be allocated to each child; how do you decide whether a class should have 19 but not 20 pupils?
There is no agreed basis for even beginning to quantify these matters. Indeed, the amendment begs the key question of whether it is possible to specify any minimum standards of provision to guarantee the delivery of the national curriculum. I am not aware of any evidence showing a correlation between the level of resources and educational performance. As far as exam results are concerned, the statistical evidence tends to show that there is actually a negative correlation between high spending and academic performance. I acknowledge that some of this may be due to socio-economic factors, but if you look at similarly-resourced schools serving similar areas, you will find enormous variations in how effectively those schools deliver the national curriculum.
In this Chamber we have the best evidence of all of the poor correlation between high spending and achievement, and that is the record of the Inner London Education Authority. If ever there was an indictment of that particular policy, that high spending equates to better education, then over many years ILEA disproved that theory.
In practice it is thoroughly impractical to lay down these kinds of rules and in this case, such rules would stifle local initiative and discretion under a stultifying, bureaucratic uniformity. The amendment is misguided, impractical and a recipe for confusion. I urge the Committee to reject it.
Lord Judd: What a weary response from the Minister! It would be good if occasionally we saw a flicker of imagination and a willingness to examine the possibilities which have been put forward. I know that it is a late hour, but the negativism becomes rather depressing as it churns on unyieldingly, hour after hour. I believe that the Minister has not even read this amendment because it does not say that there are particular imputs which will produce particular results. It talks about "minimum standards" and the latter word is plural. If there are differences in different parts of the country—
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord is intending to put on the face of the Bill the words "minimum standards". He would also like to put on it the word "sufficient". It is not good enough to put words and say that they are not definitive. Somebody somewhere would have to define "minimum standards"—
Lord Peston: The Secretary of State.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord is saying that they are not that specific. Why should we consider that they are that specific? If it is going on the face of the Bill it would have to be very specific.
Lord Judd: I find that an extraordinary comment by the Minister. Over recent years we have been introduced to the whole concept of minimum standards in education. We have had tables, leagues, and all the rest of it. We are to be able to measure the learning process itself. We are to have tables and minimum standards. But when it comes to whether loos work, whether there are drains, whether the buildings are watertight, or matters of that kind, we are to fall back on rhetoric about parents' commitment and teachers' inexhaustible good will, but not provide the physical context in which the effectiveness of those important attributes can be maximised.
I am sorry to sound a little irritated, but I find the Minister's response sad, and all too characteristic of what we hear day after day from the other side. I had hoped that the Minister would have shown a willingness and generosity of spirit and would have said, for example, on a matter which is so central to the well-being of education, that if someone was able to come up with some practical ideas on how the proposition might be brought forward and implemented—I have suggested that some professional work is being done on it—she was prepared to look at it. I am not going to pursue the matter tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 168 to 168B not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 168C:
Page 45, line 40, at end insert:
("( ) any provision made by virtue of section (Joint schemes) (6) of this Act").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment was spoken to as part of the group of amendments tabled after Clause 65. I beg to move.
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 77 [Special purpose grants]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 46, line 22, at end insert:
("( ) Grant regulations shall provide—

(a) for the payment by the funding authority to the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools of grants (to be known as special educational needs grants) in respect of expenditure, of any class or description specified in the regulations, incurred or to be incurred by governing bodies in meeting special educational needs assessed under subsection (3) of section 158 of this Act; and

(b) for the deduction from any such grant in any year of an amount equal to the proportion of the equivalent grant in the previous year paid in respect of a particular pupil, divided by the number of sessions for which it was payable and multiplied by the number of sessions during which that pupil was excluded from that school.").

The noble Lord said: With the amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 215 to 217, 219, 224 and 225. The amendments are designed to
286
demonstrate an improvement that I should like carried out in the Bill, but they do not pretend to achieve that improvement. If my noble friend were well-disposed towards the principle, she would find it necessary to improve the practice.
Amendment No. 169 strikes at Clause 77 which provides for the payment of special purpose grants. The amendment provides for those special grants to include grants for SEN purposes.
Clause 158(3) requires assessments to be made of special educational needs. Amendment No. 215, which addresses that clause, requires an assessment of the cost of meeting those needs. Clause 158 brings into effect Schedule 8 which is about the making of assessments of educational needs, and Amendments Nos. 216 and 217 import into that schedule the making of assessments of cost. Clause 159 provides for statements of SEN and Amendment No. 219 adds the need for a statement of costs.
The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that when a pupil is assessed as having a special educational need he shall also have an assessment of the cost of that need. The second part of Amendment No. 169 in sub-paragraph (b) provides that, where a pupil with such an assessment is excluded from a school, the proportion of that grant equal to the period during which he is excluded shall be deducted from the similar grant in the following year.
The original cause of my anxiety was the fact that the Government ran a national exclusions recording scheme. Under that scheme schools were required to record both temporary and permanent exclusions of children but not indefinite exclusions. The anecdotal evidence was so great as to be irresistible. Large numbers of children were being excluded indefinitely and not being recorded as excluded. A high proportion of them were excluded at the beginning of their final year or at the end of the year before that. It is believed that many escaped out of the system at that point and never returned.
It seemed to me that if there were to be a system where children could be excluded without any bar by a higher authority, and if they were thereby to lose a considerable slice of their education, some disincentive should be placed upon that exclusion. It also seemed to me that those most likely to be excluded would be those who were most difficult to teach and who were typically those with special educational needs, whether registered, statemented or otherwise I know not. Therefore, if there were to be a statement which gave money to a school for teaching a pupil it is right that when that school elected to stop teaching that pupil it should cease to benefit from the money.
I should like to see that principle extended. Perhaps my noble friend has such plans or perhaps I have misread the provisions. It appears that in the Bill we are trying to apply to the public sector many of the economic pressures which at present apply to the private sector in education, which is funded almost exclusively by money which comes with the child. If one takes one's child away from school one ceases to pay the school fees. Therefore, I see logic in that proposal. However, my principle concern in this and other legislation is with people at the bottom of the

287
heap. The pupils with SEN are usually at the bottom of the heap and I wish to apply that disincentive to the excessive exclusion of those pupils.
The final amendments in the group strike on Clause 160, which provides parents with an appeal against a refusal to make a statement. Amendments Nos. 224 and 225 are intended to enable parents also to appeal against insufficiency of assessment of cost. I do not ask the Minister to look too closely at that provision because I do not believe that as drafted it will work. I also believe that it is giving a right of appeal probably to the wrong person. The appeal ought to be made by the school. If the school has a difficult pupil and has to be compensated for teaching that pupil adequately, it should be the school which says, "Look, this isn't enough; he needs a particular piece of equipment which cannot be bought"; or,"He needs more teaching hours with specialist attention Which cannot be paid for by this".
I repeat that the group of amendments is intended to demonstrate a system rather than to make it work. I hope that my noble friend will give it half of a friendly hearing. I beg to move.
12 midnight
Baroness Warnock: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord for clarification. Is he thinking of pupils with statements or of pupils who have been assessed as having special educational needs but not having a statement? There is a danger that children in grant-maintained schools will, if the amendment is carried, be in receipt of money especially allocated to their education, and that would be marvellous. However, children in local authority schools would not receive that special money and would have no earmarked money except where they were issued with a statement. I merely seek clarification as to which children are being referred to.
Lord Elton: I thought I should aim at what was most easily achievable; namely, that, where there was a statement, it should include a statement not only of the need but also of the cost of meeting the need. That would be applicable to any school where there was a statemented child. Where there is an assessment but a refusal to make a statement, at present the Bill provides an appeal against a refusal, but I have attempted to provide a parallel appeal against an under-statement of the cost of meeting the stated need. I believe that that is the point which the noble Baroness is addressing but I have perhaps not got it quite right.
Baroness Warnock: The vast majority of children with special educational needs do not and should not have statements. Nevertheless, the education which they need is expensive and must be paid for. However, the majority of children with special needs do not have statements. I wondered whether the noble Lord was referring to those children as well as to children with statements.
Lord Elton: That is a laudable objective but I do not see how it can be achieved within the existing framework. I was trying to achieve the minimum; that is, dealing with statemented children.
I agree entirely with the noble Baroness that there is a range of children above that level—if one can use that term correctly—who also need more money spent on them. That must be averaged out in deciding what it costs to run a school. I repeat that the best way forward is to introduce a capitation grant which goes with the pupil from school to school. We should not spend more time on the detail at this hour but I should be happy to discuss this matter with the noble Baroness between now and Report stage, although that may not have much effect on legislation.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: On these Benches we agree with the general principles outlined in the amendments: first, that the cost of statemented pupils should be included in the statement itself; and secondly, I was intrigued by the idea that there should be an active disincentive to excessive pupil exclusions. That is a far more attractive proposition than the obverse which is sometimes put forward; namely, that there should be an active incentive for schools to take excluded pupils. My anxiety about the obverse proposition as it is sometimes expressed is that it encourages the school which is going through the exclusion process to proceed right to the end of that process to make sure that the extra funds go with the child once it is excluded.
Therefore, I am attracted by the noble Lord's proposition. A disincentive to excessive pupil exclusions seems more likely to succeed.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may encourage the noble Lord's support still further. If a child is permanently excluded, he goes to another school and takes the money with him. It works both ways.
Lord Addington: This is an extremely good and sensible amendment which seems to have strong and practical principles, even if the legislation needs some amendment. I encourage the Government to consider this matter very seriously.
As the noble Baroness said, it is unfortunate that this is tied in with the statementing process. I can quite understand why that is so. If the Minister has the information available to her, when she replies she might suggest how we could provide a similar type of arrangement for that much larger percentage of children with special educational needs who will never have a statement.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may, first, deal with that final point. That must be an arrangement for the Local Management of Schools schemes that take into account children with special needs when allocating funds to schools. As regards those children who do fall short of a statement, short of introducing statementing for all those children, it would be impossible to bring them into the scope of what I think my noble friend seeks to do with the amendments.
Local authorities are responsible for the statementing of children with special educational needs, and for arranging the necessary provision specified in the

289
statement. Part III of the Bill, which we shall debate later, strengthens those duties on local authorities. Those duties apply whether the child is educated at a local authority-maintained or a grant-maintained school.
Clause 77 as it stands would already allow us to make special purpose grants to cover additional provision for statemented pupils at grant-maintained schools. We do not intend to do so: our policy is that this is best handled directly between the local authority and the school. There would otherwise be an unhelpful confusion and overlap between the body responsible for specifying in the statement the resources required by the child, and. providing those resources—that is, the LEA and the body responsible for funding the GM school specified in the statement; namely, the funding authority.
I recognise that, in making any calculation, we shall have to consider whether it should reflect either each local authority's own historic spending record on these matters or, alternatively, the elements for them that are assumed to be in the standard spending assessment totals. That is one of the matters that we propose to begin discussing in due course with the local authorities and their associations.
On 23rd April, the Government tabled amendments designed to give effect to the commitment contained in the White Paper, Choice and Diversity, to place local authorities under a specific duty (replacing their existing power) to provide education otherwise than at school where necessary to meet an individual pupil's needs. We have also announced our intention to abolish indefinite exclusion, to place time limits on the operation of exclusion procedures, and to institute arrangements whereby money follows the child. Amendments to that effect will shortly be tabled. I have also written to my noble friend explaining those amendments to him.
It would be impractical to provide that authorities should specify precise details of resource costs in statements. A statemented child may be placed by his authority in any one of several different types of school, including independent and non-maintained ones. Resource costs for any given element of provision are bound to vary somewhat between schools and types of school, depending on how they are geared up to meet the provision.
A child's needs may well change or be subject to variation during the course of a year. There needs to be some flexibility in the system to take account of that. The key point is that local authorities must secure provision of what is set out in statements for children in their own schools. For statemented pupils in grant-maintained schools, they must make any specified provision over and above that for which the school is funded through its AMG.
A grant-maintained school will be under a duty to admit children whose statements name it. I think it reasonable to assume that the consultations which led to the decision will have also led necessarily to discussion about resources. I therefore consider that detailed prescription of resource costs on the statement is unnecessary.
290
I shall give the Committee just one example. In the case of two pupils with identical special needs, it is possible for the particular placements to incur different costs. Where one child joins three order four other children, it may have exactly the same problem as another for whom there is no existing provision. It must be a matter, first, of flexibility and, secondly, a matter for the local authority.
The whole of this chapter of the Bill is designed ultimately to secure speedy action to meet the child's needs. To facilitate and, indeed, encourage dispute in the way which might be brought about by the amendments could result in delay in that process. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to my noble friend for her response and also for the letter she wrote to me. I thought that it was better for her, rather than me, to refer to the correspondence and its contents. In the latter, she referred to the end of indefinite exclusion, with which I agreed with three or four loud cheers.
But my noble friend has now referred to introducing the principle of money following the child in an amendment that we have not as yet seen. It is possible that those two provisions will actually meet my major concern. However, the rest of what she said put that rather in doubt. I shall withdraw this amendment now but I shall read her correspondence and Hansard with great care to see what the net result will be before I decide what to do on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Capital grants]:
[Amendments Nos. 169A, 170 and 171 not moved.]
Clause 78 agreed to.
Clauses 79 and 80 agreed to.
Clause 81 [Application of sections 82 to 86]:
On Question, Whether Clause 81 shall stand part of the Bill?
12.15 a.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: I have been waiting patiently for this opportunity to place on record our objection in Wales to this part of the Bill in particular. In Committee last Tuesday when we were discussing Clause 3 of the Bill, the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, made a notable admission which I value. He said:
"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".—[Official Report, 20/4/93; col. 1457.]
I thank the noble Viscount for that helpful concession. Yet what puzzles many people in Wales is that this Bill fails to give proper recognition to that relationship and partnership between the local education authorities, the parents and the schools. Instead of building on the principle of that well established partnership, the precise relationship is being profoundly damaged by this Bill. We should like to know why it is that the Bill does not build on the basis of that distinctive educational culture which was acknowledged by the noble Viscount, Lord St.

291
Davids. Why does it seek to replace the traditional system with a system tied to and no different from that of England? We really have not received an explanation from the Government as to why this should be necessary.
For over 100 years since the days of the great Education Commission chaired by the first Baron Aberdare, the essence of the Welsh educational culture has lain in co-operation between LEAs, parents and schools. We have not been told what is wrong with our system or why, assuming that there are alleged failings, they cannot be corrected without doing profound damage to the system itself. This Bill will cause damage to the system itself.
The Welsh Joint Education Committee will lose many of its functions and will be weakened. The Welsh Language Education Development Committee will be totally dismantled. The noble Viscount was unable last Tuesday to give me two simple assurances about the setting up of a funding council in Wales under Section 38 agreements. I asked questions on that matter and I was not given a satisfactory answer. Under this Bill, as each school removes itself from local authority control, the relationship with the local education authority will be disturbed and weakened. When 10 per cent. of the school population is removed from local authority control, the position of Welsh LEAs will be profoundly weakened. Of course eventually the Welsh education authorities may well disappear from the scene. In that event the special relationship of which the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, spoke last Tuesday will have been destroyed. That will be a profound change.
We have not been given any reason why that has been thrust upon us in Wales. Therefore, we say that this part of the Bill does not fit the conditions of the education services in Wales. It offers the wrong model. That is why we believe that Clause 81 should be left out of the Bill. Clause 81 is the first step towards the implementation of the new system.
There is already a strong belief in Wales that the Secretary of State will use the powers available to him under Clauses 82 to 86 to favour the needs of grant-maintained schools at the expense of the local authority schools, whose policy is governed by the principle of achieving equity and fairness between all schools in the light of their needs.
The evidence suggests that some school governors have been persuaded in recent weeks to believe that their school would do better for itself if it were a grant-maintained school. That is happening. I thought that the Minister of State at the Welsh Office was insulting to the Welsh local education authorities when he dealt with that concern in the other place.
Having said that, I should be grateful if the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, if he is to answer, would give an unconditional guarantee to the Committee that the enabling powers in Clauses 81 to 86 will not be used in support of a campaign of encouragement to parents and governors in schools to opt out of local government control or, on the other hand, to favour grant-maintained schools or to the disadvantage of LEA schools. I am very conscious that that point was
292
made this afternoon by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, when we discussed Amendment No. 157BB. That point was not rebutted from the Government Benches.
The noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, gave me a very helpful concession last week when we discussed Clause 3, so I end where I began, hoping that he will give me a helpful concession on this particular clause. Nevertheless, in Wales our anxiety about this part of the Bill is running deep.
Viscount St. Davids: An examination of Clauses 81 to 86 does not show that they are a tool for persuading schools to leave LEAs and become grant maintained. I can find nothing in those clauses which would lead me to that belief.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has moved a little from his position during the earlier discussion of Clause 3 by admitting that there may be growth in the number of grant-maintained schools coming into being in Wales. A few already exist. Clauses 81 to 86 endeavour to establish a method of funding them until such time as the SFCW comes into being.
Clause 81 is a technical clause which provides for Clauses 82 to 86 to have an effect in place of parts of Clauses 76 to 80, which the Committee has already debated, until such time as the Schools Funding Council for Wales is established. Clauses 76 to 80 set out the arrangements for payment of a range of grants to GM schools by the proposed funding authorities—the FAS in England and the SFCW in Wales. I have already made it clear that the SFCW will only be established when the GM sector in Wales is sufficiently large to justify the creation of a separate body. We must therefore provide for the ongoing funding of the GM sector before the SFCW is established.
The effect of Clause 81 is to provide for the existing arrangements for the funding of GM schools to continue to operate until the Schools Funding Council for Wales is set up. At that point the task of making grants to GM schools will transfer from the Welsh Office to the schools funding council. Without Clause 81 there would be an immediate ambiguity in the Bill. Clauses 76 and 82 would be in conflict with each other. Whatever the noble Lord's attitude to the Schools Funding Council for Wales, I am sure that he would not wish to jeopardise the future of those children attending GM schools in Wales by creating uncertainty about who has responsibility for the task of paying grants to the schools.
Clause 81 is essential to the continued funding of the GM sector in Wales prior to the establishment of the SFCW. It must stand part of the Bill.
Lord Prys-Davies: The noble Viscount has given a factual summary of Clauses 81 to 86. I give him full marks for that summary. However, he has not addressed the underlying concern that I sought to voice. That anxiety remains. I remain unconvinced that we should be tempted to take the first step along the road that dismantles the Welsh educational system which we know and which would tie it in future to the English pattern. That is our message for the Government. We believe that we should be developing

293
our own system in Wales, as the Scots are developing it in Scotland, and the Northern Irish in Northern Ireland, independent of the system in England.
I appreciate that it is 25 minutes past midnight. I am sure that I should lose the trust and support of the Committee if I were to press the matter to a Division at this time of night. We shall consider carefully what has been said although it appears to be no more than a factual summary. We shall consider whether it is another of the very few Welsh issues to which we shall have to return at a later stage.
Clause 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Maintenance grants]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 171ZA:
Page 49, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) any provision made by virtue of section (Joint schemes) (6) of this Act").
Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 83 to 90 agreed to.
Clause 91 [Proposals for change of character etc. by governing body]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment 171ZB:
Page 54, line 6, leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert ("subsections (2), (2A) and (2B)").
The noble Lord said: Clause 99(1) of the Bill covers changes in character by virtue of subsection (1) (a) in respect of the age ranges or sex of the pupils for whom the school provides education, and by subsection (1) (b)
"the making … of arrangements for the admission of pupils by reference to ability or aptitude".
Both specified types of change may have a considerable impact on other schools in the area. The main purpose of the amendments is to create in limited circumstances, and for a limited period of time, an LEA power of veto over controversial changes in character by a grant-maintained school, in particular because such changes were not part of the prospectus endorsed by parents in voting for grant-maintained status.
The White Paper Choice and Diversity was clear in stating at paragraphs 7.8 and 7.9 that very limited circumstances should apply to change of size or character at the time of proposals to opt out. The principle was identified that parental ballots should concentrate on the single issue of grant-maintained status. Clause 248 of the Bill identifies the limited circumstances where a school, in applying for grant-maintained status, may also propose a change in character. The aim (expressed in subsection (1)(c)) is:
"for the purpose of ensuring consistency in the provision made in the area of the local education authority".
It covers the case of local education authority proposals for re-organisation being current at the time of the school's proposals for grant-maintained status. It was not generally intended that grant-maintained schools, after becoming grant-maintained, should rapidly disrupt the consistency of provision made locally.
The Bill offers no safeguards against the locally disruptive change of character which is initiated shortly after a school becomes grant-maintained. The
294
amendments would provide a precisely limited transitional safeguard for local interests. After the point where the funding authority, at the 10 per cent. threshold, has acquired local planning powers, it would be open to the funding authority, if it were persuaded of the case for a change, to propose the change in character itself under Clause 92, as an alternative.
The amendments would therefore have their greatest effect in an area where parental support up to the 10 per cent. level had not been demonstrated. In those circumstances, we believe that the interests of other parents and other schools expressed on their behalf by the LEA should have power to inhibit changes initiated by a single grant-maintained school. While changes in the size of a school may depend rather more on parental wishes and pupil enrolment figures than on the school's own plans, it is clear that selection of pupils is an area where a single school exercises unequal power over parents. We consider that special arrangements to protect parents' interests are therefore needed. The amendments will not block the prospect of a grant-maintained school making essential changes to its admission arrangements in response to changing circumstances.
This leads appropriately to the other amendment, Amendment No. 187A. There is widespread anxiety, nay cynicism, lest the Bill is intended to re-introduce selection by stealth. When asked to give assurances that the Bill's provisions would not lead to selection by ability, the Minister, Eric Forth, said in the other place:
"Nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out"
As we have heard, grant-maintained schools can apply to change their character, including their admissions policies. Schools are allowed to select up to 10 per cent. of pupils from among those who are particularly talented in art, music or sport. Last month, the Secretary of State announced that three grant-maintained schools were to introduce testing to select pupils. Though the Government give a high profile to extending parental choice, they never fully confront the most difficult issue, that ultimately parents will find their children being turned away from schools—specialist or selective—which are full. That situation occurred in Bromley in the summer of 1992.
The Minister has referred to the following several times today, and she is absolutely right to have done so: on this side of the Committee we vigorously oppose the selection practised by some grant-maintained schools and CTCs, and the labelling again of 11 year-old children as passes or failures. We also deplore any fragmentation of the comprehensive system, accelerated by this devious Bill, which results in an elitist system, accompanied by a reduction in choice and resources for the majority.
Whatever the prejudice of Ministers opposite and their ideological masters, comprehensive schools simply cannot be dismissed as a mistake. In the 1960s 44 per cent. of young people left school with no academic qualifications, whereas by the late 1980s only 12 per cent. did so. We on this side of the Committee support wide parental choice of schools. The entitlement of young people to education at a

295
neighbourhood school, offering equal opportunities to all pupils with a range of abilities and aptitudes is an important priority. The community school is central to our vision. Selection, in our judgment, divides the school from the local community.
Furthermore, specialisation will lead to a hierarchy of schools. The policies for specialisation and selection will lead not to parents choosing schools but to schools choosing pupils. Our commitment is to high quality comprehensive education for all children free of charge. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may start by responding to a comment that the noble Lord just made. He said that he supported the wide selection and choice of schools for parents. Let me remind the noble Lord: he does not like independent schools; selective schools; grammar schools; city technology colleges; grant-maintained schools; or schools which specialise. That does not sound like a policy of approving of choice of schools for parents. He likes the neighbourhood comprehensive school, and that gives no choice whatever to parents.
As for the first two amendments, Amendments Nos. 171ZB and 171ZD, any school that becomes a self-governing school and wishes to apply for a change of character should not be subject to a veto by the local education authority during the three-year period following incorporation. That would be the effect of this amendment. The local education authority would retain that power of veto right through the 10 per cent. barrier and up to the end of the 75 per cent. barrier. That is not a power that I would wish to give to the local education authority over grant-maintained schools which, by a democratic process and parental preference, have opted away from the local education authority.
The other amendment which the noble Lord talked about, Amendment No. 187A, again echoes an obsession with uniformity, which has long been the enemy of a flourishing education service. Our commitment is to increase opportunities for schools, pupils and parents, not to oppose it for reasons of dogma. Specialisation will increase the real choice available to parents and pupils. It will allow parents to choose the school best suited to the needs of their children. It will enrich the experience of pupils, all of whom will retain their guarantee of the full national curriculum.
The implication of the amendment is that no school, nor any pupil, should have any benefit of any sort lest all should not have the same—this is the dreary philosophy that all should be held down together just in case there is a chance of one child gaining an advantage over others, perhaps through his own efforts and natural talents. We do not accept that argument in principle. Our aim of achieving diversity and choice means that there will be some differences between schools but that in itself will not mean that any pupil need suffer a disadvantage.
I repeat: the Government are committed to ensuring that every child receives the entitlement to a broad and balanced curriculum. That is indeed guaranteed under the national curriculum. There are young people who are talented in music, drama,
296
languages and in other subjects. If a school, over and above the national curriculum, is able to offer enrichment and enhancement of a young person's talent, then I believe that we should not stand in its way. That is the politics of envy, and I ask for the amendment to be rejected.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord responds, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. It arises from Clause 99 but relates to this clause. Clause 91 is about a change in character of the school and that is defined in Clause 99, which refers to changes in character, including in particular changes,
"resulting from … education beginning or ceasing to be provided … for boys as well as girls or for girls as well as boys".
I was interested to know whether the Government distinguished that as a change in character from a co-educational school becoming single-sex, or a single-sex school becoming co-educational.
Baroness Blatch: The point does not have a great deal of relevance to this particular issue. We are saying here that any application for a change of character shall be subject to the veto by a local education authority for three years after incorporation. That is the point dealt with in the amendment.
As for the merits of an application, it would be a matter for the Secretary of State not only to consider the application and all aspects of it—in other words, the needs of an area and the particular details of the application—but for my right honourable friend to take into account the law as it stands, both national and international, as it relates to equal opportunities. Those are the things that constrain my right honourable friend. The amendment is a pure veto, enabling local education authorities to exercise power over grant-maintained schools which have decided to opt away from local authority control.
Baroness Hamwee: I appreciate the point of the amendment. I thought that it might help the House—and certainly me—to understand the distinction that I have just made. I apologise to the Minister if I raised the point at the wrong place, but I feel that it is relevant. It goes to the heart of this part of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: If a school believed that there was a case—boys had perhaps ceased to attend the school and it wished to become a single sex school, or maybe, as has happened, there was a desire that a school should become co-educational—it would be perfectly free to make an application. In considering that application my right honourable friend would have to be bound by all the Acts of Parliament nationally and internationally that apply to this country.
Lord Judd: The position is quite dismaying. I ask Members opposite to believe that the motivating principle on this side of the Chamber is a commitment to community. We may be right or wrong. That is what democracy is about and choices have to be made about these matters. The issue the Minister failed to deal with in her response is that the whole educational system of a community is central to its interdependence and strength. One wants to make absolutely

297
certain that the community, as a community, is thinking about its future and its children and about what provision is best.
With great respect, I should like to develop the argument for a moment. What we are afraid of, as we have said on several occasions, is that far from building up that community we shall move into a stage of school against school. We shall move into a divisive element. We were talking about divisiveness a moment ago in another context. We find that sad. It is related to many concerns on social issues which preoccupy Members of this Chamber and which are very disturbing at the present time. I could continue at great length. This is potentially a major debate. I find it quite unacceptable that these issues of immense principle about the whole future of our education system should be discussed at a quarter to one in the morning when discussion was guillotined in the other place. We are discovering that this Government are determined to drive the Bill through. Much more time is required to go into these matters, but I shall not press the issue tonight.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may say one or two words on that point before the noble Lord sits down. The other place spent the equivalent of 10 whole days in Committee on the Bill. We shall probably spend six days: we have already spent three. Any idea that the debate was curtailed is absurd. I sat in on a great deal of that debate and the time-wasting throughout was legion. If honourable Members on the Opposition Benches in another place were serious about debating some of the important issues, they should not have wasted so much time during the course of those 10 days.
Let me put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Judd. There is a school not very far from here, called Pimlico Comprehensive. It offers the national curriculum to all its children. It does a splendid job, including offering music in the national curriculum. Over and above that, it specialises in offering enhancement to children with a musical talent. Indeed, a small proportion of its intake of children are those with an aptitude for music. Would the noble Lord, Lord Judd, disallow that or ban it?
Lord Judd: Obviously, we could get into a very long debate. The Minister has made that absolutely clear. I do not believe that it would be appropriate at a quarter to one in the morning. It is sad that we find ourselves in this situation. I say again to the Minister that I shall not pursue this matter tonight. But there is a point that she has not yet answered, a point that was made in the Second Reading debate and that has been made since. When that great cornerstone of the education system, the 1944 Education Act—a fine moment of consensus politics in Britain at the end of the Second World War—was being introduced, two years were spent in building up consensus and understanding.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Perhaps I can come in on the same point. I went to the Centre for Young Musicians at Pimlico on Saturday mornings and the noble Baroness will know that that excellent centre was the pride and joy of the former ILEA. I have read many speeches from the opposite side of the Chamber saying what high standards were achieved, both by the Centre for Young Musicians and by the specialist music centre at Pimlico.
So the standards that were achieved and are being maintained were through the local education authority system. Those standards are being maintained, but they are being threatened because some local authorities are finding that they are not able to maintain their students in the provision offered by the CYM, which is most regrettable.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may respond, and then I will give way to my noble friend. The question I ask members opposite and it would be helpful to have the answer—is whether, if one cannot afford to give that degree of enhancement to all children, irrespective of talent, they would refuse to give it to those children who were there with an aptitude for music, provided by that school, over and above the national curriculum?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I should like to answer that specific question. The answer is no, because that is not what happened under the previous LEA system. No, of course we would not ban it.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry, but we are considering an amendment that positively insists on absolutely equal treatment for all children. It actually implies that if one child is given a provision over another child, then that is deemed to be considered a disadvantage. I am saying that if it cannot be done for all children, should it not be provided for some?
Lord Judd: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 171ZC:
Page 54, line 8, after ("school") insert ("or to transfer the school to a new site").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.
Lord Peston: I am sorry, I may have misunderstood. Is the noble Baroness not going to speak to the amendment?
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry. I misread an amendment that I was moving formally. The noble Lord is absolutely right. In moving Amendment 171ZC, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 173A, 174A, 175A, 175B, 179A, 180A, 180B, 180C, 180D, 180E, 180F, 181A, 187H, 191B, 228A, 228B, 246A, 248B, 249A, 254A, 254B, 288A, 288B, 289A, 295A, 303B, 304B, 323A, 324B, 324C, 328ZB, 335B, 337A and I shall oppose Clause 98 stand part.
These are a complicated and rather technical group of amendments which are all to do with the transfer of site. I shall stand ready to answer any questions on them. The amendments together introduce new statutory procedures to be followed where it is

299
intended that a local authority maintained school or a grant-maintained school should transfer to a new site. I stand ready to answer questions. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: I was under the impression that your Lordships' Chamber was a serious deliberative Chamber. I must say that to produce 30-odd amendments for over a dozen clauses at quarter to one in the morning is not my idea of being a serious deliberative Chamber. Equally, the noble Baroness simply putting the amendments forward without a long speech also is not my idea of a serious deliberative Chamber. I believe that the noble Baroness should be making a detailed speech to explain why the amendments are necessary. Or, better still, we should not be doing this at this time at all but we should pack up business and start again when we can deal with serious matters, of which I take it this is one, when we are able to deal with them with a clear mind.
Apart from protesting at how we are carrying on, which I find quite deplorable—I do not want to be told about the other House because I am concerned with what we do in this House and that we do things properly—I should like an explanation as to what there is about the existing arrangements in terms of the siting of schools that requires 30 amendments of a very thick Bill to be put forward at this stage in a cavalier fashion. In particular, can the noble Baroness give us a series of examples of schools that have had problems with siting so that we may know why this complex structure needs to be suddenly imposed on a Bill which is itself quite thick?
I had the greatest difficulty in trying remotely to understand the amendments. I looked at them and tried to put them together. When one has 30-odd it is not very easy to understand the jigsaw, but I take it that the intention is to facilitate resiting. What is wrong with the existing legislation which necessitates this? Can we have a series of examples of where the Government, local authorities or schools have not been able to resite rationally and therefore this is needed?
Baroness Blatch: When the House knew that the Bill was coming—and certainly it was known that it would be a large one—those of us who would be involved in it appreciated that we would have to do a concentrated piece of work during its passage. Therefore, I am prepared to sit it through, and I rather expected that I would have to. When I finished I said that I stood ready to give more detail.
In the case of grant-maintained schools, Clause 98—which is a re-enactment of Section 91 of the Education Reform Act—provides. that a school may transfer to a new site only with the authority of an order made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The situation is rather more complex in the LEA sector. Local authorities may currently transfer a county or special school to a new site without the need for further statutory action. Voluntary schools, on the other hand, may be transferred to a new site only with the authority of an order made by the Secretary of State under Section 16 of the 1944 Act. My right honourable friend may only
300
make such an order where he is satisfied that at least one of the conditions set out in that section applies: that is, that the school cannot be brought up to the standards of the school premises regulations on its existing site; or that there has been a movement of the population served by the school; or that the move is required as a result of action under housing or town and country planning legislation. Voluntary schools may not be transferred to a new site in any other circumstances. That particular process does not allow for public consultation, whereas my amendments do.
These amendments put in place new procedures for transfers of schools. First, Clause 91 of the Bill is amended to bring school transfers within its scope, thus requiring the governors of grant-maintained schools to publish proposals where they intend to move the school to a new site. Clause 92 is also amended to require the funding agency to publish proposals where it intends to move a grant-maintained school to a new site. The funding agency may not, however, make such proposals where it has no remit; in other words, the agency may not make a proposal for the transfer of a grant-maintained school unless an order has been made under Clause 10 both in respect of the local authority area in which the school is currently located and the area to which it will move if that is different.
These new provisions for grant-maintained schools supersede the measure in Clause 98 of the Bill, and I have therefore given notice of opposition to the Question that Clause 98 stand part of the Bill.
Amendment No. 171ZC has the effect of extending the scope of Clause 91 to require the governors of grant-maintained schools to publish proposals where they intend to transfer their schools to new sites.
Amendment 173A is a technical one which limits the local government electors who may object to any proposal published by grant-maintained school governors under Clause 91 to those for the area, bringing the provision into line with that in the 1980 Education Act.
Referring to Clause 92, Amendments Nos. 175A and 175B have the effect of extending the scope of Clause 92 to require the FAS to publish proposals where it intends to transfer a school to a new site in the same area or a different area. Amendments Nos. 179A and 180A have the same effect in Clause 92 as Amendments Nos. 173A and 174A have in Clause 91.
In Clause 95, Amendments Nos. 180B and 180C have the effect of extending the scope of subsection (5) of Clause 95 by prohibiting grant-maintained school governors or the funding agency from transferring a school to a new site without, first, having complied with the procedures in Clauses 91 or 92. Amendments Nos. 180D and 180E, however, enable grant-maintained school governors or the FAS to transfer a school to a new site without the need to publish proposals where it is intended that the school returns to its existing site within three years.
In Clause 97, Amendment No. 180F has the effect of extending the scope of Clause 97 by providing that, where proposals have been approved under Sections 12 or 13 of the Education Act 1980 for the transfer of site of a county or voluntary school which becomes

301
grant-maintained before the proposals are implemented, they shall be treated as if they had been published by the funding agency under Clause 92 and approved under Clause 93.
We have given notice of opposition to the Question that Clause 98—which currently provides that a grant-maintained school may not transfer to a new site without the authority of an order by the Secretary of State—stand part of the Bill.
Amendment No. 181A is a technical one which extends the scope of Clause 99 to include proposals for a grant-maintained site transfer. In Clause 126, Amendment No. 187H is consequential on the removal of Clause 98 from the Bill, by deleting a reference to it in Clause 126. Amendment No. 191B is consequential to Clause 142, which sets minimum admission numbers for grant-maintained schools, to incorporate a reference to admission numbers published in proposals to transfer grant-maintained schools to new sites.
In Clause 173, Amendments Nos. 228A and 228B have the effect of extending the scope of Clause 173 to require the funding agency in respect of grant-maintained special schools, and the LEA, in respect of an LEA-maintained special school, to serve notice in accordance with the provisions of Clause 173 where they intend to transfer the school to a new site. In Clause 217, Amendment No. 246B has the effect of extending the scope of Section 12 of the Education Act 1980 to require an LEA to publish proposals in accordance with the section where it intends to transfer a county school to a new site in its area. There will be no power for an LEA to transfer a county school to the area of another LEA.
In Clause 218, Amendment No. 248B has the effect of extending the scope of Section 13 of the Education Act 1980 to require the governors of a voluntary school to publish proposals in accordance with the section where they intend to transfer the school to a new site (either in the same area or to the area of a different LEA). Amendment No. 249A provides that where the governors of a voluntary school propose that the school transfers to a site in a different area, the local government electors for that area also may submit objections to the Secretary of State; that the LEA is under a duty to implement proposals for the transfer of a voluntary controlled school to a new site (and any associated change of character proposals) so far as the provision of premises or the removal or provision of equipment is concerned; and that if a voluntary school transfers to a different LEA, the responsibility to maintain the school will transfer to that LEA and, in the case of controlled schools, the first schedule to the Education Act 1946 (provision of premises by maintaining authority) will also apply to that LEA.
Amendment No. 254A is a technical one which has the same effect in Clause 221 as Amendment No. 173A has in Clause 91. Amendment No. 254B is a technical one which provides that the proposals made by the governing body of any voluntary school in the area,
302
which the Secretary of State is required by Clause 222 to refer to a local inquiry, are those for the alteration of their school.
In Clause 248, Amendments Nos. 288A and 288B are technical. The first applies the provisions of Clause 248 (power of governing bodies of county schools to propose to change the character, etc., of their school) where the governing body has published proposals for grant-maintained status which have not been determined or withdrawn. The second revises the description of Section 12(1) (d) of the Education Act 1980 in the clause to reflect the extension of the subsection to the publication of proposals for the transfer of site of a county school.
Amendment No. 289A is technical and consequential; it has the same effect in respect of a reference in Clause 249 to Section 12(1) (d) of the 1980 Act as Amendment No. 288B has in Clause 248.
Amendment No. 295A is a further consequential amendment. It amends the description of Section 13(5) of the 1980 Act in Clause 258 (power of LEA to assist voluntary aided and special agreement schools) to reflect the extension of the section to the publication of proposals by the governors of voluntary schools to transfer their school to a new site.
Amendments Nos. 303B and 304B are consequential on the removal of Clause 98 from the Bill. Schedule 16 and Amendments Nos. 323A to 328ZC have the effect of amending Sections 16(1) and 105 of the Education Act 1944 and Sections 14 and 16 of the Education Act 1980 to (a) remove from Section 16(1) of the 1944 Act the reference to the transfer of county schools; (b) bring the expenses incurred by governors of aided and special agreement schools in transferring their school to a new site within the scope of initial expenditure in respect of which the Secretary of State may make a loan under Section 105 of the 1944 Act; (d) extend the scope of Section 14 of the 1980 Act (approval of school premises) to the transfer of LEA-maintained schools to new sites; (e) amend Section 16 of the 1980 Act to provide that an LEA or the governors of a voluntary school may transfer a school to a new site without the need to publish proposals where: (i) it is intended to return the school to its existing site within three years; or (ii) in the case of a county school, the LEA is satisfied that conditions of the kind set out in Section 16(1) of the 1944 Act apply; or (iii) in the case of a voluntary school, the transfer is authorised by an order under Section 16(1) of the 1944 Act.
Amendments Nos. 335B and 337A add consequential repeals to Schedule 18. These amendments give effect to ministerial policy to introduce new statutory provisions for the transfer of GM and LEA-maintained schools to new sites. They enable the publication of proposals: (a) by the governors of grant-maintained schools for a transfer to a new site in the same area or a different area; (b) by the FAS for a transfer of a GM school in a stage 2/3 area or from a stage 2/3 area to a different stage 2/3 area; (c) by an LEA for a transfer of a county school to a new site in the same area; (d) by the governors of a voluntary school for a transfer to a new site in the same area or a different area.

303
Where a voluntary school transfers to a different area as a result of such proposals, the responsibility to maintain the school transfers to the LEA for that area. The maintaining LEA will be responsible for the provision of the new site and buildings for a transferred voluntary controlled school. The governors of a transferred aided or special agreement school (subject to the agreement) will be responsible for the provision of the new site and school buildings with the LEA providing the playing fields and the excepted buildings.
The publication of proposals for the transfer of such schools is not required where: (a) in the case of all schools, it is intended that the school return to its existing site within three years (it is a temporary transfer required because of a fire or serious structural problem, for example); (b) in the case of county schools, the LEA is satisfied that the transfer is needed because it cannot be brought up to standard on its existing site, or there has been a population movement, or it is in the way of housing or town and country planning projects (the force majeure conditions in Section 16(1) of the 1944 Act); (c) in the case of voluntary schools, an order under Section 16(1) of the 1944 Act has been made authorising the transfer.
Where an LEA or the funding agency intends to transfer a special school to a new site, notice will need to be served in accordance with the provisions of Clause 173. Such notice will not be required where it is intended that the school shall return to its existing site within three years. This relief will not be on the face of the Bill but will be achieved by excluding such temporary transfers from the definition of "prescribed alterations" to special schools in respect of which notice must be served.
That explanation, although long, convoluted and rather complicated, is the technical way in which the Bill will have to cope with the simplistic notion of a site transfer.
Lord Peston: I am certain that all Members of the Committee but one; namely, me, have learnt an enormous amount from the Minister's statement. I have not the faintest idea what she has been talking about. I repeat my point that I find it deplorable that we are asked to try to understand these matters at this time, in these conditions and under such pressure.
I remind the noble Baroness that she has still not answered my central question: will she give me some examples of problems which have arisen in the past with resiting that require this incredible rigmarole of amendments? Can we be told what problems they solve? We started with the 1944 Act and it has lasted for about 50 years. Have there been serious problems where we have been unable to resite rationally so that we now need these amendments?
Baroness Blatch: Yes. This raft of technical amendments allows that process to be facilitated. It grew out of a recent case between two London boroughs. I shall give the noble Lord chapter and verse so that he can study it. It makes sense that we should not be constrained from moving sites in an emergency, such as a school falling down and being unable to be repaired, or a whole population moving
304
away. They are serious constraints, and in the Bill we are merely making it possible for a site transfer to take place when the school buildings are perfectly good and where there is a will on the part of consenting parties that that should take place.
Lord Peston: I thank the Minister. She now confirms what I sort of believed: that there are no examples, apart from the one of which I have some little knowledge that occurred in a London borough. We have all these amendments to deal with a case relating to one school. The Minister has been unable to give us any other examples. For many years the 1944 Act was regarded by most people as a sensible basis for resiting schools. As I understand it, it has worked. There were the criteria which she described and about which of course we know.
I am loath to pursue the point because I am extremely tired, but I want to know why all of this is required to amend the 1944 Act which, as I understood it, was pretty satisfactory
Baroness Blatch: If another site transfer is required somewhere else in the country, this provision will allow it at least to be considered, and will give it a fair wind. If the noble Lord believes that just one case is not good enough to justify the presence of the amendments in the Bill, then he must oppose them. We believe that the provision adds greater flexibility should such a case crop up again.
Lord Peston: I shall say just a word or two more and then I shall stop because I am quite fed up. I have no desire to hold back progress. However, I am not convinced that there is any need for all this. I am trying to make the point, both in terms of the procedure of this place, about which I am unhappy, and the Government's procedures. This is a massive Bill, and suddenly we have 30 additional amendments, as if that were a reasonable thing to do. It is unreasonable to produce such a complex solution to a problem that it turns out does not exist, and then to do it at one o'clock in the morning. I shall not oppose it any longer. I have on the record my disquiet that this is how we are dealing with matters.
Lord Elton: It is unfair to accuse my noble friend of solving a problem that does not exist when she has said that a case has occurred where there was great difficulty. It would be a great pity in a year or two to find, three, four or five other cases occurring and, because this place did not wish to sit late, to find that there was no provision to meet them, and the difficulty was repeated.
We are accustomed to taking technical amendments late in a Bill. The amendments will be before the other place in the Lords' Messages. They will not be, as it were, rubber-stamped by this place and nodded through by the other. We are accustomed to sitting late because we like to go home in August. If enough Members of the Committee wish to stay here through August, then no doubt we need not sit so late.
Lord Peston: I did say that I would not speak again, but that is preposterous. We do not have to sit into August to use the time available to us a good deal

305
more efficiently than we have been using it. Our Chief Whip is here although the Government Chief Whip is not. I have spent the last three months wondering what has been going on in this place in terms of the use of time.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, may understand what the Minister is saying, and can confirm that the amendments do the job required and all that type of thing. I cannot. I do not understand them. I listened, but I did not understand a word the Minister was saying. Our job, supposedly, is to listen to amendments and to say that we believe that they work. We cannot do that, because the matter is too complicated and it is too late. I have already spoken enough, and I hope that I shall not say another word.
Baroness Blatch: We might well be here until August if we go on like this tonight. The noble Lord is prolonging matters, because I have given good justification for the amendments. I shall give him one more. At the present time we have inconsistency. As I explained in my initial response, county schools could be transferred at the whim of an LEA; voluntary schools could transfer only under the restricted conditions contained in Section 16(1), of the 1944 Act; and grant-maintained schools could transfer by order of the Secretary of State; but these provisions rationalise that disparate set of procedures so that all routes, except for Section 16(1), will now be by way of published proposals to be determined by the Secretary of State. I believe that that makes sense.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 171ZD not moved.]
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 171A:
Page 54, line 23, at end insert:
("( ) In particular, the governing body shall in respect of subsection (3) above consult—

(a) the relevant Diocesan Board of Education (in the case of Church of England endowed grant maintained schools);

(b) the relevant Roman Catholic Diocesan Bishop and Trustees (in the case of Roman Catholic endowed grant maintained schools);

(c) the person or persons named in the school's Instrument of Government as being entitled to appoint foundation governors (in the case of other endowed grant maintained schools).").

The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to proposals for the change in a character of a school proposed by the governing body. If a significant change in character is proposed by the governing body, it is in our view essential that the relevant church partner is consulted by its partner, the Secretary of State. If not, there could be a complete disruption of any kind of coherent all-age provision of, for example, Roman Catholic education in a locality. Governors of a particular school might wish to become selective or to go down the grammar school route, and that might leave less able children without provision. Again, it is an issue of ensuring that the church partner is guaranteed consideration and respect by the state partner. If it is not, I cannot help feeling that it will be less attractive to the church partner to go the grant-maintained route. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I support the amendment. As regards the Church of England, the provision may not be so necessary because it is covered by the Diocesan Board of Education Measure, which provides for such consultation. However, that Measure will have to be brought up to date, hence my Amendment No. 334. Amendment No. 171A seeks to ensure that what is secured by the Diocesan Board of Education Measure for the Church of England will be available to our colleagues in other churches.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I rise to address Amendments Nos. 173, 174, 179 and 180. Amendment No. 173 seeks to ensure that any proposals made by the governing body for a significant change in the character of a school make an assessment for the effect of such changes in the provisions for children with special needs in an area wider than normally served by the school where children with special educational needs are drawn from that wider area.
The purpose of Amendment No. 179 is to ensure that any proposals made by the funding authority for a significant change of character at a school shall involve an assessment of the effect of such changes in the provisions for children with special needs in an area wider than that normally served by the school where children with special educational needs are drawn from that wider area.
Where schools draw pupils from an area wider than their normal catchment, because they have developed their provisions for pupils with special educational needs, the impact of a change of character needs to be assessed not just at the school but over the whole area from which the school may draw those particular pupils. That area may stretch into neighbouring local education authorities. The duty must be on the school or the funding authority to alert all the authorities likely to be affected to the impact of any proposed change of character.
Amendments Nos. 174 and 180 make similar points in respect of voluntary organisations whose provision may be affected by such changes.
Lord Addington: I wish to speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 173, 174, 179 and 180. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby explained the case. Will the Government kindly tell the Committee why they should not take into account the problems which will be caused by the withdrawal of the provision of special educational needs in the area in which they have been provided? We are talking about a fundamental change in the provision of a specialist service.
1.15 a.m.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the amendment. I should like to give an example. I know of a normal school that has developed help for blind children. It takes blind children from its own areas and three adjoining areas. Next year there will be no children from the local authority which has the school in its area. Nevertheless, unless that unit continues, the children from the outside areas will have nowhere to go where there is skilled help to be given. Therefore, I support the amendment.
Lord Henley: I have every sympathy for the anxieties which lie behind these amendments. The guidance which we give to grant-maintained schools which are considering publishing proposals for a change of character or significant enlargement of their school makes clear our expectation that diocesan boards should be consulted. Governing bodies are advised to consult at an early stage in the formulation of change of character proposals diocesan authorities, where appropriate, and, in the case of non-diocesan schools, any charitable or other body. That is the right approach.
In determining proposals the Secretary of State takes into account the views of bodies which have commented on the proposals. We shall want to ensure that, in exercising their power under this Bill to publish proposals, grant-maintained schools have first consulted: parents and pupils at the school; prospective parents of pupils at the school; teaching and other staff at the school; the former maintaining authority; any others with a significant interest and likely to be affected; diocesan authorities and those bodies which appoint foundation governors to the schools.
We therefore have no difference of principle here. We all agree that we should follow well established patterns of consultation. However, I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment. I remain convinced that guidance rather than statute offers the proper and more flexible way to ensure all interested parties have the fullest possible opportunity to be involved. To list on the face of the Bill all the bodies that may have an interest means that, if the list is not exhaustive, further primary legislation would be required to put matters right.
I hope that Members of the Committee will accept my reassurance that the statutory guidance to be given to grant-maintained schools will put beyond doubt the duty of governing bodies to consult all those likely to be affected by any proposal and also, where appropriate, to consult the relevant diocesan authorities and the bodies entitled to appoint foundation governors to any of those schools.
In relation to Amendments Nos. 173 and 179 concerning special educational needs, the Bill already requires schools applying for grant-maintained status to include in their published proposals a description of the proposed provision for pupils with SEN. Subsequent proposals to change the character of the school must make clear how that provision would be affected. The Bill places grant-maintained schools and the funding authority under a duty to carry out appropriate consultation before publishing any change of character proposals, and also gives LEAs, schools and local government electors the opportunity to submit statutory objections to published proposals. This will provide ample opportunity for those most affected by the proposals to make their views known and to register any objections. The additional words suggested by this amendment are superfluous. The requirement to explain the effect of the proposals on pupils with SEN already embraces the idea of pupils who are not resident in the LEA in which the school is sited. The requirement placed on the governing
308
body is neutral as to the origin of the pupil. Furthermore, the list of potential statutory objectors specifically includes any LEA concerned.
Amendments Nos. 174 and 180 would give any voluntary organisation whose provision might be affected, the right to make statutory objections to change of character proposals published by grant-maintained schools and the funding authority. However, it is not at all clear from the amendments what type of voluntary organisations it is intended to cover. I assume that the intention is to include as statutory objectors all those voluntary bodies who make provision for pupils with disabilities.
It is clearly essential that the effects of a change of character proposal on SEN provision are fully assessed before proposals are determined. However, the Bill already contains sufficient safeguards to ensure that there is full and thorough consultation before any proposals are published. It also enables those most likely to be affected by the proposals to submit statutory objections—most importantly, the LEA, the local community and local schools.
The governing bodies of grant-maintained schools and the funding authority will both have a statutory duty to carry out appropriate consultation, having regard to any guidance issued by my right honourable friend. It will be for them to ensure that they have consulted all those likely to be affected by their proposals. There will be nothing to prevent them from consulting voluntary organisations if they consider that appropriate.
It would be inconsistent to give voluntary organisations the right to make statutory objections to change of character proposals published by grant-maintained schools and the funding authority when they would not have a similar status in respect of proposals published by LEAs or the governing bodies of voluntary-aided schools.
If a voluntary organisation felt strongly that change of character proposals published by the funding authority would have serious implications for its provision, it would be able to bring this to the attention of my right honourable friend, who obviously could then exercise his power to call the proposals in if he considered it appropriate in the circumstances.
With those assurances, and the explanation as to why we consider those measures not to be necessary on the face of the Bill, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will not feel it necessary to press his amendments. I also hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will be satisfied with the assurances that I have given him on Amendments Nos. 173, 174, 179 and 18O.
Lord Northbourne: I hear what the noble Lord says. However, my understanding is that as major, long-term partners in education, the Roman Catholic Church is very anxious to have its name on the face of the Bill in this context. If the Church partners in education are being asked willingly to come to the altar of grant-maintained status, it seems to me that perhaps they are entitled to expect a little wooing. With that thought, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 91 [Proposals for change of character etc. by governing body]:
Baroness Warnock Baroness Warnock moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 54, line 29, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Baroness said: Subsection (5) of Clause 91 excludes nursery education from the category where the grant-maintained school has to announce a change of use, or seek permission for a change of use, if it wishes to change the numbers, presumably, of nursery children who come to the school. That would allow the grant-maintained schools to increase the nursery provision in their primary schools if they so wished without the Secretary of State being involved.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that any increase in nursery provision requires the consideration of the Secretary of State. The reason behind that is that the more nursery-age children are taken by grant-maintained schools, the less money the local authority will have indirectly for making nursery provision. That means that nursery provision may not be given where it is most needed.
It seems to me to be quite important that the Secretary of State should have to have regard to the needs of nursery education which may be needs in a particular area where there may not be a grant-maintained school. Therefore, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that nursery education change comes into that class of changes for which permission has to be sought. I beg to move.
Lady Kinloss: I should like to express my support for my noble friend Lady Warnock in her Amendments Nos. 172 and 178. As it stands, the Bill would allow grant-maintained primary schools with nursery provision to expand such provision without needing to apply for a change of character. It would seem desirable to require grant-maintained primary schools to apply for a change of character if they were to increase or decrease their nursery provision.
The special educational consortium feels that any increase in nursery provision in the grant-maintained sector will reduce the funding of the LEA and cripple its ability to locate provision where it is most needed and most likely to make an early identification of young children with special educational needs. Obviously the earlier a child with special educational needs is identified, the better. I hope that the Minister when she replies will give us some hope with these amendments.
Baroness Faithfull: I only rise to say that I support Amendments Nos. 172 and 178.
Lord Peston: The name of my noble friend Lady David is added to these amendments. I am afraid that she is unable to be with us this evening because of personal reasons, but I know that she would wish me warmly to support these amendments. The substantial points have been made. Nothing that we are saying militates against an expansion of nursery education. On the contrary, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, will return us to this theme on Report. It appears to be the case—I am interested in the answer
310
of the noble Baroness —that the way LEAs are financed means that any expansion of nursery education in grant-maintained schools would simply be offset by a similar contraction in LEAs. I cannot imagine that any of us would want that to happen. We want to see some expansion of nursery education. If the noble Baroness returns us subsequently to that matter—I hope that she will—which I have mentioned before, I have some thoughts on how to finance it. However, I shall not mention that now. I am largely interested in the technical point that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has made about the fact that any expansion of the grant-maintained system under the existing state of affairs would mean a net decrease in the LEA provision.
Lord Addington: I support these amendments and hope that the Government will look favourably on them or on something like them.
Baroness Blatch: First, I wish to correct a misunderstanding that I believe the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, is under. She said that an increase in nursery provision by a grant-maintained school could be carried out without the involvement of the Secretary of State. I am afraid that is not so. Where there is any increase of nursery provision which constitutes a significant change of character, it would require the approval of the Secretary of State.
The subsections which the amendments seek to remove from Clauses 91 and 92 serve simply to clarify the type of information which must be included in change of character proposals published by grant-maintained schools and the funding authority. I think there has been some misunderstanding about that. The subsections reflect similar provisions in the Education Act 1980 relating to the publication of change of character proposals by LEAs and the governing bodies of voluntary aided schools.
As drafted, Clauses 91 and 92 require change of character proposals published by GM schools and the funding authority to include details of the number of pupils proposed to be admitted to the school in each relevant age group from the date on which the proposals would be fully implemented. A relevant age group is defined in Clause 147(4) as an age group in which pupils are or will normally be admitted to a particular school.
There are sensible reasons for disregarding those admitted to nursery education from the category of pupils to be covered in the relevant age group admissions details. Nursery education, which normally consists of classes for two to four year olds, is not compulsory education. It is quite usually provided in a separate, purpose built unit. Schools may admit more pupils to a nursery—perhaps on a separate morning and afternoon basis—than can be admitted to the "first" year of entry to the school. The number to be admitted during this first year will have relevance to the capacity of the school for those pupils over compulsory school age. Nursery admissions have no such impact.
Reception classes on the other hand are basically the beginning of primary education and commonly cover pupils of between four and five on a full day

311
basis. It is right they should be treated on the same basis as those admitted at, for example, age five. I understand the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, made about the importance of making clear what changes are proposed in the provision of nursery education. I would be more than prepared to consider adding a new requirement to Clause 91(4) to the effect that schools should be required to describe the provision they currently make with regard to pre-school nursery education. On the basis of that promise that I shall take the matter away and consider it, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
1.30 a.m.
Baroness Warnock: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said. She has promised to provide some reassurance on the matter. I should like a reassurance that no change in the nursery provision of a grant-maintained school should have the effect of making it more difficult for the local authority to provide nursery education where it is most needed.
We shall no doubt return to the question of targeted nursery education at a later stage, and on the basis of that partial reassurance I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness sits down, there has been a misunderstanding throughout the consideration of the amendments. The amendments refer to the return of information and whether, for the purpose of that information, nursery school places are regarded or disregarded. I shall certainly look at that question.
The noble Baroness is concerned that change in nursery provision in the GM sector will somehow inhibit or invalidate the resources for LEA maintained schools. The important point is that when any application comes before my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, whether from an LEA or grant-maintained school, he takes into account social need for provision for under-fives to make sure that the provision, wherever it resides, is entirely consistent with the needs of an area. That is important when considering an application, because it is true that grant-maintained schools also serve deprived areas and their needs may be just as great as or greater than that of an LEA maintained school.
Baroness Warnock: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 173 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 173A:
Page 54, line 47, at end insert ("for the area").
[Amendment No. 174 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 174A:
Page 55, line 4, at end insert:
("( ) Where the proposals are to transfer a school to a site in a different area, objections under subsection (7) above to the proposals may also be made by any ten or more local government electors for that area.").
Clause 91, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 92 [Proposals for change of character etc. by funding authority]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 175 to 175B:
Page 55, line 13, leave out ("which provides relevant education").
Page 55, line 13, leave out ("or").
Page 55, line 15, at end insert ("or
( ) such a school should be transferred to a new site in the area or in another area to which an order under that section applies").
[Amendments Nos. 176 to 179 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 179A:
Page 56, line 4, at end insert ("for the area").
On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendment No. 180 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 180A:
Page 56, line 8, at end insert:
("( ) Where the proposals are to transfer a school to a site in a different area, objections under subsection (8) above to the proposals may also be made by any ten or more local government electors for that area.").
Clause 92, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 93 and 94 agreed to.
Clause 95 [Implementation of proposals, etc.]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 180B to 180E:
Page 57, line 28, after ("school") insert ("or transfer the school to a new site").
Page 57, line 29, leave out ("so") and insert ("any of those things").
Page 57, line 31, leave out from beginning to ("such") in line 32 and insert ("Subsection (5) above does not—
(a) prevent the Secretary of State allowing").
Page 57, line 35, at end insert ("or
(b) apply to the transfer of a school to a new site if at the time of transfer the school is intended to return to the existing site within three years.").
Clause 95, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 96 agreed to.
Clause 97 [Proposals for change of character or enlargement approved before school becomes grant-maintained]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 180F:
Page 58, line 44, after ("school") insert ("or for the transfer of a county or voluntary school to a new site").
Clause 97, as amended, agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 98 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: I beg to move that this clause do not stand part of the Bill.
Clause 98 negatived.
Clause 99 [Chapter VII: interpretation]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 59, line 21, after second ("age") insert:

313
( ) part-time education suitable to the requirements of junior pupils who have not attained the age of five years where the school provides full-time education for junior pupils of the same age").
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 181A:
Page 59, line 26, after ("school") insert ("or for the transfer of a school to a new site").
Clause 99, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 100 agreed to.
Clause 101 [Proposals by funding authority for discontinuance]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 60, line 30, leave out ("which provides relevant education").
[Amendments Nos. 183 and 184 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 185 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 101, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 102 to 112 agreed to.
Clause 113 [Nature of group]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 185A to 185D:
Page 70, line 25, leave out ("primary").
Page 70, line 44, leave out ("primary").
Page 71, line 2, leave out ("primary").
Page 71, line 6, leave out ("primary").
Clause 113, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 114 [Instruments and articles of government for group]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 185E:
Page 71, line 14, leave out ("for acquisition of grant-maintained status") and insert ("in pursuance of which the school became a member of the group").
Clause 114, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 115 and 116 agreed to.
Clause 117 [Head teacher governors]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 185F:
Page 72, line 1 1, leave out from ("for") to end of line 23 and insert ("the head teacher of each school in the group to be an ex officio governor, unless he chooses not to be.").
Clause 117, as amended, agreed to.
1.45 a.m.
Clause 118 [Core governors]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 185G:
Page 73, line 7, at end insert:
("( ) A person appointed under a provision of the instrument made in pursuance of subsection (4) above in the case of any such school shall be appointed—

(a) where any statement annexed to the proposals in pursuance of which the school became a grant-maintained school described the religious character of the school, for the purpose of securing that (subject to any change in the character of the school which may be authorised by or under this Part of this Act) the religious character of the school is such as was indicated in the statement, and

314

(b) where there is a trust deed relating to the school, for the purpose of securing that the school is conducted in accordance with the deed.").

Clause 118, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 119 to 122 agreed to.
Clause 123 [School acquiring grant-maintained status as a member of a group, etc.]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 185H, 185J, 185K and 185L:
Page 74, line 39, leave out ("primary").
Page 74, line 42, at end insert:
("(aa) for two or more grant-maintained schools, each of which is not a member of a group and satisfies the prescribed requirements, to become a new group conducted by a single governing body").
Page 74, line 43, leave out ("primary").
Page 75, line 21, at end insert:
("(2A) Regulations shall require in the case of each grant-maintained school which is not a member of a group but is to become a member of a new group—

(a) a resolution for the purpose of the existing governing body,

(b) the publication by the existing governing body (together with the governing bodies of any other schools which are to become members of the group) of proposals for the schools to become a new group conducted by a single governing body, and

(c) the approval of such proposals, as originally published or as modified by the Secretary of State (whether before or after they are approved).

( ) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (2) or (2A) above shall not enable the Secretary of State to modify any proposals after approving them so as to exclude any school to which they relate; and where under such regulations the Secretary of State modifies any proposals so as to exclude any school to which they relate—

(a) he may not approve them without the consent of the existing governing bodies of the schools to which the proposals as modified relate, and

(b) if he approves them, the regulations shall have effect as if the proposals as published had related only to those schools.").

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 185M:
Page 75, line 21, at end insert:
("(2A) Regulations shall require that if the Secretary of State is minded to approve proposals submitted to him under subsection 2(c) above only after modification to the effect that one or more schools shall be excluded from acquiring grant maintained status as a member or as members of the same group, he shall give notice of that intention to each governing body of the schools to whom the proposals apply and each such governing body shall be entitled as it thinks fit to withdraw its school from those proposals.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is that Clause 123:allows for a school to withdraw from any modified proposals by the Secretary of State on a cluster opt-out. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to Amendment 185L which is in my name and which was dealt with in Committee on Thursday 22nd April. That amendment has the same effect as the amendment we are currently discussing. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and any supporters of this amendment are satisfied that we have addressed their concerns and that they will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 185MA:
Page 75, line 22, after ("(1) (a)") insert ("or (aa)").
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 185N, 185P and 185Q:
Page 75, line 46, at end insert:
("( ) Where proposals for the purposes of subsection (1) (aa) above are approved, regulations shall provide for the functions, during the period beginning with the approval of the proposals and ending with their implementation, of the governing body incorporated under the regulations.").
Page 75, line 49, at end insert ("or grant-maintained schools seeking to become a new group").
Page 76, line 9, leave out ("grant-maintained status") and insert ("any maintained schools, or grant-maintained schools, to become a new group")
[Amendments Nos. 186 and 187 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 123, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 187A:
Before Clause 124, insert the following new clause:
("Broad and balanced curriculum
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, the funding authority and governing bodies of grant maintained schools in their exercise of the functions conferred upon them by this or any other enactment to ensure that no pupil shall be disadvantaged by reason of any policy of specialisation in any school and every pupil shall be afforded access to a broad and balanced curriculum offering equal opportunities to all pupils with a range of abilities and aptitudes.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move. The purpose of the amendment is to allow training and enterprise councils to act as sponsoring bodies for institutions outside the further education sector which wish to apply to the FEFC for funding for Schedule 2 courses under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
Under Section 65 of that Act a local education authority that wishes to provide courses funded in its institutions under Schedule 2 to that Act by the further education funding council, must apply for funds through an incorporated FEFC institution. The FEFC college thus becomes a sponsoring college for applications for FEFC funding from LEA institutions.
Traditionally, adult education institutions have considered that they had equal status with further education colleges, especially in the case of free-standing institutions such as the Richmond Adult and Community College and—
Baroness Blatch: This is a point of order. Amendment No. 187A was grouped with Amendment No. 17IZB. We had a very full discussion. In fact the noble Lord spoke to it and I responded to it. So, indeed did my noble friend Lord Elton. The amendment was grouped with Amendments Nos. 171ZB, 171ZD and 187A. We had rather a long discussion about it.
Lord Judd: I am not aware that I spoke to the amendment. I take very seriously the note at the top
316
of the groupings list; namely, that it is quite in order for Members to speak on any item as it is called. That is what I am doing.
Traditionally, adult education institutions have considered that they have equal status with further education colleges, especially in the case of free-standing institutions such as the Richmond Adult and Community College and the Sutton College of Liberal Arts. The requirement of the Further and Higher Education Act that such institutions must apply for FEFC funding through sponsoring colleges has therefore created considerable tensions since adult education institutions feel that they now have second-class status. That is likely to produce a competitive rather than a co-operative approach, which is clearly not helpful.
Lord Henley: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way a second time. He is possibly under a misapprehension. Without realising it he may be speaking to Amendment No. 187C and not to Amendment No. 187A, which is the amendment that was called. I may be wrong. I think, however, I am right.
Lord Judd: I am speaking to Amendment No. 187C. I am sorry.
Lord Henley: We are on Amendment No. 187A. The point we are trying to make is that this amendment was spoken to earlier. Perhaps we can move on from Amendment No. 187A and possibly deal with Amendment No. 187B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. We would then come to the noble Lord's amendment and know where we are.
Lord Judd: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 124 [Provision of further education in grant-maintained schools]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 187B:
Page 76, line 23, after ("provided") insert ("to more than three such persons").
The noble Lord said: I thought that I must have blinked and missed my chance. This amendment seeks to establish on the face of the Bill the principle that a measure of adult participation in mainstream classes is to be encouraged. At this hour I shall not refer to the arguments in detail. I believe that there is much common ground between myself and my noble friend Lady Blatch in this matter and that following on from the relevant provisions in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 we are soon to see a government consultation paper on the subject.
I feel that the Bill as it stands reads too negatively and leaves open the possibility that adult participation will be discouraged. I note, though, in moving the amendment, that it is defective as printed on the Marshalled List. The last word should be "persons" rather than "pupils" if the amendment is to make sense. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I am sympathetic to the concerns expressed by my noble friend and to the concerns about circumstances in which adult and part-timers may be educated together with registered pupils at school. It is for that reason that the clause is currently

317
framed as it is. It allows us to make regulations setting out the relevant circumstances in which adults and pupils may be taught together.
I have to say that the regulations have not been made yet. I can give my noble friend the assurance that we shall be consulting on them in draft shortly. That consultation will give us the opportunity to consider in detail any points that my noble friend, or for that matter any other noble Lord, may want to put forward.
Given that these matters will be better addressed during the making of the regulations, I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment. Certainly, we shall be prepared to take account of his views and for that matter any others in drawing up the regulations.
Lord Lucas: At this time of night I have no intention of doing anything other than ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 124 agreed to.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 187C:
After Clause 124, insert the following new clause:
("Sponsoring body for institution outside education sector
Under section 5 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, the sponsoring body for an institution outside the further education sector shall be such organisation as is specified in an order, or for the time being falls within a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Committee. It says something about the hour of the night. I was anxious to get on and also I wished to see whether I could read my notes as fast as the Minister does. I was not quite up to her standard. I thank her for taking the matter so well. If it is in order, perhaps I might suggest that the Committee takes as read what I have said and that we proceed with the debate.
The requirement of the Further and Higher Education Act that such institutions must apply for FEFC funding through sponsoring colleges, has therefore created considerable tensions in many cases as adult education institutions feel that they now have second-class status. That is likely to produce a competitive rather than a co-operative approach, which is clearly not helpful in developing good local relations.
Adult education institutions generally cater for different types of students from further education colleges. Their focus is by definition on older students with different educational backgrounds from those at further education colleges. There are also some adult education institutions which fear that their sponsoring college may wish to take over provision of courses currently provided by the adult education institution. That is seen as inappropriate by the adult education institutions because of the difference in ethos between the two types of institution.
Anecdotal evidence indicates that many adult education institutions find their new relationship with FEFC sector colleges unsatisfactory and demeaning. One adult education institution—Richmond Adult and Community College—has decided to apply to the
318
FEFC for corporate status in the new sector. One of the reasons it gave for that decision is that it considered the funding mechanism to be unacceptable and inappropriate.
Amendment No. 187C would enable LEA institutions to seek sponsorship through training and enterprise councils as an alternative to FEFC corporations and therefore offer LEA institutions a real choice in deciding on their sponsoring institutions. The reason that that is not explicit in the amendment is that TECs have no statutory status and therefore cannot be given statutory duties in primary legislation. However, it would be possible for the Secretary of State to designate TECs as sponsoring bodies in an order.
The advantage of enabling TECs to act as sponsoring bodies would be that LEAs would then have the opportunity to choose an alternative sponsor. TECs would be able to provide adult education with a valuable local network from their point of view. The new role would provide better insight into the spread of provision locally which would enhance their understanding.
There should be no danger of duplication of provision, since the FEFC have responsibility under Section 3 of the FHE Act 1992 for ensuring adequate provision of part-time education for those over 16 and full-time education for those over 19 in relation to courses funded by the FEFC under Schedule 2 to the Act. The involvement of TECs would not only avoid duplication, but also ensure adequate provision in the long term for adult learners. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: These amendments together seek to extend the bodies which can act as sponsors under Section 6(5) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 to include organisations specified by the Secretary of State or, for the time being, a type of organisation so specified.
As I understand them, the amendments do not work. If they were to have any effect, the further education funding councils must have powers to fund such organisations. Under Section 5 of the Act, funding councils are able to fund only institutions within the further and higher education sectors for their provision of further education.
Having said that, and having noted the possibly disjointed nature of the noble Lord's speech—for which I am afraid we are partly to blame—and also the speedy nature with which the noble Lord gave his speech, I will read with great care what the noble Lord said. If it is necessary that any of the points made need taking up, I shall come back to the noble Lord.
Lord Judd: In view of that charitable remark, and particularly the charitable reaction to my having jumped the gun, I accept that and do not pursue the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 125 [Provision of benefits and services for pupils by local education authority]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 187D to 187G:
Page 76, line 27, after ("authority") insert ("or local authority").

319
Page 76, line 33, after ("grant-maintained") insert ("and any other type or class of educational institution designated by the Secretary of State").
Page 76, line 38, after ("authority") insert ("or local authority").
Page 77, line 6, after ("grant-maintained") insert ("and any other type or class of educational institution designated by the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 187D and the three which follow seek to broaden the scope of Clause 125 to outlaw actions taken by some local authorities to deny facilities to pupils of grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges. A most striking example of that was given by my noble friend Lord Rennell in last Thursday's consideration of the Bill, and others were given by my noble friend Lady Cox tonight. To my mind, such actions should not be permitted. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: For the duty imposed by Clause 125 to apply, two conditions must be met. The duty or power concerned must be one that is to be performed in relation to both LEA schools and grant-maintained schools, and the benefits or services to be provided must be services for pupils or others receiving education at the school.
I am sure that we would all deplore any local authority practice that discriminated against pupils attending schools of whatever variety. We have today heard examples of such behaviour. I therefore understand and applaud the intention behind the proposed amendments, but given the scope of Clause 125 as defined it is unclear what benefits would follow were they incorporated in the Bill. Some consequences might have undesirable repercussions. The amendments seek to extend the duty imposed by Clause 125 to encompass not just local education authorities but also local authorities. However, it is doubtful that local authorities have any significant functions other than those they have as local education authorities which will be caught by the provisions of Clause 125.
The amendment also seeks to widen the scope of Clause 125 to apply the duty to act no less favourably to pupils attending other educational institutions to be designated by the Secretary of State. It is not clear what other educational institutions my noble friend has in mind. However, were Clause 125 for example to be extended to include pupils at independent schools it would be likely to place significant new burdens on local authority funds. Without further amendments to primary legislation, it would have the effect of requiring local authorities to provide home-to-school transport to a new group of pupils.
For those reasons, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendments, while understanding the fairness principle that underlies them.
2 a.m.
Lord Lucas: I thank my noble friend for her answer. I am happy to ask for leave to withdraw the amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 125 agreed to.
Clause 126 [Disposal of premises on transfer of school to new site]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No.187H:
Page 77, line 14, leave out ("section 98 of this Act") and insert ("Chapter VII").
Clause 126, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 127 and 128 agreed to.
Clause 129 [Variation of trust deeds etc. by order]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No.187J:
Page 78, line 47, after ("V") insert ("or any scheme under section (Joint schemes) of this Act").
Clause 129, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 130 to 134 agreed to.
Clause 135 [Meaning of "the appropriate agreed syllabus" in sections 131 and 132]:
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No.188:
Page 83, line 24, leave out paragraph (c).
The right reverend Prelate said: At this hour of the night it is difficult to make things sound thrilling and exciting, but I will do my best. This amendment deals with the relationship between grant-maintained schools and agreed syllabuses. Clause 14 establishes a new committee for grant-maintained schools which becomes a constituent part of a SACRE (standing advisory council on religious education) alongside the Church of England group, the Christian and other religious denominations group, the teachers' group and the local authority group. Each of those groups has one corporate vote and makes up the SACRE. Clause 13 provides for a grant-maintained committee on an agreed syllabus conference.
The Bill as drafted provides for an additional grant-maintained school group on a SACRE and an additional grant-maintained committee on an agreed syllabus conference once the 75 per cent. trigger point is reached. As a result of that the grant-maintained schools have a direct responsibility for preparing an agreed syllabus for the locality and advising on the religious education to be given in accordance with the agreed syllabus. Yet the Bill as drafted allows those grant-maintained schools to choose any agreed syllabus from any other part of the country. So grant-maintained schools in an area, though themselves at liberty to choose another agreed syllabus, can advise and comment on how other schools in the area ought to deliver their local agreed syllabus. That seems to me to be inconsistent. Indeed, I think it is unjust and a likely cause of irritation. That is my first anxiety.
My second anxiety is more important. The freedom to choose any agreed syllabus produces an element of choice in curriculum matters just to one group of schools. We have just moved to a national curriculum because we want to have an acknowledged curriculum and common standards. There is no choice within the national curriculum. Religious education is not part of the national curriculum but is part of the basic curriculum. To give choice in RE but in no other part of the curriculum is to drive a further wedge between religious education and the rest of the national curriculum. I am worried about that because there is plenty of evidence that religious education is being

321
squeezed because of the pressure to reach required standards on the national curriculum. I know that should not happen but there is plenty of evidence that it is happening. To drive this further wedge between religious education and the rest of the national curriculum seems to be unwise.
My third and most serious reason is the longer term effect. An area reaches the 75 per cent. trigger point. Grant-maintained schools now have their own constituent committee on the agreed syllabus conference for the area as well as on the SACRE. But if the grant-maintained schools have freedom to choose any other agreed syllabus, what interest will they have in revising the agreed syllabus for their own area? It seems to me, therefore, that as more and more schools become grant-maintained, the risk is that agreed syllabuses will begin to stagnate and that will be damaging for religious education in the longer term.
There is a widely supported desire to improve the quality of religious education and to ensure its delivery by qualified teachers but the clause as drafted seems to risk making that somewhat more difficult. On the grounds therefore both of consistency and in the interests of religious education, I move the amendment to delete paragraph (c). I beg to move.
Lord Judd: I should like to say from this Bench that I believe that the right reverend Prelate's case is unanswerable and logical. We should like to associate ourselves with it completely.
Baroness Cox: With great regret I must add a dissenting voice. I agree that there is an anomaly here and that there seem to be two aspects. That is unjust. But I should be very loath to see the grant-maintained schools lose the flexibility that is provided for in the Bill at the moment. It is more than likely that grant-maintained schools would follow their locally agreed syllabus, but some grant-maintained schools, committed perhaps to an academically rigorous approach to RE, might find the one offered by their local education authority not sufficiently academically demanding. Surely they should have a right to be able to choose an appropriate syllabus.
Perhaps I may give two examples. The current and updated Hounslow 1992 agreed syllabus has explicit provision for the study of secular humanism. Should a grant-maintained school necessarily have to spend time in its RE lessons studying that? Perhaps a little more tellingly, Birmingham's agreed syllabus had provision for the study of non-theistic lifestyles such as Marxism and Communism. If a Birmingham grant-maintained school does not want to study Marxism and Communism in its RE lessons, should it be forced to do so? Indeed, I would question whether anyone should be forced to do so. There is nothing wrong perhaps in studying those subjects per se, but the great thing about the grant-maintained schools, especially those with a strong religious identity, might be that they would not deem those as appropriate subjects to spend precious time on in their RE curricula.
322
I know that the Government are intending to bring all agreed syllabuses into line with the requirements of the 1988 Act. Judging from a recent National Curriculum Council report, that is necessary and welcome. Even if all agreed syllabuses come into line with the law, that does not rule out the fact that there will be differences of approach, of academic content and rigour. The great merit of our grant-maintained schools is their freedom. That flexibility is important. They should be allowed to choose their own agreed syllabuses from the repertoire available. I should be very sad if they were to lose that flexibility. Therefore, sadly, I cannot support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: There is an interesting inconsistency between this amendment and what actually happens on SACREs, given that I sat on a SACRE for a very long time. It was probably the most frustrating experience that I had doing anything in my life. There were a number of people sitting around the table who were party to agreeing a syllabus and whose schools had no intention whatever of implementing it. They were neither bound to accept it, nor did they necessarily do so. They included Church of England, Roman Catholic, Jewish and other denominational schools.
The right reverend Prelate has drawn our attention to the important principle of local control of religious education. Let me reiterate our support for the principle. It is not at odds with our proposal for grant-maintained school governors who will have the opportunity to adopt an agreed syllabus which, in their view, best meets the needs of pupils at their school. But whatever syllabus for RE a grant-maintained school chooses—whether urban borough or shire county—that syllabus must still be an agreed syllabus.
That means it will conform to two important safeguards. All agreed syllabuses must, by definition, be prepared and agreed by a syllabus conference which includes on it representatives of the Church of England and other denominations and faiths. The syllabus cannot be adopted without their agreement. All agreed syllabuses must include the study of the other principal religions represented in this country as well as Christianity. Grant-maintained schools are not being given a soft option. They are, however, being given autonomy. It is what they fought for and what they preferred. At a grant-maintained school, responsibility for the curriculum is wholly a matter for the governors of the school. It is no longer shared with the LEA, as is the case in county schools. County schools have positively chosen to be a collective. They have chosen that the LEA should make that decision for them. It is in recognition of this responsibility that we believe that the governors of a grant-maintained school should be able to choose the religious education syallabus which best suits their circumstances.
As my noble friend said, in most cases this will be the syllabus drawn up by the local authority's agreed syllabus conference. We expect the number of occasions on which an individual grant-maintained school would choose an agreed syllabus other than that of the LEA to be very small indeed. Where a

323
school has been fully involved in the preparation of the area syllabus, it will be unlikely to want to choose a different syllabus.
The Bill requires that agreed syllabus conferences involve grant-maintained schools. Before the 75 per cent. trigger point is reached, a conference must consult the grant-maintained schools in its area. If the consultation is carried out properly, I would expect the majority of schools to stick with the local syllabus.
However, if the governors of a grant-maintained school are unhappy with the agreed syllabus of their area, it is right that, as an autonomous body, they should be able to choose another one, better suited to their needs. This is a decision we trust governors to take, knowing that they will consider the question with the utmost seriousness. It is a freedom which, I regret to say, the right reverend Prelate seeks to stifle with this amendment. But, interestingly, that freedom will remain with many of the other people who sit around the very same table agreeing to the agreed syllabus.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My capacity for logic is somewhat limited at this hour of the morning, but I have to say that I am rather disappointed by the Minister's response. In view of the sense of frustration that she said she had experienced on a SACRE because there were people there agreeing to something that they were not going to implement, I am surprised to hear her arguing for an extension of that sense of frustration in the new arrangements.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps the right reverend Prelate will forgive me; I shall explain my frustration. My frustration was because I fought hard for Christianity to be within the agreed syllabus. I found that I could not look to my Church of England colleagues for support for that, and, indeed, had to take audience of my local bishop to discover what I had to do to persuade my colleagues that Christianity should be dominant in the agreed syllabus. It is that kind of experience that I find deeply frustrating.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: With due respect, I believe that that is a slightly different point. I am not sure that I would want to use it as a basis for legislation. I have heard the Minister express her views on SACREs. A number of us would wish to say that, although they are not as good as they might be, our job is to try to improve them and to give them much stronger backing so that they can secure their role. I do not believe that what is proposed in this part of the Bill will help to achieve that. However, this is no time at which to press cases beyond their limit, and at this time in the morning I have no alternative but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 135 agreed to.
Clauses 136 to 139 agreed to.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 189:
After Clause 139, insert the following new clause:
("Parental notice for worship not of a broadly Christian character
After subsection (3) of section 7 of the Education Reform Act 1988 there is inserted—
324
"(3A) In the case of worship which does not comply with subsection (1) above it shall be the duty of the governing body and headteacher to give not less than 7 days written notice to the parents of any pupil who it is proposed should attend such worship.".").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 191. I know that it is late but these are amendments which reflect a great deal of concern that is felt up and down the country.
Amendment No. 189 seeks to address a problem which has arisen in a number of areas in the country with regard to acts of worship in schools, and the right in conscience of parents to withdraw their children from acts of worship with which they are not happy. The amendment would place a duty on each school's governing body and the head teacher to give not less than seven days' notice of any acts of worship which do not comply with the broadly Christian requirements of the Education Reform Act 1988 to parents of any pupil who it is intended should attend such worship. Amendment No. 191 seeks to tighten up determination procedures which allow groups of parents to opt out of broadly Christian acts of worship.
The Education Reform Act 1988 required that acts of worship should take place on a daily basis and that on most days they should be wholly or broadly Christian. The Act also provides for parents of non-Christian faiths (as has been the case since 1944) to withdraw their children from some or all acts of school worship, and provides the opportunity for a whole school to withdraw from those broadly Christian requirements by seeking a determination from the local SACRE. All those provisions were included so that no children of non-Christian faiths would be forced into partaking of acts of worship contrary to their own beliefs. So one is trying to respect the fact that Christianity is the main spiritual tradition of this land and to respect and enhance the rights of children of other faith communities.
The amendment seeks to redress a problem which has arisen because of a loophole caused by Section 7(2) of the Education Reform Act 1988. Acts of broadly Christian worship do not have to take place every day, and so some LEAs have introduced non-Christian rites and rituals. There may be nothing wrong with a school having an act of worship which is of another faith, but it may be a cause for concern if children of one faith turn up for an act of worship which reflects that of another faith without prior notice.
Some local authorities seem to be introducing, as a deliberate policy, themes which do not merely mix and match different religions but also rather bizarre secular themes. The London Borough of Redbridge has that approach, recommending different themes for different days of the year. For example, on 5th July there is a theme of worship for the first bikini that went on show in Paris; on 14th July, the death of Billy. the Kid; on 13th June, the founding of the Marylebone Cricket Club; and on 23rd July the birthday of Emperor Haile Selassi.
Those are indications of themes for acts of worship. Some parents are rather worried about them, and I believe that I can understand why. As well as the great

325
danger of trivialising all faiths with that approach, there is the important issue of conscience. Surely it would be reasonable to presume that a Moslem parent might not want his or her child to take part in a form of worship which represented part of a Hindu festival.
The same might be said of a Christian parent whose children are taking part in an act of worship which is not of the Christian faith. For example, on 29th September 1991 members of the Hare Krishna movement were invited into Boldon Comprehensive School in South Tyneside to lead school worship for a particular year group. Mantras were chanted and year nine pupils—that is 13 year-olds—were given sweets and offered books promoting the Hare Krishnas. Invitations to a meeting outside the school where free food would be available were distributed to pupils.
The point of mentioning those examples—because examples have been requested during the course of tonight's debate in order to elicit the purpose behind an amendment—is to indicate that parents should have the right to be advised of acts of worship which might not be in accordance with the expectations which they wish for their children. That would apply to parents of any faith.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 191. Section 12 of the Education Reform Act permits schools to apply for blanket exemptions from Christian worship for a group of pupils or for the whole school. There appears to be evidence that that provision is not being used effectively. The amendment would enable, for example, Moslem, Hindu or Sikh parents to receive an explanation from the head teacher as to why he has not been enabling them, or may have been denying them, the right to hold worship according to their own faith through failing to seek a determination from the local SACRE. The Moslem Education Co-ordinating Council—the MECC—has expressed particular anxiety about that issue. According to Mr. Nasar Mustafa of the MECC, Bradford, Manchester, Blackburn, Bolton, Sheffield, Leeds, Walthamstow and Redbridge are all areas with more than 90 per cent. of Moslem pupils in some schools, yet no provision has been made for Moslem worship. Perhaps it is reasonable that questions are asked of head teachers about why such provisions have not been made for those pupils.
The two amendments seek to tighten up already existing law. I hope that my noble friend will respond sympathetically to the anxieties which they represent even if the amendments are not in a usable form. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: Do my noble friend's amendments provide for parents to withdraw their children from that kind of assembly?
Baroness Cox: I thank my noble friend for allowing me clarification. The right of withdrawal has existed for a long time. The problem which the amendments seek to redress occurs when parents are not given notice of acts of worship from which they might have wished to withdraw their children had they known
326
that those acts of worship were taking place. It is a question of giving notice so that they can exercise that right of conscience if they so wish.
Viscount Brentford: I support the amendment. I wish to emphasise that it is a question of worship and not of religious education. It is important that parents should have the right to withdraw their children from a form of worship in which they do not want their children to be involved. The amendment is important in order to give the parents adequate notice so that they can take advantage of the withdrawal terms. If the noble Lord, Lord Peston, were still in the Chamber I should point out to him that we have been told that more than one instance has caused the amendments to be required. Therefore, I support the amendments.
Lord Addington: I had not intended to speak to this amendment, but I wish to know the difference between an act of worship and something involving another religious ceremony. There appears to be a fine line and the examples have not clarified the position. Does a ceremony representing another religion amount to an act of worship? Are we talking about a ceremony or just a representation in an assembly?
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I have some sympathy with the amendments. The second amendment is helpful, although it is debatable whether the head teacher or the chairman of governors should explain why he has not asked for a determination. However, a reason should be given if parents ask for that.
I wish to express a certain hesitation about the first of the two amendments. I recognise fully that, where there is to be an act of worship which is patently not Christian, it is proper that parents should be told of that in advance.
However, I should not wish us to be moving in the direction that, where there is anything which is not according to our particular preferences, we should encourage people to withdraw from it. There is a sense in which we are moving, in the religious affairs of this country, towards a situation in which too many people are saying, "I will only have that kind of worship which particularly suits me." We are having a "pick-and-mix" attitude towards our religious understanding.
There is an element about which I am rather hesitant. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, was right to say that it is not a clear-cut issue where one can say, "That is specifically Christian and that is specifically something else". There is a proper broadness. I do not wish us to lose that understanding gained from coming together as a school and worshipping on common ground in so far as that is humanly and religiously acceptable and possible.
Baroness Blatch: Worship of God, as we all know, can be both an intensely personal and a powerful corporate activity. It is an area of life which raises great feeling among worshippers of every denomination and faith. Parliament quite rightly insisted, in both the 1944 and the 1988 Acts that, as a profound component of the human experience, daily collective worship should take place at county schools for all

327
pupils. And, in recognition of the sensitivities which worship can arouse, Parliament also insisted that parents have the right to withdraw their children from collective worship, either completely or from particular acts of worship. The Government fully support that basic settlement, which has stood the test of time.
My noble friend seeks first to require a governing body and head teacher to notify parents in writing, seven days in advance, whenever the school intends to provide collective worship which is not broadly Christian. A school is allowed to provide such non-Christian worship, under the terms of the Education Reform Act, because it is recognised that in some cases children of other faiths will be taking part in the school's collective worship. Opportunities for the worship of other faiths in a context of mutual understanding and respect may be provided having regard to the family backgrounds of the pupils involved and to their ages and aptitudes.
I acknowledge, however, that offence can be, and has been in a number of cases, caused where the children of parents with strong religious convictions of one kind or another have been exposed to worship which is at odds with their beliefs. Such cases are very regrettable. Schools must be sensitive to the occasions where certain acts of collective worship may offend those with strongly-held convictions, and must warn parents accordingly. That may well be best achieved by means of a letter setting out the school's programme of collective worship for the coming term.
I am also concerned that schools may be seeking—unconsciously or not—to dissuade parents from withdrawing their children from worship. I make it quite clear that the right of withdrawal is not for debate: if a parent asks for his or her child to be withdrawn, the school must comply, whether or not it agrees with the parent's reasons.
I therefore fully share the aims of my noble friend in bringing forward Amendment No. 189 and am concerned that schools should address this issue. I fear, however, that the inclusion of a duty on schools in legislation, as proposed, will be seen by many as unduly bureaucratic. Members of the Committee will be aware that my department plans to issue a new and revised circular of guidance on religious education and collective worship. I propose, therefore, to include advice in the circular which will remind governing bodies and head teachers—which covers the point made by the right reverend Prelate—of their responsibilities in this respect. A draft of this guidance will be issued shortly after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
My noble friend's other amendment on collective worship concerns the discretionary power of a head teacher at a county school to apply to the local Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education (SACRE) for a "determination".
Since 1988, it would appear that that discretionary power has been exercised modestly by head teachers. The National Curriculum Council informs us that there have been 253 determinations granted to county schools in England. As a rather crude calculation, this represents 1.7 per cent. of county schools granted
328
determinations. There is no more precise information on which schools have been granted determinations held centrally. This is an acceptable national figure.
My noble friend proposes that, if a head teacher has not applied for a determination, it shall be his or her duty to explain why not when requested to do so in writing by 20 parents of pupils at the school. I do not understand why the figure of 20 parents has been proposed. In my view, if someone asks for that information, he or she should receive it.
I am aware of the anxieties of a number of Moslem groups that some head teachers are failing to apply for determinations in respect of the legitimate worship needs of Moslem pupils. Without necessarily disputing their experience, the evidence from the NCC does show that determinations are both being applied for and being granted in many parts of the country. One factor which should inform a head teacher's decision to make an application to SACRE is the extent of withdrawals from Christian collective worship.
I doubt, however, that placing a duty on the head teacher to explain the exercise of a discretionary power would do anything to remedy such abuses, or satisfy those who feel aggrieved. So, again, while I am in sympathy with the aims of my noble friend in tabling this amendment, I do not consider primary legislation an appropriate solution. I should be very happy to give a commitment to the Committee that we shall address this point in the forthcoming guidance.
2.30 a.m.
Baroness Cox: I thank those Members of the Committee who participated in the discussion. I shall resist the temptation to enter into a fascinating debate about the nature of worship and how one achieves a balance between remaining as a collective body and respecting the integrity of different faiths. I thank my noble friend the Minister very warmly for her sympathetic response and her most helpful and hopeful suggestions on ways to take these matters forward. I agree that they should not appear in primary legislation but I am delighted that they will appear in terms of some kind of guidance. I cannot thank my noble friend warmly enough for that great encouragement not only to me but to many other people. At this late hour that is especially welcome. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 140 [Standing advisory councils on religious education]:
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 85, line 46, at end insert:
("(3) At the end of section 13 the Education Reform Act 1988 there is inserted—
"(8) Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 shall apply to the council as though meetings of the council and those of any of its committees and subcommittees were meetings of a principal council as defined in that Act".").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 190, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 284 and the amendment that is called on the groupings list Amendment No. 324A—it is actually a second version

329
of Amendment No. 324A, so perhaps it might more appropriately be called Amendment No. 324E—and Amendment No. 330.
These amendments deal with two issues surrounding the workings of the standing advisory councils on religious education (SACREs), which monitor local RE syllabuses and the local syllabus conferences convened to design and prepare RE syllabuses. Amendments Nos. 190 and 284 deal with public access to SACREs and syllabus conferences and Amendments Nos. 324A and 330 with the religious representation of those two bodies.
I shall first deal with Amendments Nos. 190 and 284, which would require that SACREs and syllabus conferences conduct their meetings in public. By bringing these two bodies under Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972, through Section 13 of the Education Reform Act, they would be brought into line with all other local government committees, including education committees, which have to conduct their meetings in public except for certain specific areas which are clearly defined. As it is, SACREs and syllabus conferences are in an anomalous position, with only about half of them choosing to open their meetings. Newcastle-upon-Tyne is one example of a council which has an open policy towards the public. While it was preparing its new agreed syllabus last year, the open policy allowed for parents and teachers to voice their views and concerns, many of which were acknowledged. I am happy to say that the National Curriculum Council recogises the Newcastle syllabus as one of the best. But only across the river Tyne in Gateshead, a totally different policy is in place. Gateshead holds all its SACRE meetings in secret and this has even gone to the extreme of representatives having difficulty consulting with the people they represent.
I can see no reason why both these bodies should not conduct the great majority of their deliberations in public. There will of course be some special and sensitive circumstances that will have to be dealt with behind closed doors, such as perhaps complaints from individual parents, but on the whole there is no need for secrecy. Indeed, I would further argue that it would benefit the credibility of all locally agreed syllabuses if meetings were conducted in public, because that would invite participation and also because secrecy tends to breed suspicion.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 324A and 330 in Schedule 16. Both SACREs and standing conferences have within them four committees. Those are the LEA, the teacher associations, the Church of England and what is commonly know as Committee A, which consists of,
"such Christian and other denominations as, in the opinion of the authority, will appropriately reflect the principal religious traditions of the area",
It is that which I want to home in on.
Committee A represents all non-Church of England Christians and all other religions. As the law stands, those appointed to Committee A are chosen at the discretion of the LEA. It would seem sensible that an LEA might choose its representatives according to the size of each particular faith community in the area.
330
For example, an area with a large Moslem population might have proportionately more representatives than Hindus or Methodists, who might have fewer adherents in that area, or vice versa. That would seem the most logical way to proceed, but there is clear evidence that it has not been happening in a significant number of LEAs.
It would appear that many Committee As do not reflect the composition of their local areas. One example is South Tyneside where the syllabus conference Committee A has two Moslems and one Catholic representative although an objective analysis shows many more Catholics than all other non-Christian faiths put together in the area. Another example is Essex where 73 independent evangelical churches have been denied any representation on the local SACRE. I know that certain Moslem colleagues are worried by what they perceive as under-representation of Moslem members on some committees.
The wording of the two amendments is designed to try to ensure that an LEA would have to appoint representatives to a Committee A so as to reflect in reasonable proportion the principal religious traditions within the area. I hope that the Minister may be sympathetic to the concerns behind the amendments, although I am sure that the wording is far from perfect. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: I support the amendments.
Viscount Brentford: I should like to emphasise what the right reverend Prelate said about his desire to improve SACREs. It seems to me that if they are made open to the public, that could follow. We want the very best in the systems that we have around us.
I hope that my noble friend Lady Cox will confirm that there is power under the amendment for sensitive matters to be removed from public discussion. I assume that that is what the amendment intends. It is important, but I should like to see other SACRE meetings held in public.
Baroness Cox: That is certainly the intention. I would hope that it could be woven into any formulation.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I express some caution about requiring all SACRE meetings and meetings of the constituent groups to be held in public. I see that in certain circumstances it would be beneficial. However, one has to recognise that in some areas groups of people of different religious allegiances are coming together, perhaps never previously having encountered one another with any degree of frankness and openness. If they are looking over their shoulders at their own constituents, they may be moved to say things in order to satisfy their own adherents rather than engaging with the inter-faith or ecumenical encounter in which they are involved.
I would therefore be cautious about any rigorous application of the rule that meetings should be held in public. There can be occasions when it would be beneficial, but there can also be occasions when it

331
would be detrimental to the proper discharge of their duties. For that reason I am not altogether happy about Amendment No. 190.
As to the other amendments relating to the reasonable proportion of representation, I am fully in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. A number of SACREs do not seem to be adequately representative of their constituent groups. I would hope that a new phrase on the face of the Bill might help, but I wonder whether it might not require other action to secure proper representation of the religious traditions of an area.
Baroness Blatch: I am entirely sympathetic to the principles underlying Amendments Nos. 190 and 284. The amendments present difficulties as drafted. They would tie SACREs and agreed syllabus conferences to the detailed provisions of local government legislation. Therefore, before accepting that that is the right course, I wish to consider whether each of the detailed requirements is appropriate to bodies whose members are unelected and who are not therefore answerable to the community in quite the same way as are local councillors.
I shall also wish to consider whether the particular requirements of the local government legislation are indeed appropriate, given the cost burden which may be placed on SACREs and on agreed syllabus conferences as a result.
It may be that we can find a simpler way of addressing the principle underlying the amendments that these bodies should indeed meet in public, and I wish to reflect on that a little more before agreeing to a change in the law. I hope therefore that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment, given my assurance that I shall reflect further on the question.
I am also in sympathy with Amendments Nos. 324A and 330, which deal with the composition of the other faiths group on SACREs and agree syllabus conferences. It is quite right to expect that when group A is appointed to a SACRE, or Committee A in the case of a syllabus conference, it should properly reflect the religious balance of the local community. While, as I have pointed out in connection with the amendments grouped with these, those local bodies are not democratically elected, nevertheless their membership must not be unrepresentative of the community they are supposed to serve.
We are taking advice as to the best way to achieve this in law. Until we have that advice, I would ask my noble friend to accept my assurance that I entirely support her intentions in bringing forward Amendments Nos. 324A and 330, and that I will bring forward government amendments in due course to this effect. I hope therefore that the amendments will not be pressed.
Baroness Cox: I no longer feel tired as a result of that answer from my noble friend. I thank noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate for their support. I note the right reverend Prelate's caution. I understand that there is a need for balance between openness, closedness, sensitivity and the problems that my noble friend addressed. I am sure that in her
332
reflections on those matters the Minister will take full note of those points. I am deeply grateful for the sympathetic response, for my noble friend's offer of further reflection, and for the offer of coming back on some of those matters with government amendments.
With great gratitude, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 140 agreed to.
Clause 141 [Cases where no requirement for Christian collective worship]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 190A and 190B:
Page 86, line 12, leave out ("section 7(1)") and insert ("this Act").
Page 86, line 12, leave out ("of this Act").
The noble Baroness said: These are technical amendments correcting a drafting error in Clause 141. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 191 not moved.]
Clause 141, as amended, agreed to.
The Duke of Norfolk The Duke of Norfolk moved Amendment No. 191A:
After Clause 141, insert the following new clause:
("Denominational preferences
In section 55 of the Education Act 1944, after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"( ) In making the arrangements, referred to at subsection 3 above, the Local Education Authority shall also have regard to the preferences made by parents exercising the rights afforded them as under section 6 of the 1980 Act; and shall have particular regard to any such preferences which are based on denominational grounds".").
The noble Duke said: In moving the amendment I refer to the great concern that the Catholic bishops have about the present situation with regard to home to school transport. The amendment endeavours to provide the statutory authority by means of which a Secretary of State could ultimately and lawfully direct an LEA to meet legitimate home to school transport costs. But, before going into some necessary detail, I crave your Lordships' indulgence in summarising the points which I put forward at Second Reading.
In the course of the 1979 Education Bill, your Lordships' House thoroughly debated and then rejected by a majority in excess of 100, a government clause, the effect of which would have been to permit LEAs to charge the home-to-school transport costs. Since that time, a number of LEAs have achieved, by what I described on Second Reading as stealth, that which your Lordships' House rejected. One of the more prominent cases was the Hertfordshire LEA.
Notwithstanding publicly deprecating such a change in the existing arrangements, the then Secretary of State felt unable to direct the LEA to revert to its previous practice of meeting the home-to-school transport costs. As I understand it, Hertfordshire's change in its provision affected all schools. However, I need to repeat the point that I made on Second Reading that since Catholic schools, particularly Catholic secondary schools, serve wider catchment areas than their neighbouring county

333
schools and that many were so sited on the understanding that home-to-school transport costs would indeed be met, a removal of the provision invariably hits the parents of pupils at Catholic schools hardest.
I have a classic example in my own area of Yorkshire. In my village of Carlton, we have a Catholic secondary school which serves the Catholics in Goole, nine miles away, and the Catholics in Selby, six miles away. We built the one school—and we paid 15 per cent. towards its cost—to serve the Catholics in both those towns. At the moment, of course, they have free school transport for the essential reason that we were promised it. That is why we are considering this point, but some LEAs are querying it.
Other LEAs have been minded to follow suit, but after the local vigorous campaigns they have reverted to the status quo. Others, heartened, no doubt, by the unwillingness of Secretaries of State to intervene, have imitated Hertfordshire in that regard. Of those, one of the worst examples drawn to my attention concerns the case in the London Borough of Bromley. That LEA withdrew home-to-school transport provision for all its schools, save in its selective schools.
The Roman Catholic archdiocese of Southwark has but one secondary comprehensive school serving the needs of Catholic parents in that London borough. Of all the schools maintained by the Bromley LEA, that excellent Catholic school draws pupils from the outermost reaches of the authority. Yet it is treated markedly different in this important respect from what still applies to the LEA selective secondary schools. To the best of my knowledge, endeavours to persuade the present Secretary of State to intervene and direct accordingly have not yet merited a response.
The amendment is in part designed to assist the Secretary of State. In exchanges between the department and the Catholic Education Service, it has emerged that the department's lawyers are of the view that the present provisions of Section 55 of the 1944 Act do not grant the Secretary of State power to direct the LEAs in instances such as the Hertfordshire case. The Catholic Education Service officials do not share the view expressed by the departmental lawyers. However, be that as it may, this amendment to Section 55, in the opinion of the Church's legal advisers, would give that section the teeth that the Secretary of State's advisers imply that it does not have at present.
The substance of the amendment was shared with the departmental officials by Mr. Michael Power of the Catholic Education Service, in a letter of his dated 9th October 1992, and will therefore come as no great surprise to my noble friend the Minister. It takes on board two key points, both of which were addressed in the judgment given by Mr Justice Roch in the case of Regina v. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, ex parte Paul Gregory Schemet in the Queen's Bench Division on 24th July 1992.
I am sorry to have taken so long. I know the hour is late but this is a very important matter. Perhaps noble Lords will bear with me just a little longer. The case in question concerned the refusal of the Rochdale LEA to meet the transport costs of the applicant's
334
children. The applicant and his wife were active members of the Church of England, and the nearest Church of England school was situated in the neighbouring borough of Oldham. The learned judge found in favour of the applicant, granting relief in particular on the ground that a decision of the LEA not to pay travelling expenses for the child to attend a school which was not maintained by the home authority was unlawful. A crucial element of the judgment surrounds the word "suitable" in the context of schooling.
It would be inappropriate at this stage to detain the Committee with a full account of the entire 33-page judgment in furtherance of this amendment. But I must needs stress that, in the context of that which we seek by way of this amendment, the Rochdale case is the first in which judicial attention has been drawn to the linking of the provision of Section 6 of the 1980 Act and Section 55 of the 1944 Act.
In essence, the learned judge—I hope I paraphrase accurately the judgment he delivered—found that the duty to comply with a parental preference as under Section 62 of the 1980 Act was therefore followed by the duty arising from Section 39(2)(c) of the 1944 Act. Section 39(2) (c) of the 1944 Act sets out a defence for parents against non-attendance proceedings and, inter alia, sets out the walking distances and suitable arrangements for home-to-school transport to which Section 55(1) of the same Act refers. I quote from the judgment:
"If a child is a registered pupil at a school which is not within walking distance of the child's home, the LEA, in order to discharge the duty which arises from S.39(2)(c) of the 1944 Act, must either make suitable arrangements for the child's transport to and from school or make suitable arrangements for boarding accommodation for the child at or near the school or make suitable arrangements enabling him to become a registered pupil at a school nearer to his home".
The learned judge declared:
"The proper construction of S.39(2) (c) is that arrangements will not be suitable unless the school is suitable for the particular pupil".
For a Catholic parent so stating such a preference, a suitable school will be a Catholic school. In terms of this particular judgment an LEA offering a place to a Catholic pupil at a county or other non-Catholic school in order to avoid meeting home-to-school transport costs would not be discharging the duty arising from Section 39(2) (c).
In conclusion, I wish to make the point that, in his judgment, the learned judge, Mr. Justice Roch, effectively endorsed the oft expressed view of the Church's education officials as to the validity of both the demonstrable link twixt parental preference reasonably exercised and the duty of the LEA to meet home-to-school transport costs. Unreasonable refusal to carry out that duty on the part of the LEA must surely be subject to direction and correction by the Secretary of State.
I look to my noble friend the Minister to give the amendment the most careful consideration. I await her measured response; but, while signalling now that I will not press the amendment to a Division, I give notice that the matter will be pursued at Report stage if the Government find themselves unable to resolve this vexed question to our satisfaction. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: To paraphrase the last words of Huckleberry Finn: we have been here before.
Many Members of the Committee will recall that the issue of school transport—as indeed my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk reminded us—was considered exhaustively by this Chamber in 1980. At that time the Government proposed reforming the law on school transport. It is laid down in the 1944 Education Act. In brief, the Act requires local education authorities to arrange free transport where they consider it necessary to facilitate an individual's attendance at school or college. It also enables LEAs to help other individuals with their travelling expenses.
Free school transport is already provided on a substantial scale. The Audit Commission estimates that nearly 900,000 pupils in England and Wales receive free school transport. That is a very large number—roughly one pupil in eight. Free transport does not come cheap. It cost some £350 million last year.
Local education authorities do not discharge their school transport duties and powers in a vacuum. The same 1944 Act requires them to have regard to the general principle that pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents, provided that this would not lead to inefficient education or unreasonable public expenditure.
Local authorities' compliance with this requirement is most visible in their provision of free school transport to church schools. Under the 1944 Act, children of compulsory school age are entitled to free transport if they have a journey beyond walking distance to their nearest suitable school. Walking distance is two miles for pupils under eight and three miles for older pupils. In the case of parents who want to send their children to a church school, most authorities have chosen since 1944 to regard the nearest suitable school of their parents' denomination as their "nearest suitable school". This preferential treatment applied even where the child in question could have attended a suitable county school nearer home.
The Government gave local authorities guidance on transport and parental choice in 1981. That guidance noted that some parents might forgo an entitlement to free school transport by choosing to send their children to a school other than the nearest suitable one. However, it urged local education authorities to offer assistance in such cases equivalent to what they would have had to provide were the child attending his or her nearest suitable school.
On transport and denominational choice, the guidance noted that most local authorities give assistance with transport or travel expenses to pupils attending the nearest school of their parents' denomination if it is beyond walking distance. It expressed the hope that local authorities would think it right not to disturb well established arrangements of that kind. The Secretary of State attaches importance to the preservation of the opportunity to choose a school in accordance with religious convictions, which is provided by the presence of voluntary schools in the maintained system of education. That guidance
336
remains current. Indeed, it was reiterated for post-16 pupils and students in guidance issued by my department as recently as last January. That guidance has also been effective. Since it was issued, most local authorities have continued to provide free transport in support of denominational choice.
It is true that in recent years a small number of local authorities have reviewed their provision of free transport to Church schools. I am encouraged that local consultations have persuaded nearly all these authorities not to change the status quo. I very much regret the decisions of the handful which have decided to change their policy.
It is true that the Secretary of State has the power to overturn those decisions. The 1944 Act enables, but does not require, my right honourable friend to direct local education authorities where he considers that they have acted unlawfully or unreasonably. It also gives him an unrestricted power to direct a local authority that free transport is necessary.
The Secretary of State has given this matter very serious consideration, and takes the same view of transport as his predecessors. It is primarily a matter for local decision. He would only use his powers of direction in exceptional circumstances.
Despite the Secretary of State's decision not to intervene against local authorities which have revised their policy on Church school transport, there is no sign of a local authority stampede to follow suit. I do not believe therefore that Church school transport is necessarily in jeopardy. Nevertheless, the Government fully appreciate the concerns of the Churches, as so eloquently, courteously and succinctly expressed by my noble friend the Duke. But it seems to us to be a matter best decided locally, in the light of local needs and circumstances.
I know that that is a disappointing answer to my noble friend, and I know that he will not press the amendment this evening. However, I believe he will certainly be pursuing it through further stages of the Bill. At this stage I am grateful to him for withdrawing the amendment.
The Duke of Norfolk: If I may say so, that is a disgraceful reply from my noble friend. In the 1944 Act the late Lord Butler, when I first came to this Chamber, emphasised how denominational schools —which provided 15 per cent. of the cost of building of the schools, the Government paying the cost of running them —were assured that there would be transport to the schools that they built. If children under seven were over three miles away and older children over five miles away, transport would be provided. The schools were built on the express agreement that transport would be provided to them. We are now told that the Government can renege on the decision and go backwards. It is a disgraceful reply from my noble friend.
I of course withdraw the amendment tonight, but I shall bring the matter back at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 142 [Minimum number for admission]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 191B:

337
Page 86, line 37, at end insert ("or for the transfer of such a school to a new site").
Clause 142, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 143 agreed to.
Clause 144 [Alteration of minimum number by funding authority]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 192:
Page 87, line 26 leave out ("which provides relevant education").
Clause 144, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 145 agreed to.
Clause 146 [Provision of information by governing body]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 192ZA:
Page 88, line 41, at end insert:
("( ) The governing body shall make such reports and returns, and give such information, in relation to registered pupils at the school aged five or under as any local education authority may require for the purpose of exercising their functions under section 19(1) (a) of the Children Act 1989 (review of provision for day care).").
The noble Lord said: This amendment ensures that local education authorities can continue to collect the same range of information as they have collected hitherto in order to fulfil their duty to take part, with local authorities, in the review local authorities are required to carry out every three years of their provision of day care for young children. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 192A:
Page 88, line 41, at end insert:
("( ) The governing body shall give to any local education authority such reasonable assistance as the authority may request for the purpose of discharging the authority's functions under this Part of this Act and shall recover from the authority any additional expenditure they incur in giving such assistance.").
The noble Lord said: The purposes of the amendment is to enable the local education authority to obtain assistance from the governing body of a grant-maintained school as well as information that they need in order to perform their functions in relation to special educational needs. If most or all of
338
the primary or secondary schools in a local education authority area are grant-maintained, the LEA would cease to have a connection with and experience of schools which it needs to deal with special needs knowledgeably and effectively. For example, it may need to second its staff dealing with special educational needs to a grant-maintained school to gain experience. It may have difficulty in obtaining that kind of help from grant-maintained schools unless it has the right to obtain it. The amendment ensures that the grant-maintained schools do not lose financially in giving such help. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I am not sure that at this time of night I fully understand what lies behind the noble Lord's amendment. I am not entirely happy with its underlying philosophy. It almost appears to envisage that self-governing schools become the paid agents of local authorities in certain matters. The noble Lord particularly mentioned SEN. That is not the type of relationship that the Government wish to see. We have ensured in Clause 146 that self-governing schools are required to provide local education authorities with any information that they may require. They do not wish to see it extended so that self-governing schools are obliged to assist authorities in other ways. If we have placed a duty on a local education authority, it is its responsibility to discharge it. It should not need to—and I am sure in many cases would not even wish to—rely on the assistance of self-governing schools. I will have another look at what the noble Lord has said, but in the meantime I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: In the light of the noble Lord's reply, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 146, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 147 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 seven minutes past three o'clock.

  POLICE AUTHORITIES: MEMBERSHIP
  POLICE AUTHORITIES: MEMBERSHIP
  HEALTH AUTHORITIES: CHAIRMEN'S REMUNERATION
  HEALTH AUTHORITIES: CHAIRMEN'S REMUNERATION
  ROAD TRAFFIC: COST OF ACCIDENTS
  ROAD TRAFFIC: COST OF ACCIDENTS
  VERY SMALL COMPANIES: AUDIT REQUIREMENTS
  VERY SMALL COMPANIES: AUDIT REQUIREMENTS
  ARMED SERVICES: FOOD PURCHASE AND DISTRIBUTION
  ARMED SERVICES: FOOD PURCHASE AND DISTRIBUTION
  MAINTENANCE GROUP DEFENCE AGENCY: KEY TARGETS
  MAINTENANCE GROUP DEFENCE AGENCY: KEY TARGETS
  RAF LOGISTIC COMMAND
  RAF LOGISTIC COMMAND